Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-10-2017 Council Packet
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, July 10, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda 1. Consent Agenda — Consent agenda items are considered to be routine items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. The City Council may add agenda items to be considered as part of the Consent motion. If you wish to remove any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Consent Agenda 2. Council Meeting Minutes of June 26, 2017 3. Council Work Session Minutes of June 26, 2017 4. Claims/Bills 5. Replacement Sewer Pumps for Lift Station 28 and Lift Station 20 6. Approve Release of Encroachment Agreement — 3345 Crystal Bay Road 7. #17-3943 —All Energy Solar o/b/o Larry Baran, 480 Stubbs Bay Road, Variances —Resolution 8. Purchase of Tax Forfeited Parcels for Future Public Purpose 9. Temporary Compensation Adjustment for Finance Staff 10. Compensation Adjustment for Part Time Scanner Employees Public Comments — (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Presentation 11. Eagle Project Proposal Public Works/City Engineer Report 12. Resolution to Hennepin County Requesting Reconfiguration — County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road Intersection — Resolution Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, July 10, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Planning Department Report - Planning Commission Representative John Thiesse 13. #17-3933 - Catherine Sweet, 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, Vacation of Street 14. #17-3944 - Westwood Professional Services o/b/o Ugorets 8098 LLC, 2520 Shadywood Road, Rezoning and Master Plan Approval 15. Review changes to the fee schedule as it pertains to Planning and Zoning 16. Navarre Area Plan - Approve Scope and Authorize Advertisement Mayor/Council Report City Administrator's Report City Attorney's Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2017 07-17-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Richard Crosby) 07-24-17 - City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 07-24-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday 7:00 p.m. 08-07-17 - Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 08-14-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday 7:00 p.m. 08-21-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Aaron Printup) 08-28-17 - City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 08-28-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09-04-17 - Labor Day, City Offices Closed 09-11-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 09-18-17 - Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 09-25-17 - City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 09-25-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard Crosby, II, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Doug Reeder, Community Service Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works/City Engineer Adam Edwards, and City Attorney Soren Mattick. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to add Item No. 22 to the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Item No. 12 was removed from the Consent Agenda and Item No. 14 was added to the Consent Agenda. Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF JUNE 12, 2017 3. CLAIMSBILLS 4. GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSE 5. APPOVAL OF BACKUP GENERATORS FOR THE NAVARRE WATER PLANT 6. PROGRAMMATIC MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH MINNEHAHA WATERSHED DISTRICT 7. APPOINTMENT OF 2017 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 9 9 Z111ti.11 1 1117W4104 W18 Z1]►/111 Ille w 0135 a 111 ore] IS ►F 1 Be 9 7 *ij oleo I Oleo 01"el 11 9. #17-3910 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, INTERIM USE PERMIT, RESOLUTION FOR DENIAL, RESOLUTION NO. 6771 10. #17-3925 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT: SMALL LOTS/SETBACKS- CORRECTED ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE NO. 199, THIRD SERIES 11. #17-3939 JOHN BAILEY, 2807 CASCO POINT ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, RESOLUTION NO. 6772 12. JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) IN FY 2018-2020, RESOLUTION NO. 6773 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. Page 1 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE DRAINAGE PROPOSAL PUBLIC COMMENTS Mark Doepke, 265 Hollander Road, stated he would like to discuss the action that was taken at the previous City Council meeting relating to the change in fire protection for certain portions of Orono that are currently served by the Wayzata Fire Department. Doepke asked if the notice was sent to Wayzata purely to keep the City Council's options open or has the decision been made to make a change. Walsh stated the decision was made to make the change. Doepke noted four to five years ago a similar proposal was brought up, and prior to it being taken up by the City Council, all the residents in the affected areas were sent a mailer notifying them of the proposed change and giving them the opportunity to speak on the matter. Walsh stated that occurred last summer. Doepke stated there was also another hearing on it four to five years ago. Doepke stated when it happened a number of years ago, everybody in the affected area was sent a notice giving them the option to come to the City Council meeting to discuss it. Doepke stated during the course of those discussions, some research was done by either the Wayzata or the Long Lake Fire Department that looked at five different key areas that were serviced by the Wayzata Fire Department as it related to the number of miles and the time to respond. In five out of five of those situations, it took the Long Lake Fire Department longer to respond, particularly to the Chevy Chase neighborhood. Doepke noted it took over four and a half minutes longer for the Long Lake Fire Department to respond theoretically than the Wayzata Fire Department. Doepke stated in each of these five cases, while there were some cost savings to Orono, there was a longer response time required in order to service the call. Doepke stated that means people living in that area in a fire situation will be suffering greater damage than they would currently. Doepke asked if that was taken into consideration in the Council's vote. Walsh stated if Mr. Doepke watches the videotape from the last Council meeting, he will see that the Chief of the Long Lake Fire Department addressed that issue. Walsh noted the Mound Fire Department takes twice as long to get to Minnetonka Beach than Navarre but that it is all within the required response times. Walsh stated the City Council looked at whether the Long Lake Fire Department would be within the required fire response times prior to making the decision, which they were. As a result, the Council felt it was appropriate to bring it under the auspices of the Long Lake Fire Department, which services the rest of Orono. Crosby noted the Long Lake Fire Department has a box alarm system, which is an automatic mutual aid service with Wayzata, who would be responding to a house fire as well. Doepke asked if he is saying that in the instance of a fire there would automatically be an alarm sent to Wayzata and they would respond. Page 2 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Continued Crosby indicated that is correct. Doepke asked if Wayzata would be doing that even though they will not be receiving any money from Orono. Crosby stated on a mutual aid system, the other fire department would get paid for that call. Doepke asked if both the Wayzata Fire Department and the Long Lake Fire Department would simultaneously respond in a house fire situation. Fire Chief Van Eyll stated the box alarm system is set up for 12 large events. In those situations, auto aid would be provided by surrounding departments, and in a house fire situation, the Wayzata Fire Department would still be called to respond. Van Eyll noted there are no payments that go back and forth between the two cities on the mutual aid. Doepke asked if that is the situation currently in the affected area. Van Eyll stated Wayzata would respond but that it is possible the Long Lake Fire Department would respond if Wayzata sends out a box alarm. Van Eyll stated if it is simply a small residential fire, Long Lake would not respond and vice versa. Van Eyll stated the mutual aid would only come into play in the larger events. Doepke asked whether the level of services would be the same with the Long Lake Fire Department as it is currently with the Wayzata Fire Department. Walsh stated it would be. Walsh noted the Orono Police Department would also respond to medical emergencies and other events. Doepke commented he found out about this by reading the local newspaper. Doepke asked if the residents were notified of the potential change. Walsh indicated it was published as all agenda items are published but that no specific letter was sent out to the residents. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 20. ORONO WOODS CONTRACT City Administrator Reeder reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017. Reeder noted the new property owner is requesting the City provide fee title to the property, waive repayment of the park dedication and SAC and WAC charges, extend the tax increment financing district until 2028, and end the requirement that the building remain a senior building in 2044 rather than 2100. If the City denies the request, the TIF will remain in effect until 2024. Caitlyn Goff, Lang -Nelson, 4601 Wayzata Boulevard, stated there is one change to the restrictive covenant, and that is that they would extend the affordability piece through the year 2042. Page 3of12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 20. ORONO WOODS CONTRACT — Continued Walsh stated at the time of construction, the developer required some assistance from the City, which led to the creation of a tax increment financing district. In return, the developer said they would take 20 percent of the complex and apply the affordability index to it, which reduces the payment that some seniors would be required to pay by 30 to 35 percent. Walsh noted the TIF district ends in 2024. Walsh stated the land was given to the City to make sure it stays as senior housing. As part of the incentive for the City to essentially sell the lease for a dollar, Walsh stated the new owner will extend the affordability component that ends in 2024 all the way to 2042, which would add 18 more years to the affordability component. Reeder noted a portion of this agreement is part of the HRA and that a special meeting of the HRA will need to be called along with a public hearing. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Declaration of Restrictive Covenants for Orono Woods, to extend the affordability component of the agreement to the year 2042, and to direct Staff to schedule a meeting of the HRA. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. #17-3954 LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT/CITY OF ORONO SITE PLAN EMERGENCY DOCK Barnhart reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the location of a dock for emergency access off of City -owned property near Molly's Corner on Shoreline Drive for exclusive use by the Long Lake Fire Department for their boat. Staff recommends approval of the dock subject to the conditions outlined in the report. Fire Chief Van Eyll stated they would like to obtain the City of Orono's approval prior to approaching the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding this request and that they are anticipating that process will take 60 to 90 days. In the meantime, approval has been received to utilize the DNR dock over the 4' of July holiday. Van Eyll stated he will be meeting with a representative from the MCWD as soon as possible following tonight's meeting. There were no public comments regarding this item. Dankey moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the site plan for the Long Lake Fire Department's placement of a dock and overnight boat storage, subject to the conditions outlined in Staffs report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) IN FY 2018-2020 — RESOLUTION NO. 6773 Barnhart reviewed his Staff reported dated June 26, 2016. Hennepin County is asking the City to adopt a resolution approving the joint cooperative agreement. Barnhart stated the City does not currently have any grants identified at this time but it is a source of funds that could be used to facilitate a qualified project. Staff recommends adoption of the resolution. Walsh asked what type of projects in particular would qualify. Page 4 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 12. JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH HENNEPIN COUNTY — COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) IN FY 2018-2020 — RESOLUTION NO. 6773 — Continued Barnhart stated it could potentially be redevelopment of the Navarre area or work force housing. Barnhart noted the City is not required to apply for the grant but it does provide the City with an option for some funding. Walsh asked whether the developer could apply for the grant. Barnhart stated to his understanding the request would have to go through the City and not the developer. Barnhart noted going through the program would not cost the City anything and that he does not see any downside to being part of the program. Reeder noted Orono would be competing with the other cities in this program in obtaining the grants and that the project would need to come before the City Council for approval. Dankey asked if the City would be required by Hennepin County to do a certain type of housing project for being part of this project. Mattick indicated Hennepin County could suggest a project but that the City would need to approve it. Crosby moved, seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6773, a Resolution Authorizing the Execution of the Joint Cooperative Agreement with Hennepin County for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) in Fiscal Year 2018-2020. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 13. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE PLANNING PROPOSAL Edwards reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the development of a comprehensive plan for the golf course focused on future capital improvements. Seals commented she likes all the potential improvements except for the multi -use public trail since Orono already has a number of public trails and that the golf course should remain a golf course. Seals stated she does not like the idea of someone possibly walking on the trail and getting hit by a golf ball. Dankey asked if there is any thought about renting out the golf course for weddings and other events. Walsh stated the Park Commission is looking at a number of options and that is a possibility. Rick Meyers, Park Commission Chair, stated the trail the Park Commission is considering would be used during the wintertime and would be more of a cross-country ski trail. Meyers noted most of the City's trails are not cross-country ski trails and that the Park Commission feels the lack of winter activities available in the City is something that should be looked at. Meyers stated the trail would not be paved and that it would be located back towards the wooded area. Seals commented she would be open to using the trail during the winter. Page 5 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 13. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE PLANNING PROPOSAL — Continued Meyers stated the object was to make the golf course a winter activity area for sledding and cross-country skiing. Meyers stated in his view it should be included in the plan and that the Council could either decide to approve it or not at a later time. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to accept Bolton and Menk's proposal to complete a concept plan for the Orono Golf Course for a fee not to exceed $5,800. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15. APPROVAL OF GOLF COURSE/PARKS SUPERINTENDENT POSITION AND RECRUITING Edwards reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the adjustment of the duties and responsibilities of the Golf Course superintendent to include responsibility for all of the Orono parks and to begin the hiring process for the position. Walsh noted the City Council did discuss this earlier at a work session and that the City's organizational committee also discussed it. Walsh stated based on that discussion, it might be premature to approve the hiring of this position until the Council has a better idea of what functions the Public Works Department will encompass. Printup commented he likes the overall idea of this position but that he agrees with tabling it for the time being. Walsh moved, Printup seconded, to table Item No. 15, Approval of a Golf Course/Parks Superintendent Position and Recruiting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 16. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON/JAMES FRANZEL, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 6774 Barnhart reviewed his Staff report dated June 26, 2017, regarding the proposed subdivision of a four acre property into three lots. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to approve the preliminary plat, subject to several conditions, but did not support the lot width variance for Lot 1. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to a number of conditions, including revising the plan to eliminate the lot width variance for Lot 1. Walsh noted one of the conditions is that the house on Lot 3, if rebuilt, must completely meet the 75 -foot lake setback. Walsh stated it does not appear the property owner has a lot of options. Barnhart stated if you measure 75 feet back, the house would be moved back two feet. Barnhart stated the house is currently nonconforming and that the idea was to make the lot more conforming. Barnhart noted the average lakeshore setback will be done as part of the final plat document. Barnhart stated if the average lakeshore setback is not established and one of the other lots is developed, it could take away from the buildable area on Lot 3. Page 6 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON/JAMES FRANZEL, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 6774 — Continued Walsh noted Staff's report says the average lakeshore setback will be per the conceptual building setbacks as shown. Walsh asked if the building pad for Lot 3 would be a different building pad than what is shown as the existing building pad. Barnhart stated the average lakeshore setback would be identified and that the conceptual building pad would be out of the 75 -foot zone by the two feet that the current house encroaches. Kevin Anderson, Applicant, stated the only item that was not discussed was the easement that was created for the utility company. Anderson stated by moving the property lot, the utility company can go through that area via the driveway on one of the lots. Anderson stated moving the line was to increase visibility and to provide the easement. Franzel noted it would put the easement along the property line, which would be the most reasonable use of the land rather than having it cut significantly through Lot 1. Barnhart pointed out the location of the easement and noted that shifting the green line over would require a new easement. Barnhart noted a standard plat typically shows easements along the property lines. Anderson stated if they move the easement up and then have the easement follow the property line to create a 140 -foot wide lot, they would create a situation where there would be a very sharp turn. Barnhart stated Staff feels the line can be moved over relatively easily and that Staff is attempting to preserve the 140 -foot width. Barnhart noted there are two easements, with one of the easements following the property line and the other easement providing access to the lift station. Anderson noted there currently is no easement for the lift station. Barnhart stated the lift station does impede the use and enjoyment of the property and that Staff is attempting to minimize that as much as possible. Walsh asked whether the applicant is okay with relocating the building pad for Lot 3 out of the 75 -foot zone. Anderson stated if the house is torn down, there would be enough room to relocate the building pad two feet so it is out of the 75 -foot zone. Crosby asked if there is anything on Lot 1 currently. Anderson indicated there is not. Anderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended the proposed building pad on Lot 1 be moved to the south, which has been done. Anderson asked whether the City Council would be willing to grant the lot width variance. Walsh stated that appears to be the only issue and that it would seem more logical to square up the lot as the applicant has proposed. Page 7 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #16-3883 KEVIN ANDERSON/JAMES FRANZEL, 800 NORTH ARM DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT — RESOLUTION NO. 6774 — Continued Crosby commented it makes sense and that 100 feet is reasonable. Walsh stated his main concern was that the conceptual building pad be located out of the 75 -foot setback. Anderson noted if the house is remodeled, it would still remain within the 75 -foot zone. Anderson indicated he did speak with the neighbor who had expressed concerns at the Planning Commission meeting and that he did assure him they would be meeting the LMCD requirements. There were no public comments regarding this item. Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. , a Resolution Granting Preliminary Plat and Rezoning Approval for the Property Located at 800 North Arm Road, File No. 16-3883, with the granting of the 100 -foot lot width variance for Lot 1 and the conceptual building pad for Lot 3 being located out of the 75 -foot setback. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 17. #17-3940 JASON AND ANELISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6775 Barnhart reviewed Staff's report dated June 26, 2017. Barnhart noted at the last City Council meeting, the Council voted 5-0 to direct Staff to draft a resolution for approval of the variances without granting the variance for the deck. The applicants have provided a revised plan modifying the decks on the west side conforming to the 75 -foot setback but encroaching 15 feet into the average lakeshore setback, which is a four -foot further extension than originally proposed. Staff recommends approval of the revised plan. Jason Peterson, Applicant, stated the architect removed two posts from the deck and instead cantilevered the deck, which allows for more visibility. Peterson stated there were some challenges with the hardcover currently on the property, which is being proposed to be removed out of the 75 -foot zone. Peterson noted that will open up 43 feet of view for the neighbor. In addition, a number of drainage improvements are being proposed, including drain tile. On the east side where the water runs onto the neighboring lot, the swale will be improved. George Applebaum, 4109 Highwood Road, stated he lives just west of the subject property. Applebaum stated initially when he met with the applicants, he agreed to support their request for a 5 -foot setback on their side of the property, but given the recent changes to the plan, he now questions his level of support for the project. Applebaum asked if the height of the proposed house fits within the City's guidelines for height. Barnhart stated the variance is required due to the height of the garage. Applebaum stated he appreciates the changes the applicants have made to their original plan but that it is still an imposing structure that extends between 38 and 45 feet above grade all the way out into the average lakeshore setback area. Another item of concern is the egress window on the west side, which will be located pretty close to the property line given the amount of encroachment. The fireplace bump - out, which did not appear on the original plan, is also another item of concern. Applebaum stated his 17. Page 8 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. #17-3940 JASON AND ANELISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6775 — Continued assumption was that it was originally pulled into the structure and now it appears as a bump -out. Applebaum stated while that might be excluded from the definition of a structural encroachment, it is assuming a normal 10 -foot setback. Applebaum commented it is a little unsettling how close the structure is to the property line. Applebaum stated the revised plan has now extended the house another four to six feet into the average lakeshore setback. Applebaum stated being that the entire structure is so tall, it will be like living next to a billboard. In addition, according to current City Code, the two bottom decks could be screened in at a future time without any additional approvals from the City, which would really block their view. Applebaum noted the upper deck will be approximately 30 feet off the ground. Walsh noted the height of the house without the garage meets the 30 -foot number. Because the house is attached to the garage, it requires a variance. Applebaum indicated that is his understanding as well. Seals asked if the egress wells are 1.2 feet away from the property line. Barnhart indicated that is what is shown on the drawings. Seals asked if the 1.3 is the fireplace. Barnhart stated it is. Applebaum commented the structure keeps getting closer to the property line and that the egress wells are for a fifth bedroom, which was also not shown on the original plans. Walsh noted the new home will be located further away from the lake. Applebaum pointed out the existing house is 18 feet tall but that it is located closer to the lake. Gary Germnudsen, 4101 Highwood Road, stated he and his wife are concerned about some of the encroachments and that they had requested some stakes be placed so they know where the 75 -foot setback and the average lakeshore setback is, and that has not happened. Germnudsen stated the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback has increased, which will impact his sightlines further. Germnudsen noted the house is actually over three stories high due to some crawl space being built into the foundation. Germnudsen pointed out his sightlines from the deck. Germnudsen stated he will be looking at their deck since it is three levels high, and that he would recommend the decks be eliminated or move the house back nine feet. Germnudsen commented the applicant is more concerned about his deck than he is for the 75 -foot setback or for their sightlines. Dankey stated she has driven past this area and that they are difficult lots. Dankey commented everyone will need to learn how to get along. Crosby asked if the third floor deck services the master bedroom. Page 9 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 17. #17-3940 JASON AND ANELISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6775 — Continued Peterson indicated it is. Crosby asked if he could reduce the size of the third floor deck. Peterson stated it is possible and that he is currently exploring that with his builder. Peterson stated he likes how the builder reduced it down to three beams, and if there is still a way to design the top deck to be smaller, they would be open to that. Crosby encouraged the applicant to consider doing that to help alleviate some of the neighbors' concerns. Peterson stated the challenge with the height is tying the new house into the existing garage and allowing for enough head room to walk into the garage. Peterson stated they also looked at tearing down the existing garage but that it is still a quality garage. Peterson noted they have also reduced the pitch of the roof and kept the ceiling height on the second floor at eight feet. Walsh noted the applicants are not requesting more than the 30 feet that is allowed. Peterson pointed out the corner of the deck and noted that the revised plans allows for 45 feet of open space. Peterson stated they have attempted to accommodate the neighbors' concerns with their design. Walsh noted there is no need for a fifth bedroom and that it could be used for something else. Walsh stated there does not appear to be a practical difficulty for having the egress well. Walsh stated there also does not appear to be a practical difficulty for the fireplace bump -out either. Peterson stated the well is based on code due to the size of the window and that they could look at installing a smaller window. Peterson noted there are bushes on that side of the house and that the well would not be readily visible. Peterson stated it would be nice to have a fifth bedroom but that they could look at that as well. Walsh stated he understands the encroachment for the house since the structure has to be livable, but when the house is close to the property line, the encroachments should be limited as much as possible. Walsh stated he is struggling with the practical difficulty for the egress well and the fireplace bump -out. Seals commented she feels the same way. Dankey commented a fifth bedroom does not make sense when there is not enough room from the property line. Peterson stated they can make it a non -egress room and that the fireplace has been depicted on their plan for a number of months. Germnudsen stated in his view the applicant should look at reducing the size of the house as well as getting rid of the egress well. Germnudsen commented it is a tough lot but that the house is getting to be too big. Germnudsen pointed out the line of sight from his property and noted that his sightline is blocked due to the decks. Page 10 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 17. #17-3940 JASON AND ANELISE PETERSON, 4105 HIGHWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6775 — Continued Printup stated the main issue is the encroachment on the property line. Crosby stated the applicant could remove the egress well and reduce the fireplace bump -out. Walsh stated the Council could stick with the 5.2 feet. Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6775 , a Resolution Approving Variances from Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1, 78-330, 78-1279, and 78-1700, removing the egress well and adhering to the 5.2 foot line, File No. 17-3940. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 19. APPOINTMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR Dankey moved, Crosby seconded, to appoint Dustin Reef as the new City Administrator, and to approve the employment agreement. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, CONTINUED Seals noted the Lurton dog park opening was held July 17 and was a great success. Seals stated she has continued to receive a great outpouring of support over the proposed improvements to Big Island. Printup noted the Children of the American Revolution will be holding a pancake breakfast at the Wayzata Depot on July 4th. Printup commented there was a great story on the Lurton dog park opening in the Laker and Pioneer. Crosby reminded people to be safe over the July 4th holiday. Dankey commented she is happy about the possibility of having winter activities at the Orono Golf Course. Walsh reported 300 -plus dog permits have now been issued for the Lurton dog park. Walsh stated the Sky Hawks Sports Day with the Orono School District was held on June 22nd In attendance was Paraolympian Natalie Simms, who competed in the Rio paraolympics. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT, CONTINUED 21. REPORT ON 2016 AUDIT Reeder noted the City Council recently received a letter from the City's auditors talking about the fact that the City has postponed the audit for 2016, which is normally due at the end of June. Due to the Page 11 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, June 26, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 21. REPORT ON 2016 AUDIT — Continued personal leave of absence of the finance director, the City requested the state auditor allow some additional time to complete the audit. Reeder stated that request has been approved and the City now has until the end of August to complete the audit. Walsh noted the City Council has to approve the Abdo, Eick & Meyers contract to complete the City's audit. Printup asked if the audit extension will have any adverse impacts on the City. Reeder stated it will not, given the circumstances. Staff is very confident that the budget and the audit will be completed in the coming months. Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to approve the agreement with Abdo, Eick & Meyers to complete the City's audit subject to review and comments by the City Attorney. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:39 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. rvwIOki lq Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 12 of 12 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Monday, June 26, 2017 5:00 P.M. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard Crosby II, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were Interim City Administrator Doug Reeder, Public Works Director/City Engineer, Adam Edwards, and Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director. Mayor Walsh called the work session to order at 5:00 p.m. 1. Orono Woods Contract Interim City Administrator Doug Reeder explained the Orono Woods Apartment Development Agreement and history. Reeder also mentioned the land lease was for 99 years and is only for the ground beneath; when the TIF district goes away the affordability and covenants could go away as well. There was discussion regarding the new proposal to eliminate the lease and extending the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) from 2024 to 2042. Even though the Ground Lease would be terminated, the current covenants and restrictions that were previously contained in the lease would remain until 2042. Caitlin Goff, Lang -Nelson Associated Inc. noted that if the City released the land, Orono Woods will remain as senior housing. The current ground lease does not allow the buyer to get the financing needed to purchase the property. Mayor Walsh stated he would like the affordability for residents to remain throughout the extension until 2042, and would also like to make sure legal and processing fees were still anticipated to be covered as well. The Orono Woods Representatives assured the Council that the seller has already deposited a good faith agreement of $5,000 towards the processing fees. Council Member Crosby noted he understands that it is important to the community and Orono residents and that it makes sense to proceed. Mayor Walsh stated he would like some amendments made to the contract to include the affordability piece and would like it to be brought back to council for final discussion and approval. 2. City Council Human Resources • Reeder mentioned the Finance Director had been on leave since the beginning of May and is not expected to return before mid-July. Reeder asked if the City should wait for the Finance Director's return or hire a consultant, Abdo, Eick, and Meyers CPA's (AEMCPA) to help coach the Assistant Finance Director prepare needed documents for the City temporarily. The council opted for the City to hire a consultant to help coach the Assistant Finance Director and prepare some of the needed documents for the City's annual Audit and Budget. The proposal was estimated to be approximately $13,500-$25,000 for consulting on both the City's Annual budget and audit. Reeder noted he would reach out to the previous Assistant Finance Director for his assistance as well. Reeder stated he will add the contract with AEMCPA to the council meeting agenda. Reeder discussed the vacancy at the Front Desk. The Council opted to advertise a new higher level position and allow current staff to apply for the position. Reeder discussed the potential of creating a Golf Course Superintendent position within the Public works department. Mayor Walsh suggested the Human Resources Committee meet with Public Works to discuss this position. Council Member Seals stated she would like to sit down and figure out a vision and a plan with Public Works. They will look into the goals for the Golf Course as well. The Council decided to revisit this at a later date after a plan has been discussed with Public Works. 3. 2018 Goals and Budget Mayor Walsh noted he would like to keep the levy flat and accomplish responsible budgeting throughout. Walsh would like to look deeper into what we had previously budgeted and explore areas such as roads, parks funding, and legal fees. Reeder mentioned that Staff had a meeting with the school district and they are moving ahead with getting a plan in place for the turning traffic before school starts. This will be brought to council at a later date. Mayor Walsh pointed out that there had been some great ideas for safety with the school traffic. Council Member Printup mentioned the brush pile and the control issue. The biggest issue is that people are dumping there resident or not. Council Member Seals stated she would like to see Orono have a lighting of a Holiday tree. She is looking into the possibility of getting a tree donated to the Golf Course for the lighting of a tree. 4. CSAH 112 Phase 2 Design Review Adam Edwards, Public Works Director/City Engineer gave a brief overview of the project, process of approval and a few main issues that have been previously discussed. • Trail extension from Long Lake Road out to the Luce Line ($100k for this part of project) Long Lake moved the trail from south to north side as their portion of the bill. Council Member Printup asked if the home owners affected had been involved with the plans and listened to regarding the project. Mayor Walsh was concerned about making sure the issues with the residents are taken care of well before the project can take place. Walsh also mentioned that the City Attorney had said that full council approval is needed before the project can begin. Walsh also mentioned that he would not be giving his approval until all of the issues had been resolved. Edwards noted that the affected residents did meet with Hennepin County and the issues were discussed and addressed. • Montessori School Site line issues. There was discussion regarding the entrance and exit at the Montessori School. A Large part of this project will be improvements. The concern was the safety of that entry and slope. • Driveways between Long Lake and Orono affected by CSAH 112 Phase 2. Mayor Walsh stated the right solution would be to create separate entrances and repave the driveways completely. Walsh mentioned the residents were not favorable of the shared driveways. Council Member Seals would like to focus on the Orono resident affected. Reeder noted that Long Lake residents may need to go through Long Lake on the issue. Council Member Crosby stated he would like to be a unified group about this issue. Mayor Walsh stated he would like to hear more before it gets brought back to the Council. 5. Parks Commission — Recording Meetings Mayor Walsh stated he would like the Parks Commission meetings recorded. Walsh mentioned that the Parks Commission is doing a lot of work and the meetings should be recorded. Walsh stated he would like to add this to the agenda at the regular meeting. 6. Short Term Rentals There was discussion regarding Short Term Rentals and the possible issues that affect the residents of Orono. Applications may be required for security and to gather owner and renter contact information. Mayor Walsh stated he would like to watch out for the residents and their privacy. Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director noted that there was an ordinance introduced last year regarding Short Term Rentals. Barnhart believes that prohibition of this may be very hard to control. Barnhart asked if complaints have been filed, if so then there is something documented. Mayor Walsh mentioned that it could potentially present some safety concerns if people are renting homes on a daily -weekly basis. He mentioned that licensing the Short Term Rentals may be the first step for this. Council Member Crosby stated that the city should start with licensing and have requirements, standards, and violations that go along with it. Crosby said licensing should be enforced as well. Crosby mentioned that the City will need to give home owners some time to comply with the new rule once adopted. There was further discussion regarding the enforcement of such license and violations. Barnhart will look into creating a Short Term Rental Ordinance. Adjourned at 6:45 p.m. ATTEST Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 4 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Danielle Amira Agenda Consent Agenda Accountant Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 107722 to 107782, totaling $278,602.12. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #107726 Bituminous Roadways $46,002.57 Payment for Watertown/Stubbs Bay Road RFP#4 #107755 Metro West $ $7,261.00 Payment for May inspection services Inspections Inc. #107760 Orono Baseball $8,426.00 Payment is pass thru grant money from Hennepin County Association for the Orono Baseball Association for Hackberry & Bederwood park maintenance 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims list as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Exhibits Exhibit A. Check Register Prepared By: AW Reviewed By: AW Approved By: D51Z City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 07/10/2017 107722 333858272 101-41900-413 CH Copier Lease -06/20-07/2/17 Central Services 2,813.33 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 07/10/2017 107722 333883049 101-42110-413 Police Copier 06/20-07/20/2017 Police Department 340.40 Total 107722: 3,153.73 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 07/10/2017 107723 14728802 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 313.20 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 07/10/2017 107723 14728802 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 438.48 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 07/10/2017 107723 14728802 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 73.08 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 07/10/2017 107723 14728802 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 219.25 Total 107723: 1,044.01 ANNA CARLSON 07/10/2017 107724 06122016 101-41300-439 meeting reimbursement Administration 102.93 Total 107724: 102.93 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639889 101-45200-415 Hand soap, Restroom Rental Service Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639890 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Summit Beach Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639891 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Hackberry Park Parks 125.00 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639892 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani Orono GC Parks 62.79 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639893 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani-Crystal Bay Playground -A Parks 62.50 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639894 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani-Navarre Playground-Apri12 Parks 160.00 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639895 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani-French Creek Park Preser Parks 62.50 BIFFS INC 07/10/2017 107725 W639896 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani-Lurton Park-Apri126-May 2 Parks 92.50 Total 107725: 885.29 BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 07/10/2017 107726 PR#3 402-20600 Watertown/Stubbs Bay rFP#4 & F 11,374.45 - BITUMINOUS ROADWAYS INC 07/10/2017 107726 PR#3 402-48056-590 Watertown/Stubbs Bay rFP#4 & F Watertown Road 57,377.02 Total 107726: 46,002.57 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0201671 101-43170-304 General Eng 03/2017 Engineering 1,355.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0201671 101-43170-304 General Eng 03/2017 Engineering 60.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0201671 101-43170-304 General Eng 03/2017 Engineering 2,384.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0201671 101-43170-304 General Eng 03/2017/mtgs no charge Engineering 2,384.00 - BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0201674 101-43170-304 Willow Trail Engineering 739.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203956 101-43280-304 2807 casco point rd Special Services 234.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203957 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Special Services 133.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203958 101-43280-304 15-3716 3850 Watertown Road Special Services 1,230.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Total 107728: BRIDGEWATER BANK 07/10/2017 107729 06292017 Total 107729: BUDGET PRINTING 07/10/2017 107730 4855 Total 107730: Invoice GL Account Description Check Check Invoice 17-3929 1669 north farm rd Payee Issue Date Number Number BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203959 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203960 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203961 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203962 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203963 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203963 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203963 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203964 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203965 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203966 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203967 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203968 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203969 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203971 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203972 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203973 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203974 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203975 BOLTON & MENK INC. 07/10/2017 107727 0203976 Total 107727: BOYER TRUCKS 07/10/2017 107728 181432R BOYER TRUCKS 07/10/2017 107728 182639R Total 107728: BRIDGEWATER BANK 07/10/2017 107729 06292017 Total 107729: BUDGET PRINTING 07/10/2017 107730 4855 Total 107730: Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount 101-43280-304 17-3929 1669 north farm rd Special Services 660.00 651-49910-304 Drainage Review Storm Water 60.00 101-43280-304 17-3931 Ivy Place Special Services 60.00 101-43280-304 Deer Hill Preserve Special Services 165.00 602-49450-304 GIS Mapping Sewer 372.00 101-43170-304 GIS Mapping Engineering 432.00 101-43170-304 GIS Mapping Office Hrs Engineering 1,152.00 101-43170-304 General Eng 05/2017 Engineering 4,274.00 651-49910-304 2017 Pond Assessments Storm Water 1,560.00 602-16500 2017 Sewer Improvements 1,353.00 435-48966-304 2017 Street Improvements 20,673.00 101-43170-304 Willow Trail Engineering 278.00 101-43280-304 15-3749/16-3858 Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 110.00 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Special Services 188.00 602-16500 Is# improvements 3,564.75 101-43280-304 16-3807 Orono Preserve Special Services 15,039.00 101-43280-304 16-3847 Shadywood Villas Special Services 10,332.50 101-43280-304 16-3867 1700 Shoreline Dr/Tanager Est Special Services 216.00 402-48056-304 Watertown Road Phase II Watertown Road 4,621.00 602-49450-402 oil pump line repair 101-43000-402 flasher 101-22205 escrow refund 16-3820 101-42110-201 PD envelopes BUSINESS ESSENTIALS 07/10/2017 107731 WO -300251- 101-41900-201 office supplies Total 107731: CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L. 07/10/2017 107732 1929991 101-45210-091 beer for resale -Golf Course Sewer 94.09 Public Works Department 49.51 4— — 2,500.00 1 -- Police Department 86.17 Central Services 588.81 Goo o4 Golf Course 92.75 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 107732: 92.75 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 06192017 101-42110-201 Forfeiture forms Police Department 88.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 06212017 435-48967-441 Right of Way Permit -Fox Street 330.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 06272017DG 101-43000-224 Replace flags/mounting pole, st light poles Public Works Department 917.64 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 CF 06262017 101-42110-240 2 CELL PHONE HOLDERS F/CARS Police Department 28.91 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 CF062817 101-42110-240 RAPID WRISTBANDS Police Department 106.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/10/2017 107733 CF06282017 101-42110-240 glow sticks & pencils Police Department 124.36 Total 107733: 1,594.91 CEMSTONE 07/10/2017 107734 C1771702 234-45680-221 Lurton Park concrete for shade sails 467.50 Total 107734: 467.50 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/10/2017 107735 JUNE242017 602-49450-381 May/17-Gas-06/21/17-06/19/17 Sewer 8.46 Total 107735: 8.46 CENTURY LINK 07/10/2017 107736 06192017 101-45210-321 GC phone 6/19-7/18 2017 Golf Course 409.06 Total 107736: 409.06 CHRIS BOLUS 07/10/2017 107737 15-3753 16-3 101-22205 escrow refund, 15-3763,16-3860 10,000.00 CHRIS BOLUS 07/10/2017 107737 16-3860 225-39660 return park dedication- 16-3860 27,750.00 CHRIS BOLUS 07/10/2017 107737 16-3860 651-38120 returnstorm water/drainge truck fee- 16-3860 46,080.00 Total 107737: 83,830.00 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014842 101-42110-402 #242 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014844 101-42110-402 #246 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 45.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014847 101-42110-402 #243 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014851 101-42110-402 #240 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 80.26 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014864 101-42110-402 #245 Oil change, filter, inspection Police Department 47.65 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/10/2017 107738 0014869 101-42110-402 #244 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 45.79 Total 107738: 304.97 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 07/10/2017 107739 46268 101-45210-404 pressure tank hose Golf Course 186.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Page: 4 Jul 06. 2017 12:41 PM Description Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account 119.95 Payee Issue Date Number Number Department 64.74 Public Works Department 75.43 5.13 75.43 5,000.00 Total 107739: 5,000.00 Public Works Department 102.10 CLINT SCHUMANN 07/10/2017 107740 06222017 101-43000-226 safety shoes Total 107740: DANIELLE AMIRA 07/10/2017 107741 06232017 101-41500-331 mileage Total 107741: DIAMOND MOWERS INC. 07/10/2017 107742 0126905 -IN 101-43000-403 flar mower repair Total 107742: DUSTIN KINDL 07/10/2017 107743 2016-01257 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND Total 107743: EARL FANDERSON &ASSOC 07/10/2017 107744 0114627 -IN 101-43000-224 sign notifications Total 107744: EDWARD DAU 07/10/2017 107745 2016-00825 101-22205 escrow refund Total 107745: G & K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107746 6006537870 101-43000-226 uniform G & K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107746 6006537870 101-43000-221 Shop towels G & K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107746 6006548897 101-43000-226 uniforms G & K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107746 6006548897 101-43000-221 towel & mats G & K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107746 6006548911 101-45210-223 mats Total 107746: GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-267149 101-43000-212 Shop supplies GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-366786 101-43000-402 heat shrink tubing GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-366820 101-43000-402 circut breaker GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367052 101-43000-402 fuse & antifreeze GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367054 101-43000-402 air filter Page: 4 Jul 06. 2017 12:41 PM Description Department Invoice Amount 54.12 186.25 Public Works Department 119.95 Public Works 119.95 Finance Department 64.74 Department 64.74 Public Works Department 75.43 5.13 75.43 5,000.00 5,000.00 Public Works Department 102.10 102.10 2,500.00 2,500.00 Public Works Department 54.12 Public Works Department 2.63 Public Works Department 54.12 Public Works Department 17.65 Golf Course Department 5.13 133.65 Public Works Department 17.49 Public Works Department 9.98 Public Works Department 6.29 Public Works Department 50.96 Public Works Department 60.10 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367057 101-43000-402 FLASER Public Works Department 13.99 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367139 101-43000-402 air filter Public Works Department 60.10 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367140 101-43000-402 air filter Public Works Department 60.10 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-367509 101-42110-402 squad bulbs Police Department 32.97 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 3270-368488 101-45210-403 FLAsh light, hdr hose for mower Golf Course 80.98 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/10/2017 107747 364370 101-42110-402 air filter Police Department 12.01 Total 107747: 404.97 GOLF MAX 07/10/2017 107748 SI -221117 101-45210-095 tees Golf Course 236.69 Total 107748: 236.69 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA 07/10/2017 107749 3602204090 101-45210-092 beverages for concessions resale -GC Golf Course 234.37 Total 107749: 234.37 Jonathan Norris/Catherin Morriso 07/10/2017 107750 2016-020117 101-22205 refund escrow 10,000.00 Total 107750: 10,000.00 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/10/2017 107751 A3810 101-45210-223 Supplies Golf Course 143.25 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/10/2017 107751 6404795 101-43000-224 sign bolt Public Works Department 2.40 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/10/2017 107751 6404826 101-41900-404 wall repair Central Services 10.28 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 07/10/2017 107751 6405510 101-43000-224 gloves Public Works Department 10.99 Total 107751: 166.92 MAPLE PLACE LLC 07/10/2017 107752 2012-00617 101-22205 escrow refund 2012-00617 10,000.00 Total 107752: 10,000.00 MEDIACOM 07/10/2017 107753 0004327 JU 101-41900-329 internet 1/17, 2/17 Central Services 593.50 MEDIACOM 07/10/2017 107753 0004327 JU 101-41900-329 internet 1/17, 2/17 Central Services 296.75 MEDIACOM 07/10/2017 107753 0004327 JU 101-42110-329 internet 1/17, 2/17 Police Department 296.75 Total 107753: 1,187.00 MEDINA POLICE DEPARTMENT 07/10/2017 107754 06262017 101-34650 audio/video evidence 30.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Page: 6 Jul 06. 2017 12:41 PM Department Invoice Amount 30.00 Police Department 7,261.00 7,261.00 Public Works Department 33.25 Public Works Department 188.85 222.10 224.00 Golf Course Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Golf Course 14.86 14.86 Parks 8,426.00 8,426.00 Total 107754: 1,875.00 1,875.00 Central Services 275.87 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 07/10/2017 107755 1107 101-42110-310 May inspections Total 107755: MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/10/2017 107756 P58282 101-43000-212 small engine fuel MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/10/2017 107756 P58295 101-43000-226 safety p.p.e. Total 107756: MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 07/10/2017 107757 072017 101-21710 Para life 06/2017 Total 107757: MTI DIST CO 07/10/2017 107758 1122489.00 101-45210-403 pump house repairs MTI DIST CO 07/10/2017 107758 1125280.00 101-45210-403 irrig field service MTI DIST CO 07/10/2017 107758 1125887.00 101-45210-221 sharpen mower MTI DIST CO 07/10/2017 107758 1126874-00 101-45210-403 wire locating Total 107758: NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/10/2017 107759 303202 101-45210-223 gc-supplies Total 107759: ORONO BASEBALL ASSOCIATI 07/10/2017 107760 06292017 101-45200-404 pass thru grant 2017 Total 107760: R.D. & Associates Specialized Ser 07/10/2017 107761 101199 101-43000-408 crane job Total 107761: RANDYS SANITATION INC 07/10/2017 107762 06192017 101-41900-404 June/2017 Trash Svcs RANDYS SANITATION INC 07/10/2017 107762 06192017 101-45210-404 June/2017 Trash Svcs RANDYS SANITATION INC 07/10/2017 107762 06192017 101-45210-404 June/2017 Trash Svcs Page: 6 Jul 06. 2017 12:41 PM Department Invoice Amount 30.00 Police Department 7,261.00 7,261.00 Public Works Department 33.25 Public Works Department 188.85 222.10 224.00 Golf Course 617.88 Golf Course 230.00 Golf Course 166.96 Golf Course 230.00 1,244.84 Golf Course 14.86 14.86 Parks 8,426.00 8,426.00 Public Works Department 1,875.00 1,875.00 Central Services 275.87 Golf Course 59.18 Golf Course 389.39 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number Total 107762: REED WHOLESALE/OFFICE CO 07/10/2017 107763 9385 101-45210-094 concession supplies Golf Course REED WHOLESALE/OFFICE CO 07/10/2017 107763 9387 101-45210-094 concessions Resale -GC Golf Course Total 107763: ROB HOWELLS 07/10/2017 107764 2ND QTR 20 614-49840-319 video streaming 2nd qtr Cable Franchise Total 107764: SCOTT BORIS 07/10/2017 107765 06272017 101-42110-437 meal reimb training Police Department Total 107765: SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 07/10/2017 107766 222 101-41900-352 business cards Central Services Total 107766: SELECTACCOUNT 07/10/2017 107767 1191731 101-41900-319 adm fee's Central Services SELECTACCOUNT 07/10/2017 107767 2ND HALF H 101-21720 HRA contribution -2nd half SELECTACCOUNT 07/10/2017 107767 3459967 101-21719 FLEX SELECTACCOUNT 07/10/2017 107767 38448290 101-21719 FLEX SELECTACCOUNT 07/10/2017 107767 38454168 101-21719 FLEX Total 107767: SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/10/2017 107768 5163448SO 101-45210-095 golf balls Golf Course Total 107768: STAR TRIBUNE 07/10/2017 107769 1913693-07- 101-41300-208 2017 subscription acct 1913693-6/6/17-10/6/17 Administration Total 107769: TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 07/10/2017 107770 06212017 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services -6/2017 Law/Legal Services Total 107770: Page: 7 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Invoice Amount 724.44 183.10 101.80 284.90 1,080.00 1,080.00 135.51 135.51 207.00 207.00 76.50 3,125.00 174.20 A01 10 4,034.82 95.10 95.10 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Water 48.47 TESSMAN COMPANY 07/10/2017 107771 S255363 -IN 101-45210-223 fertilizer, fungicide Total 107771: 75.00 75.00 Public Works Department 407.16 THE HOME DEPOT 07/10/2017 107772 06162017 601-49400-240 shop supplies THE HOME DEPOT 07/10/2017 107772 06212017 101-43000-240 shop supplies THE HOME DEPOT 07/10/2017 107772 06212017 601-49400-240 shop supplies THE HOME DEPOT 07/10/2017 107772 06212017 602-49450-240 shop supplies THE HOME DEPOT 07/10/2017 107772 06222017 101-45210-223 flowers Total 107772: Timothy Adelman 07/10/2017 107773 2016-00758 101-22205 escrow refund 2016-00758 Total 107773: TRI K SERVICES 07/10/2017 107774 06232017 602-49450-227 Black Dirt Total 107774: VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 07/10/2017 107775 53290 101-41900-407 Janitorial service VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 07/10/2017 107775 53290 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Total 107775: WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 07/10/2017 107776 06202017 101-42110-402 car washes Total 107776: WELLS FARGO 07/10/2017 107777 245366 101-42110-311 ref#18040986 Total 107777: WESTONKA COMMUNITY & CO 07/10/2017 107778 2017 VENDO 101-42110-229 exhibitor/vendor dog days Total 107778: WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 07/10/2017 107779 791422 101-43000-402 #427 front tire Department Invoice Amount Golf Course 174.86 Central Services 174.86 Water 43.79 Public Works Department 48.47 Water 48.47 Sewer 48.48 Golf Course 18.78 2,500.00 Sewer 66.00 66.00 Central Services 1,435.50 Police Department 1,039.50 2,475.00 Police Department 29.82 29.82 Police Department 40.80 40.80 Police Department 75.00 75.00 Public Works Department 407.16 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 6/27/2017 - 7/10/2017 Page: 9 Jul 06, 2017 12:41 PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 107779: 407.16 WILLIAMS TOWING 07/10/2017 107780 144436 101-42110-402 tow squad 245 Police Department 176.00 Total 107780: 176.00 XTREME MOBILE SMALL ENGIN 07/10/2017 107781 170619447 101-45210-403 GC- repair equip Golf Course 60.00 Total 107781: 60.00 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP. 07/10/2017 107782 1707116770 101-45210-415 golf cart lease Golf Course 3,294.00 Total 107782: 3,294.00 Grand Totals: 278,602.12 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 5 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Replacement Sewer Pumps for Lift Station 28 and Lift Station 20 Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action item is to gain council approval to replace a failed sewer Pump on Lift Station 28 and two undersized pumps on Lift Station 20. 2. Background. The Sewer department has suffered two pump related maintenance issues over the last month. a. One of the two pumps at Lift Station 28 (632 Park Avenue) has failed. The other pump at the lift station failed last fall and was replaced. Expected life of one of these pumps is approximately 20 years. Currently we are using a rental pump to maintain pump redundancy at the lift station. b. With the recent additional development in the sewer shed the pumps in Lift Station 20 (I 100 Elmwood Ave) have proven to be inadequately sized for purpose. The current pumps are 6.5 HP pumps however need to be 10 HP to handle the flows from the upstream stations. 3. Scope. Replacement of one pump and accessories and installation at Lift Station 28. Replacement of two pumps at Lift Station 20. 4. Cost. The City received 2 quotes. Listed below. Contractor Total Quote Note Quality Flow Systems Inc. $ 25,080 Includes KSB Pumps, Training and Warrantee Minnesota Pump Works $ 23,755 Included ABS Pumps. 5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. The estimated balance at then Endo f year 2017 is $1,659,532. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff Recommends replacement of the three pumps by Quality Flow Systems. Quality Flows proposal includes KSB pumps which is common to others in our system and includes installation, training and warrantee. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from Quality Flow Systems Inc for the replacement of three sewer pumps for $ 25,080. Exhibits. Exhibit A. Quality Flow Quote Exhibit B. Minnesota Pump Works Quote Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: W QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS, INC. 800 On Street NW Phone(952)758-9445 New Prague, MN 56071 Fax(952)758-9661 .lune 9.2017 To: City of Orono Attn: Scott Subject: Replacement Pumps LS 20 and LS 28 Scott; In an attempt to get the LS20 station from overflowing we would offer to take back the F80 -250146X pumps and put in F80 -250174X pumps for a reduced net price as listed below. The second pump on LS 28 is bad and I have a loaner installed at this point. I have provided a proposal for the second replacement pump. Lift Station #20 Replacement Pumps: Two (2) -KSB" Model KRT F80-250f74X (210), 10hp, 2301480!3, 4", 1750 rpm, heavy duty vortex submersible sewage pump to include: - 50' of power cord 10hp, 230146013, explosion -proof motors - Stainless steel lifting handle - Leakage sensor Stainless steel lifting chain One (1) Warranty as specified One (1) Start-up and training as specified Cost for (2) Pumps - $14,780.00 (+ tax) - $5,000.00 = $9,780.00 Total Installed Price - - $9.780.00 (+ tax) Lift Station #28 Reulacement Puma 2: One (1) "KSB' Model KRT F100 -316!234X, 25hp, 23073, 4", 1750 rpm, heavy duty vortex submersible sewage pump to include: 50' of power cord 25hp, 23013, explosion -proof motors Stainless steel lifting handle Leakage sensor Stainless steel lifting chain Barney claw One (1) Warranty as specified One (1) Start-up and training as specified Total Installed Price - - $15,300.00 (+ tax) Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a proposal for this equipment. If you have questions or require more information, please don't hesitate to give me a call. Sincerely, At A414Y Pat Malay �N minnes&to Purnp Works July 6, 2017 Customer: City of Orono Attn: Scott Minnesota Pump Works is pleased to offer for your consideration, the following proposal to supply new pumps at Lift Station 20 and 28. Lift Station 20 Two (2) ABS XFP 100E C131 PE 75/4 230/3/ 60 submersible pumps Two (2) CA462 leak detection module Two (2) Flygt adapter brackets Two (2) Size 2 motor starters One (1) Installation Lift Station 28 One (1) ABS XFP 10OG C131 PE 210/4 230/3/ 60 submersible pumps One (1) CA462 leak detection module Two (1) Flygt adapter brackets One (1) Installation Total Selling Price: $23,755.00 (+ tax) Notes: • Pricing includes pumps and listed accessories only • Installation is supplied Best Regards, 'iaQa>,t Daae ym Jason Draeger Minnesota Pump Works 1 Cannon St W Dundas, MN 55019 M: 952-215-8988 P:507-645-8004 F: 507-645-7533 TF: 877-645-8004 j asondg-minnesotapumpworks.com www.minnesotgpumpworks.com { �N minnes&to Purnp Works July 6, 2017 Customer: City of Orono Attn: Scott Minnesota Pump Works is pleased to offer for your consideration, the following proposal to supply new pumps at Lift Station 20 and 28. Lift Station 20 Two (2) ABS XFP 100E C131 PE 75/4 230/3/ 60 submersible pumps Two (2) CA462 leak detection module Two (2) Flygt adapter brackets Two (2) Size 2 motor starters One (1) Installation Lift Station 28 One (1) ABS XFP 10OG C131 PE 210/4 230/3/ 60 submersible pumps One (1) CA462 leak detection module Two (1) Flygt adapter brackets One (1) Installation Total Selling Price: $23,755.00 (+ tax) Notes: • Pricing includes pumps and listed accessories only • Installation is supplied Best Regards, 'iaQa>,t Daae ym Jason Draeger Minnesota Pump Works 1 Cannon St W Dundas, MN 55019 M: 952-215-8988 P:507-645-8004 F: 507-645-7533 TF: 877-645-8004 j asondg-minnesotapumpworks.com www.minnesotgpumpworks.com { AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 6 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Approve Release of Encroachment Agreement — 3345 Crystal Bay Road Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda Development Director Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to release an Encroachment Agreement established at 3345 Crystal Bay Road. 2. Background. In 2009, the City Council approved an encroachment agreement allowing a private property owner, Sean Foy, to rip -rap the shore within easement area adjacent to his residence. This agreement is recorded against the title of 3345 Crystal Bay Road. After further review, it appears that the easement is not in favor of the city; therefore the city should not have granted permission for the encroachment. The property owner would like to remove this agreement from the title. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff supports approval and recording of the Release of Encroachment Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Release of Encroachment Agreement for 3345 Crystal Bay Road. Exhibits A. Draft Release of Encroachment Agreement B. Original Encroachment Agreement Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W (reserved for recording data) RELEASE OF ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this day of , 2017, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"); and SEAN FOY, a single person ("Landownerr") 1. BACKGROUND. The City granted the Landowner permission to encroach upon the City's easement area pursuant to an Encroachment Agreement dated August 4, 2009, and recorded September 1, 2009 with the Hennepin County Recorder as Document No. A9414702 for property legally described as: Lot 9, Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach ("Property"). The City and Landowner desire to release the Property from the Encroachment Agreement. 2. RELEASE OF ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT. The parties hereby release the existing Encroachment Agreement as it relates to the Property. 3. RECORDING. This Release of Encroachment Agreement shall be recorded against the title to the Property and shall run with the land. [Signatures contained on following pages.] 193233v1 1 CITY: CITY OF ORONO n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) Dennis Walsh, Its Mayor Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2017, by Dennis Walsh and by Doug Reeder, respectively the Mayor and Interim City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public 193233v1 2 LANDOWNER: Sean Foy STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( Ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2017, by Sean Foy, a single person. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 [SMM] 193233v1 3.3y5t/ B'QY Exh ibit Doc No A941470 Certified filed and/or recorded on 9/1/09 12:00 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H. Cunniff, County Recorder Jili L. Alverson, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 3 Pkg ID 556478 Doc Name: Agreement Document Recording Pee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. (reserved for recording information) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this � day of l- , 2009, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Shawn Foy, a single person ("Landowner"). RECITALS A. Landowner is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, hawing a street address of 3345 Crystal Bay Road, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" ("Subject Property"). B. The Subject Property abuts a street right-of-way easement owned by the City C'Right- of-Way Area"). C. Landowner desires to install riprap along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, located within the Right -of -Way Area. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City hereby approves the encroachment of riprap into the Right -of -Way Area subject to the following: 138587 1 of 5 • The riprap must be installed in the Right -of -Way Area per the plan attached hereto as Exhibit "B." 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City's rights to the Right -of -Way Area. I The Landowner shall be responsible for all costs relating to maintenance and repair of the riprap. This maintenance agreement is a personal obligation of the Landowner and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Landowner. 4. The Landowner, his heirs, assigns, and successors in interest, does hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability, including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to the Landowner of permission to encroach in the Fight -of -Way Area for the maintenance, use, operation, and the like of the riprap. The Landowner further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage caused to the subject property caused in whole or part by the encroachment into the Right -of -Way Area. a. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the then current owner of the subject property a minimum of thirty (30) days advance written notice. The property owner shall remove the riprap by the effective date of the termination of this Agreement without payment. If the owner fails to do so, the City may remove the riprap and assess the cost against the subject property. 6. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event any of the following occur: • Voluntary removal of the riprap. • Involuntary removal of the riprap. 7. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to the subject property. 2 CITY OF ORONO BY: M t") )� aures White, Mayor AND G/I "' Z inda S. Vee, City Cleric PROPERTY OWNER: -Shawn Foy Re-- STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( SS. COUNTY OF 1 ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 31C, ' day of [.{ j, , 2009, by Shawn Foy, a single person. THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 CRK NOTARY UBLIG l-+ SHER'YL A. IATTERNER NOTARY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA ` 1!y Gommia W Exylro JEL 31, lata 3 EXHIBIT "A" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Subiect Property Owned by Shawn Fov Lor q WA U4%rc; 19 A Db ( T I OtJ TD Tm V(UA6, 90' 0 F MIOMPWA REACH F,0T r.0 1,04, 79 62037' 0" E 50, 33.7 32-8; 0,0 .4 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD CC {473.31 --9-34 7' Gj C) 9j NG 41 0& 9' CD % 4f 3BJt0 k -Ir ly 7 2� j().0 11.17 8.67 Wilk W P POSED IS- WI 444- IT RO ENGINEERED 7rOR 2 RMWING R=229,01 01'14'59" L u.0 =5 u 7.4 (TO BE : REMOVED By O)NNER 7A R NEPIN COUNTY REGIONAL RAILROA� A I THORITY (formerly Dakota Rail) 00 v3 JJcC/, P�-voirt 4 - (4 V C Nr rc-7 � P4 C�j 7- P -i p F" Mid LL AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 7 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: #17-3943 — All Energy Solar o/b/o Larry Baran, 480 Stubbs Bay Road, Variance — Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda Development Director Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a variance to allow a solar energy system to be mounted on the ground. 2. 15.99 Deadline July 17, 2017 3. Background/ Summary. The property owner requests a variance to allow a solar energy system to be mounted on the ground. The Ordinance allows solar energy systems only to be placed on a structure and no more than 3 feet above the roof surface. The variance is necessary because the peak of the roof runs north/ south, and to maximize the benefit, should run east/west. The proposed solar array is located on the ground, is heavily screened from view from the adjacent street and neighboring properties, and meets all structural, hardcover, and setback requirements. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held the public hearing on June 19, 2017 and voted to recommend approval with a 6-0 vote. The minutes from that meeting are attached as Exhibit C. 5. Public Comment. No comments have been received for or against the proposal. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the variance as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approve by resolution the variance to allow a ground mounted solar array. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Proposed Plans & Elevations Exhibit D. PC Staff Report References A. PC Exhibits Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1379 FILE NO. 17-3943 WHEREAS, on May 17, 2017, All Energy Solar ("Applicant") on behalf of Larry Baran (Owner), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 480 Stubbs Bay Road and legally described as: Attached as Exhibit A (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1379 to allow a solar array to be mounted on the ground, where they are only permitted to be located on a structure; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2017, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on July 10, 2017, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3943. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR -1 B Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. Applicant has applied for a variance from 78-1379. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 4. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Within the city zoning ordinances the city states "it's is the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on energy production and conservation" (Sec. 78-1379, b.) The proposed ground mount accomplishes just that. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The vegetation cover terrain and structure orientation are unique characteristics that affect adequate access to direct sunlight. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The construction of any other building or structure in the proposed location would be permitted, only because the structure collects sunlight and transfers the energy is it prohibited. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Neither the orientation of the roof, nor the size of the roof where explicitly established by the homeowner. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing vegetation and grading remain intact. The location of the proposed ground mount is well screened from the road right-of-way and neighboring p[roperties. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. The requirement to place the array within the specific location of the yard to gather maximum sunlight is the reason for the variance, and is an established practical difficulty. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Alternative energy systems are permitted in the zoning district the property is located in CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The specific topography of the property the vegetation coverage and the orientation of the house do not allow for the most adequate access to direct sunlight except for the proposed location. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The specific topography of the property the vegetation coverage and the orientation of the house do not allow for the most adequate access to direct sunlight except for the proposed location. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the proposed variance is in accordance with the intent the city's land use plan, "Private stewardship of land and resources is preferable to inflexible public control." 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The granting of the proposed variance is in accordance with the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The granting of the proposed variance will provide the best access to direct sunlight attainable within the property CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1379 to allow a ground mounted solar array, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the approved site plan submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a permit and commencing construction. A footing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variances will expire on that date (July 10, 2018). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 10 day of July, 2017. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor J' "o 94 a ALL ., -- ALL ENERGY COMPANY INFORMATION ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM CLIENT INFORMATION LARRY BARAN 480 STUBBS BAY RD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 PO 14778 SYSTEM DETAILS NOTES: 1. (1) SOLAR EDGE SE760OA-US INVERTER(S) 2. ARRAY 1: 180° AZIMUTH, 35° TILT (28) HELIENE MIM 320W = 8.96kW 3. DIMENSIONS ARE BASED ON FOOTING FOUNDATION. 4. ARRAY SQFT: 236 REVISIONS LAST: 06/8/17 GB SCALE 1"=30' z, AZIMUTH f3 N PROJECT -PAGE TITLE Wetland Map PAGE NUMBER A PC Exhibit D f } FO Zw u s�gm«m 0 OM N < �o �^ f �N�n w RECEIVED w ryu lL NOZo� o �N W a ❑ "i w =w O' g M W �Z >X�H �¢�m�w w�<ow 4 >mx �msd g rcmy sew >Nw MAY 17 2011 W e „ f a < 7 a Is Z� w W Qa w$�m® w 50Z > w y�¢ ga¢ro rcg W d Q JAN O J v0 H ¢oy^� O a z° z. w z C= '"CITY ORONO a 0` OF P'Z� •�F Y a 0. 9'Ja t66 z RECEIVE u o� = qd ¢mm� Q w 'N,2 m mo a a w cr 0 O�z�$ a W o Z i m 'w =<=_mYo �NV1 �5� MAY 17 ?_011; f 4 z JL ) 0'U o CU¢d W 5.j }EW W a N ~ Z W <W a zeam WNf @I z gN� oz H > 66 0� w Noo! Qt��pe g a .. d 2 JAN O W J O� y /�T, C p Al Q _,> Qonjm VII I O( ORON U¢ z U Z .-Nz d chor}tea'.•- �, Q' A 9'Ja t66 �- 2 ° ewe - oz o. m r3 RECEIVE 'y} �O Rfifi a �Qoo� Z,� ah O DOZ'�' m Q�Qmi� W m� y ~ O /� Lo WW2 mmY� MAY 1 7201 KN�!1 S �` a 2' _ J�W�7 ? Y m6�oz rc�3a w ..�W gym �mw w a `r U 1— w JL II'1'' Z m wham<�g� way H w JQO H N p¢w w� CITYryry'/�p 66 �a��i OF OR � O _<W 6 W J H nw O "W7 QONm U ¢ i U z Wim? n n a .�•�`._ r-, 086 i�}� s, �[� y: a Opp 'y} �O Rfifi a n ah .�•�`._ r-, 086 i�}� s, �[� �6a 4 1001 � "66 y: Opp Rfifi m m \. 901 4 i Rs Y01 �6a 4 1001 � "66 } o oz C qo N¢$o�] z J H z V% a U = LL' Q f Zy Q Q i- ¢U�OK Z¢ 0 Z m b 2 W O m zo? Nwm.. ¢a¢Zm ZpW�rcO 03.2 Q HZ j W �m� 16 O W p�N�p >Mro O f Fa WOr y o n Q J > KUJ ? �J5m W ¢walt;> Ozww}JQOF > rc o N Q W W 7 CW Q a Zoag� W�$F-`"� z w gNU oz N a W r rcotiw�m g J Q D Q 6 - O Q�N z U QO N Z W»mF¢ d W z O W J W 2 H 7 O _I JT .dE A MAY 17 20 CITY OF ORONO : \. � /�. � ..§<< . AW Tw- f:o c - 7a 0 Al P� I 0 ry >1 co Cf) Solar Access and Shade Report 5/3/2017 For: Jerry baran 480 stubbs bay rd n long lake, mn 55356 By: peter dosher 1642 Carroll Ave St. Paul, MN 55104 (800)-6203370 Measuremerbmade bySolrnvbicSunEyeT—mww,solmetriccom Solmetric RECEIVED MAY 17 7017 # 3943 CITY OF ORONO Session Properties Name — Baran revisit —--- --- — -- --- — - — Creation Date W/20171709 Note (none) _.J —— Location Mag Dec: 0.3°E — Time Zone: GMT -08:00 Solar access averages of 11 skylines in this session Skylines Averaged: Sky01, Sky02, Sky03, Sky04, Sky05, Sky06, Sky07, Sky08, Sky09, Sky10, Sky11 bl.r& , Sol. A. IlverxJs AnnuaayZ4Nov -A-79°/u 3%73%�g55=' llwp. l" lJunllll Jul Ae sec o x v o TSRF averages of 11 skylines in this session: 78% -L;�iV'EI MAY 112017 3943 943 CITY OF ORONO Sky01 —4/27/2017 17:10 — (no skyline note) Panel Orientation: TiH=35° — Aa much=180° —Skyline Heading=179° Solar Access: Annual: 76% —Summer (May -Oct): 75% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 77% TSRF: 75% — TOF: 99% MmIlw filar ate: iFned: 3. 35•: Avm=186°) 7tsc ]6r[ T -°E 7Pu- ` 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May ]un Jul Aug Sep Oct r v Data by Solmetrk SunEye - -- y .solmetriccom 1I, RECEIVE® MV 1 7 ?-017 # 3943 CITY OF ORONO Sky02 —4/27/2017 17:12 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tilt=35° — Aamuth=180° — Skyline Heading=180° Solar Access: Annual: 76% —Summer (May -Oct): 79% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 71% TSRF: 76% — TOF: 99% MOD Data by SDImetric SunEye— — wveva.mImetriccom umtl.M �a �: lF�a: r�3s•: Aa:�raw) es 5,°y Sz* ra 76°'c 13°o i'r.0 A56 69°.0 ]an Feb Naz AW wy ]un ]W Aug SW 0e nea oR Data by Solmebic SunEyeT' -- v. m.soimetricwm # 3943 MAY 17 2017 O@TX OF ORONO Sky03 —4/27/2017 17:13 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Titt=35" — Aamuth=180° —Skyline Heading=1830 Solar Access: Annual: 94% —Summer (May -Oct): 96% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 91% TSRF: 94% — TOF: 99% 10:00 12:00 { wmual: 999: � M 9sz Aq 912 1 Data by Solmetric SunEye— -- v w 4.wlmetnc.com 9 Iv mlar ate: (rte; r[r—Js•: Avn-1e0•) W. 95% 954 %°b 9 a %% 9J96 954 96^b 4P4 8391 �2¢b Jan Feb Ma AP M1 Jun lul AW S P C� Ibr Oec Data by Solmetric SunEye^' -- r. ow.solmetric.com #3943 RECEIVED MAY 17 2017 CITY OF ORONO Sky04 —4/27/2017 17:15 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tilt=35° — Azimuth=180° — Skyline Heading=1800 Solar Access: Annual: 92% —Summer (May -Oct): 89% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 97% TSRF: 92% — TOF: 99% •aanM.mr ate: (w.ar rxr--as: war. -aunt 959- 9]°A 56% 93 e ♦w M" wa wi AW o� Data by Solmetnc SunEye7 -- wrw.solmetric.com RECEIVE® MAY 17 2017 3943 CIT' OF ORONO Sky05 —4/27/2017 17:16 — (no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tk=35° — Aamuth=180° —Skyline Heading=177° Solar Access: Annual: 87% —Summer (May -Oct): 89% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 85% TSRF: 87% — TOF: 99% w:ao sda n� xwwR: ss+ � Data by Solmetnc SunEye— -- v✓ N,..solmetnc.com r Iv �r ate: (rasa: nr-3s ; �ieor) Data by Solmetrlc SunEye— -- v m.solmetriccom 11 If ERE HYLS® II AY 17 2017 # 3943 c" OF ORONO Sky06 —4/27/2017 17:17 — (no skyline note) Panel Orientation: TR=35' —Azimuth=180° —Skyline Heading=179° Solar Access: Annual: 65% —Summer (May -Oct): 71 %— Winter (Nov -Apr): 58% TSRF:65%—TOR 99% H.dw v ate: (rase: rJe-aa; 75% 71'.76% 73% 6546 J0a6 6995 52% 43% 40ce U. U ' 1 ]an F-eb Mar •a< Mry ]un ]ul Aug 5W � tbv Gg Data by Solmetric SunEye"' -- www.wlmetnc.com MAY 17 2011 3 9 4 3 GITy OF ORONO Sky07 — 4/27/2017 17:20 — (no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tift=35" — Aa much=180° — Skyline Heading=1800 Solar Access: Annual: 67%— Summer (May -Oct): 71% — Winter (Nov -Apr): 61% TSRF: 66% — TOF: 99% 10:00 mM,.i: six Nw-0a nx Mw -lips 61Y Data by Solmetric SunEye^ -- wvN,.s Irnetricxom Nmmry �ar+ras-. (ram: ii[sa^: M"k 7i% 79% 74%a 71% 73 ]U°b 6?% sb% 4Ve 49 49% 1 ]an Feb Maz Apr NOY Jun lul Aug �p Otl Nor Dec Data by Solmetnc SunEye— -- mw,.wJrnetnc.wm #3943 MAY 17 2017 CITY OF ORONO Sky08 —4/27/2017 17:23 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tiff=35" — Aa much=180° — Skyline Heading=181" Solar Access: Annual: 78%— Summer (May -OG): 83%— Winter (Nov -Apr): 71% TSRF: 77% — TOF: 99% Man1nH nY� ate: tR[Mi ��v=s-: Data by Solmetric SunEye--- w ,.s Imetrtc.com #3943 MAY `I ZOV CITY OF ORONO Sky09 —4/27/2017 17:29 — (no skyline note) Panel Orientation: TiR=35" — Aa much=180° — Skyline Heading=1800 Solar Access: Annual: 79%— Summer (May -Oct): 83% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 75% TSRF: 79% — TOF: 99% ..e,-saiar A.5 ' Arxwal: Jvs L MayOci: N3Y Nw-Fp- RS � M Data by Solmetric SunEye"' -- mN4.solmetnc.com No,.uay a .: (Raed; rdtm ; Amn=1 o ) @4?b B•°k J6% �' IAt 6D9i R9a 63°6 6$56 I Jan Feb Mar AW May Jui AW Sep 0S Nov Dc Data by Solmetric SunEye'" -- w .wlmetnc.com #3943 RECEIVE® MAY 1 7Z017 CIN 01= ORONO Sky10 —4/27/2017 17:31 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tilt=35° — Aamuth=180° — Skyline Heading=1800 Solar Access: Annual: 76% —Summer (May -Oct): 85%— Winter (Nov -Apr): 64% TSRF: 75% — TOE: 99% Monu.H d.r.: (F .a; ne- ; nvnP92o•) 9I% 89°h M°.e J9 a 825E n. 79% 554 50.. ]an FeA Mar .pr May Jun Jul Ruq Sep � Nov Oc Data by Solmetric SunEye- -- wm .wimetnc.cum MAY 17 2017 9 4 3 : CITY OF oRoN® Sky11 —4/27/2017 17:35 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation: Tilt=35° — Aamuth=180° —Skyline Heading=1800 Solar Access: Annual: 74% —Summer (May -Oct): 92% —Winter (Nov -Apr): 51% TSRF: 74% — TOF: 99% d?u Data by Solmetnc Sun Eye" -- vrvv,.solmetnc.com Monthly mlar—a : (cned: Tik=35-; n --1W) 589E 9T°. Sun Jul Aug Sep oR Data by Solmetric SunEyeT" -- y ,.wlmetricxorn RECEIVED MAY 17 2017 3943 CITY OF ORONO Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit C ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3943 Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. 17-3943 ALL ENERGY SOLAR ON BEHALF OF LARRY BARAN, 480 STUBBS BAY ROAD NORTH, VARIANCE, 7:03 P.M. — 7:13 P.M. Larry Baran, Applicant, was present along with Kristin Sakwitz of All Energy Solar. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a variance from the ordinance that requires solar energy systems to be roof mounted. The property owner would like to place solar panels on the ground to the north of the existing house. The property is over two acres in size and is exempt from hardcover limitations. Staff has conducted a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. Based on Staff's review, the proposed location of the solar panels is within a heavily screened area of the yard and maintains setbacks from adjacent property lines. In addition, the solar panels will be screened from Stubbs Bay Road. Barnhart noted the notification area is 350 feet, with the nearest home being located 375 feet away. Typically solar panels are mounted to the south to obtain the maximum amount of sunlight. The roof in this case does not face the south. The array of solar panels would be 11 feet high at the back edge and 45 feet across. Barnhart noted there are some wetlands in the area but that the solar panels will not impact that area and the project will not require a wetland delineation. The array of solar panels would be located behind the front of the house and more than 50 feet from the right-of-way of Stubbs Bay Road. Barnhart displayed a picture of the property from Stubbs Bay Road and noted the area is very well screened. Staff is supportive of the request. Thiesse asked what the City's intent was to only allow roof mounted solar panels. Page 1 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated to his understanding the City Council wanted to limit hardcover. The goal of the City is to have solar panels integrated into the design of the property since retrofitting them on a house is not that easy. Landgraver asked whether the screening consists entirely of deciduous trees. Barnhart stated a big part of it was deciduous trees. Barnhart stated the screening from the foliage will likely go away during the winter but some screening will still remain with the tree trunks. Barnhart noted the City does not require screening that prevents someone from seeing something year-round but they attempt to mitigate it as much as practical. Lemke asked if it would make sense to take another look at the City's regulations to allow ground based solar panels. Barnhart stated that can be added to the list of ordinances to be reviewed. Larry Baran, Applicant, stated if the system is placed on the house, he would only be able to have a 3 kilowatt system, which would not be cost effective. The ground mounted system would be 8 kilowatts and cover his electrical use for the most part. Baran stated in 1986, his father placed solar panels on his building in Chicago for hot water. Baran stated the system worked fine but then the roof needed to be replaced and the panels had to be removed at a cost of $2,500. Kristin Sakwitz, All Energy Solar, stated part of the City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan states that the City wants its residents and property owners to use their private land and resources to promote alternative sources of energy, which this falls in line with. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Lemke and Thiesse stated the request makes sense. Lemke moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3943, All Energy Solar on behalf of Larry Baran, 480 Stubbs Bay Road North, granting of a variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 3 of 3 Date Application Received: May 17, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: May 17, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: July 17, 2017 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 19, 2017 Council Exhibit D 17-3943 Subject: #17-3943, All Energy Solar o/b/o Larry Baran, 480 Stubbs Bay Road, Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance from the code that requires solar energy systems to be roof mounted. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance as requested. Background The property owner desires to place solar panels on the ground to the north of the existing house. The ordinance permits solar panels in all districts, but such panels must be placed on the roof. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 - Setbacks: RR -113 DISTRICT Required Proposed Solar Panels Front (must be behind the principal structure, per 78-1435) 62 62'9" Rear 50 895 Side 30 30'6" Side 30 339' Wetland 35' Section 78-420 - Lot Area/Width: RR -113 DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 acres 200' Actual 10.92 acre 397' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property is over 2 acres, structural coverage is not calculated. FILE # 17-3943 June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The property is in an exempt area, hardcover limitations are not imposed. Applicable Regulations: 78-1379 (e) Solar energy systems. (1) Zoning districts. Solar energy systems in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts. (2) Standards. a. Exemption. Passive or building -integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. b. Roof -mounted systems allowed. The only solar energy systems allowed in the city are those that are roof -mounted, c. Height. Roof -mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. d. Setbacks. Roof -mounted solar energy systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. e. Roof mounting. Roof -mounted solar collectors shall be mounted parallel to the surface of the roof and within three feet of the roof surface, unless manufacturer's documentation is provided indicating that collectors must be angled to provide optimum performance. No portion of the collectors or their mounting system shall extend above the peak or ridge height of a pitched roof. On a flat roof, collectors and their mounting systems shall not extend more than 5 feet above the roof surface. f. Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility, roadway or trail easements. g. Screening. Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. h. Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof -mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. i. Aesthetics. All solar panels shall be designed, installed, positioned and constructed of materials so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, nor toward vehicular traffic on land or on a lake, and so as to not obstruct views. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. j. Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. (3) Safety. a. Standards and certification. 1. Certification. Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or other body as determined by the building official. The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification. FILE # 17-3943 June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 5 2. The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes, and (if for co -generation) must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co -generation of energy. b. Utility connection. All grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit. A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. (4) Abandonment. If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance. The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment. (5) Permits. A building permit shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior to installation. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Within the city zoning ordinances the city states "it's is the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on energy production and conservation" (Sec. 78-1379, b.) The proposed ground mount accomplishes just that. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The vegetation cover terrain and structure orientation are unique characteristics that affect adequate access to direct sunlight. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The construction of any other building or structure in the proposed location would be permitted, only because the structure collects sunlight and transfers the energy is it prohibited. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Neither the orientation of the roof, nor the size of the roof where explicitly established by the homeowner. and FILE # 17-3943 June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 5 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The existing vegetation and grading remain intact. The location of the proposed ground mount is well screened from the road right-of-way. The Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. The requirement to place the array within the specific location of the yard to gather maximum sunlight is the reason for the variance, and is an established practical difficulty. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Alternative energy systems are permitted in the zoning district the property is located in 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The specific topography of the property the vegetation coverage and the orientation of the house do not allow for the most adequate access to direct sunlight except for the proposed location. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The specific topography of the property the vegetation coverage and the orientation of the house do not allow for the most adequate access to direct sunlight except for the proposed location. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The granting of the proposed variance is in accordance with the intent the city's land use plan, "Private stewardship of land and resources is preferable to inflexible public control." 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The granting of the proposed variance is in accordance with the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The granting of the proposed variance will provide the best access to direct sunlight attainable within the property The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. Practical Difficulties Statement FILE # 17-3943 June 19, 2017 Page 5 of 5 Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The purpose for the roof mounted requirement, coupled with hard cover and structural limitations, appears to minimize light and glare impacts on adjacent properties. The proposed location of the solar array is within a heavily screened area of the yard, maintaining setbacks from adjacent property lines. Further, a ground mounted array will be screened from Stubbs Bay road. The nearest adjacent home, 3625 Jacobs Mill Road, is 375 feet from the array. State statute seems to clearly protect a property owners' interest in solar energy. Placing of the array on the home would not negate the need for a variance, as due to the roof slope, and orientation, a variance would be required not be flush with the roof. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Site Plan Exhibit D. Applicant supporting information Exhibit E. Notification information AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 8 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Purchase of Tax Forfeited Parcels for Future Public Purpose. Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Consent Agenda Development Director Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to purchase one undeveloped parcel for the purpose of possible road, trail, or utility connection. 2. Background. Outlot A of Peterman 2nd addition, the subject parcel, is a 50 foot wide parcel (23 acre) at the north end of Golden View Drive. It lines up with Outlot B of Meyer Dairy Addition. Neither outlot is improved. Outlot A is in the tax forfeited process, and the county has reached out to the city to determine interest in obtaining the parcel. Estimated costs are $88.00. It is obvious that the parcel was configured to accept future extension of Golden View Drive, potentially linking Golden View with Silver View Drive to the north. It is advantageous to the city to obtain ownership of these parcels, as they facilitate future desired road, trail, or utility connections. It is extremely difficult and costly to acquire property for these purposes in the future. If the city does not acquire the parcels, purchasers would likely be limited to adjacent property owners. 3. Cost. Costs have been estimated at $88.00. 4. Funding. The acquisition may be funded through the General Fund. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends authorization of funds to purchase the parcel. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion authorizing payment to acquire .23 acres at the north end of Golden View Drive. Exhibits Exhibit A. Map of Area Exhibit B. Cost estimate Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W Hennepin County Property Map Date: 6/12/2017 PARCEL ID: 3311823430016 Comments: OWNER NAME: Hennepin Forfeited Land PARCEL ADDRESS: 38 Address Unassigned, Orono MN 00000 PARCEL AREA: 0.23 acres, 10,055 sq ft A -T -B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: This data(i)is furnished 'ASIS' with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land -Residential warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable forany MARKET VALUE: $0 damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $0.00 COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land -residential HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 Hennepin County Resident and Real Estate Services Tax Forfeited Land Cost Sheet for Governmental Subdivision Michael Wolf - Property Management Specialist 06/12/176 t: 612-348-5102 'ARED Orono Mike Gaffron ID# 33-118-23-43-0016 PURCHASE COSTS: Assessed Value Specials After Forfeiture Assurance Fee (3%) State Deed Preparation Fee: Filing Fees: {TFL to file deed} State Deed Tax: { $ 1.70 / $500 or part thereof - see chart } TFL Holding Costs per MN Statute 282.01 Subd 1. FULL PAYMENT REQUIRED: ATE PREPARED: 06/12/17 * VALID THROUGH: 07/12/17 t must be postmarked July 12, 2017 CERTIFIED FUNDS PAYABLE AT TIME OF APPLICATION MAKE PAYABLE TO: HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER SUBJECT PARCEL: 38 Address Unassigned PID NUMBER: 33-118-23-43-0016 Revised 6/09/2015 Total *Hennepin County reserves the right to update cost at anytime Cost Estimate Only NER# $10.00 $0.00 $0.30 $25.00 $51.00 $1.70 $0.00 $88.00 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 9 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Temporary Compensation Adjustment for Finance Department Presenter: Doug Reeder Agenda Consent Agenda Interim City Administrator Section: 1. Purpose. To request City Council approval for temporary compensation adjustments for the Utility Billing Clerk and the Assistant Finance Director during the absence of the Finance Director. 2. Background. The Finance Director has been on sick leave since mid-May and the remaining members of the Finance Department have had to take over additional work loads. The date of the return of the Finance Director is still unknown. Therefore the remaining Finance Department staff will continue to have to carry extra work loads to complete the general fund budget and the audit in addition to their normal duties. The compensation adjustments will continue only during the absence of the finance director or until such other date as recommended by the City Administrator. The request is to adjust the salaries as follows: Assistant Finance Director: Adjust salary from Grade 10, start step to Grade 10 step 2 Utility Billing Clerk: Adjust compensation by $1.00 per hour. 3. Cost. The total cost this compensation adjustment is dependent on the duration of the absence of the Finance Director. The monthly additional cost will be $471. 4. Funding. The cost will be charged to the Finance Department budget which along with additional consulting costs will exceed the annual estimate which will ultimately have to be adjusted. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve the compensation adjustments COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the temporary compensation adjustments for the Finance staff at a monthly cost of $471 effective July 1 and to be continued during the absence of the Finance Director. Prepared By: Nz Reviewed By: 14Z Approved By: NZ AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 10 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Compensation Adjustment for Part Time Scanner Employees Presenter: Doug Reeder Agenda Consent Agenda Interim City Administrator Section: 1. Purpose. Approval of compensation adjustments for two part-time employees who are scanning the city files to reduce our file storage 2. Background. For the last several years the city has employed two part time employees who are budgeted to work 1000 hours per year to put our files on microfiche. They have not received a salary increase since they started in 2015. The current salary is $10 per hour and the proposal is to increase their salary to $11 per hour effective July 1, 2017 3. Project Cost. $500 4. Funding. Sufficient funds are budgeted to cover this expense. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve this compensation increase COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve an increase in salary of $1.00 per hour for two part time employees who are scanning city files. Prepared By: W Reviewed By: 1L5z Approved By: W, AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 11 Item Description: Eagle Scout Project Presentation Date: July 10, 2017 Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Presentation Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council support of a proposed Eagle Scout Project at City Hall. Background. Boy Scout John Ellis is proposing to build and install three flag retirement boxes as his Eagle Scout service project. Two of them are for the American Legion in Maple plain and the third location would be Orono City hall. A flag Retirement box is a place for people to bring their American flags that are no longer serviceable. Boy Scout Troop 206 will then collect the flags and dispose of them in the proper manner. 2. Project Scope. Installation of one flag retirement box at City Hall. 3. Funding. This project will be funded by the American Legion and Boy Scout fund raising. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the council approve the proposal of a flag retirement box at city hall. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to authorized Boy Scout John Ellis to complete his Eagle Scout project with the construction and installation of a flag retirement box at City Hall. Exhibits Exhibit A. Presentation Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: W John Ellis Eagle Project Proposal JUNE 201 2017 Project Overview 3 Flag Retirement Boxes Two for Maple Plain American Legion One Location TBD Box Maintenance Two by American Legion One by Troop 206 Box Funding Donation from American Legion Discounts from Lowe's Additional fundraising as needed Project completed by end of Summer 2017 Flag Retirement Box • 2'x2'x4' wooden box • Will allow community to properly dispose of flags needing retirement (Box to right at Long lake fire dept.) Why City Hall Provides relationship between scouting and the community Provides a unique service the public. Raises awareness for flag etiquette. Troop 206 is willing to do all maintenance and flag collection. Questions AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 12 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Resolution to Hennepin County requesting reconfiguration of the County Road 6 / Old Crystal Bay Road intersection Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/ Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: City Engineer's Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve a resolution requesting that Hennepin County reconfigure the County Road 6 —Old Crystal Bay Road intersection to only allow Right in and Right out for a trial period of the 2017/18 school year. 2. Background. The City of Orono and the Orono School District have received numerous complaints and concerns about the safety of the intersection during school drop off and pick up periods. Congestion at the school entrances along Old Crystal Bay Road creates backups at the County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay intersection which in turn limits visibility for those motorists make left turns onto or off Old Crystal Bay Road. Over the past couple month's staff has met with the county, Three Rivers Park District and Orono Schools to discuss the problem and develop solutions. One of the short term solutions discussed was limiting turns at the intersection to right turn only. The idea would be to install temporary measures to trial the idea and determine its effectiveness and acceptability to the public. 3. Resolution Summary. The attached resolution requests that Hennepin County reconfigure the intersection with temporary markings, barriers and signage prior to the start of the 2017/18 school year. The lessons learned from the trial could then be incorporated into any design for the permanent reconstruction reconfiguration of Old Crystal Bay Road and the intersection with County Road 6. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve a resolution requesting the reconfiguration of the county road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Road intersection. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution. Prepared By: %E Reviewed By: F Approved By: W CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL A RESOLUTION REQUESTING RECONFIGURATION OF THE COUNTY ROAD 6 AND OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD INTERSECTION. WHEREAS, The City of Orono and the Orono School District have received numerous complaints and concerns about the safety of the intersection during school drop off and pick up periods; and WHEREAS, The intersection does not meet the necessary warrants to be signalized; and WHEREAS, Congestion at the School entrances along Old Crystal Bay Road creates backups at the County Road 6 and Old Crystal Bay Intersection which in turn limits visibility for those motorists make left turns onto or off Old Crystal Bay Road; and WHEREAS, The City of Orono wishes to conduct a trial of a right in right out configuration of the intersection to assess improved safety; and WHEREAS, The City of Orono is working toward reconstruction of Old Crystal Bay Road between CSAH 6 and CSAH 112 and wishes to incorporate and lessons learned from testing the Right in Right out concept in to the design; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby request Hennepin County to temporarily reconfigure the intersection to a right in right out only. FURTHER, that the reconfiguration, including markings, temporary barriers and signage be in place no later than August 18th, 2017 prior to the start of the new school year. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held May 8, 2017. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 13 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: #17-3933 — Catherine Sweet, 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, Vacation of Street Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to consider the applicants request to vacate unimproved right of way adjacent to her property. 2. 15.99 Deadline. A decision must be made by July 29, 2017. 3. Background/ Summary. Per State Statute, this item requires an extended public hearing as it impacts waters of the state; the DNR gets 60 days to comment on an application. The Planning commission opened and continued the public hearing to July 10th. The Council must open the public hearing, receive comment. Catherine Sweet owns the two parcels on either side of unimproved right of way, connecting the trail to the lake. This right of way was provided to the public in 1908, as part of a street vacation of right of way on the east side of 3405. It was originally thought that upon vacation, both properties would receive a portion of the right of way, and 3407 would have Lake Frontage. Because 3405 provided the right of way, 3405 would receive all of it. For 3407 to acquire Lake Frontage, a boundary line adjustment would be required. Vacation of right of way requires the Council to determine that the right of way is not necessary and the disposal of it is in the city's best interest. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to deny the vacation request, and recommended the Council consider a relocated right of way. Relocating the right of way would essentially be the property owner donating an easement, which the City Council would have to accept. Staff would recommend considering such a request after a public hearing on a proposed new easement. 5. Public Comment. The DNR has provided written comments, attached as Exhibit D. The DNR does not recommend vacation of the right of way. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff does not support vacation of the right of way, and staff does not support relocating the right of way into an easement. Shifting the easement to the west brings it closer to the N/S segment of Crystal Bay Road, reducing its effectiveness. Disposing of city property should be done cautiously as future needs can shift wildly. If the Council supports the vacation and shifting of the easement, staff would recommend the following process/ procedure: • The applicant submit a letter waiving the 60 -day review period. • The applicant submit an offer of easement donation, including legal description and graphic. • The Planning commission review such a donation at its' next available public hearing (August 21, 2017) • The Council receive such recommendation. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: ��� AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direction to prepare a resolution either to accept or deny the vacation, or consider donation of a new easement. Exhibits Exhibit A. Map of area Exhibit B. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit C. PC Staff Report Exhibit D. DNR comment Exhibit E. Mike Gaffron memo dated April 19, 2017 References A. PC Exhibits A. Application D. Notification information E. State Statute 412.851 Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY BAY e'°� � L e �" _ - ,>• CRYSTAL i f o L a LU I Eke 3 BB2g-E dd r,w rp..nf +'fnl >-I EJOSTAIG HOUSE. 0^`616 - 4 T' EXISTING I ! y I EMSTSC "# + Ilo<N EKfSTiJG' HousE f Nx,a HMSE 4 �y Po- ler 4 4 N w r W aaa * M,q a '4 4yj as all r l ''Y ' �" SPARK Yz 1 Wlb Nil, Council Exhibit A 17-3933 4- LfGAL OESCRPION OF PRENt S Itf11 I At of Lot 1B oed rapiutp West ED l t of sold L-1 19, ono ry sr'9 trpm t Nwth la $path " f wild Lot 19 P: slot 1d 1 i! ! purposss. Als a strip e! hM 20 feet ide tlanmefty ly'4j between L u t$ Wd 19 e d fw t t p^rppa M1p sad sirret has bssry - Isd wW aaed ftlrip pi Wel by D.— f Oatrlel Cont Hemeq,ry ^" _t d WreM l be part 1 d L ! 14. Alss a pnt a1 L" IS bsgmlap at Ina fbrlh 1 < mar a d Lot t8 llw,e lerlp 70 f t tl—. South tp rwr Wo 1 od tat IS Irna[e West 10 regi to Sa tKs t aw ar 'f .04 Let IR, Ihenae North to rlm of be kq M WALtACES AWTION TO THE ALACE OF NRAETOWA BEACH, W or,p la the Owl wfrof f la " of Kvd In CM NiMte of the R.giske, at Deed th and f& sold Ca y. AND AA f Lot 1, Stock 1, WtE1" 5 PARK". Lme Mm wtpmp tyvq SPwU sdy of row w st— . the roppraea pht, Hwss Cppnty, dl nota. i aenptss mmt:sr loud OBiM_Sy. drwlas 'shop ."I sp tim mean sea I O dawn dmoln st'^p —I— ins, mean sa krel datum ®,Prigs sbo s based upas an aswmed bolus This wy.y Ww4g to sePw Hw bpa50or:n e1 the above deeerlbseproperly, rnM IM1e beal:an a1 exnl+y iwss, 9u pe, spot slevat,wq, lopWwhy P,4ae rw. "ho,drnror^ ffs,— Hduos Mt purtlaprI to a— -y olhan ,mpravemsels er ArKraxRnenit NATE: 0p wy of fasdpp r000tloa, r ..(ml at addtiorvd h&&mP, is frosted by i w Amus corer CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR ; n CATHERINE SWEET IN LOTS 18 & 19, WALLACES ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE a' OF MINNETONKA BEACH, AND OF LOT 1, WILEY'S PARK a 6rz:.. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA �> "- 45 ,4 z zp 0s Eur 4- LfGAL OESCRPION OF PRENt S Itf11 I At of Lot 1B oed rapiutp West ED l t of sold L-1 19, ono ry sr'9 trpm t Nwth la $path " f wild Lot 19 P: slot 1d 1 i! ! purposss. Als a strip e! hM 20 feet ide tlanmefty ly'4j between L u t$ Wd 19 e d fw t t p^rppa M1p sad sirret has bssry - Isd wW aaed ftlrip pi Wel by D.— f Oatrlel Cont Hemeq,ry ^" _t d WreM l be part 1 d L ! 14. Alss a pnt a1 L" IS bsgmlap at Ina fbrlh 1 < mar a d Lot t8 llw,e lerlp 70 f t tl—. South tp rwr Wo 1 od tat IS Irna[e West 10 regi to Sa tKs t aw ar 'f .04 Let IR, Ihenae North to rlm of be kq M WALtACES AWTION TO THE ALACE OF NRAETOWA BEACH, W or,p la the Owl wfrof f la " of Kvd In CM NiMte of the R.giske, at Deed th and f& sold Ca y. AND AA f Lot 1, Stock 1, WtE1" 5 PARK". Lme Mm wtpmp tyvq SPwU sdy of row w st— . the roppraea pht, Hwss Cppnty, dl nota. i aenptss mmt:sr loud OBiM_Sy. drwlas 'shop ."I sp tim mean sea I O dawn dmoln st'^p —I— ins, mean sa krel datum ®,Prigs sbo s based upas an aswmed bolus This wy.y Ww4g to sePw Hw bpa50or:n e1 the above deeerlbseproperly, rnM IM1e beal:an a1 exnl+y iwss, 9u pe, spot slevat,wq, lopWwhy P,4ae rw. "ho,drnror^ ffs,— Hduos Mt purtlaprI to a— -y olhan ,mpravemsels er ArKraxRnenit NATE: 0p wy of fasdpp r000tloa, r ..(ml at addtiorvd h&&mP, is frosted by i w Amus corer qppm T -`- -� - - rt 7 +r �——�. i Pr CRYSTAL j � ice+► nra�+s � � �'' N 8643Z: E, I ��� � � a,a� �• _ _ate -_— J' � II I � a:: I I -.• �n M 4 , EST �I ter, ri g* G iaE+� i HOUSE F+ tti liEWSTM I' 134 m HOUSE: 03*0 }qfxi r-- EMK �i I4 Jr,KF mL.iFENZ LC3 J '* m P ' a 6"P.:. y dyR4 y • a �, - _ � mea v k _ k PrA_ - - - .. - — ire - _ ~ �, a �' . � •f �- � � Ir � � Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3933 Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. 17-3942 CATHERINE SWEET, 3405 AND 3407 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VACATION, 6:32 P.M. — 6:55 P.M. Catherine Sweet, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting to vacate the unimproved right-of-way between the properties at 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road. The applicant owns the parcels on either side of the subject right-of- way and would like to sell 3407 Crystal Bay Road. Barnhart noted the DNR must be given 60 days to review this request and that Staff would ask that the public hearing be continued to the next City Council meeting on July 10'n The existing 20 -foot right-of-way provides potential public access from the Dakota Trail to Lake Minnetonka and may also have uses for drainage and other purposes in the future. The subject right-of- way was provided to the City in exchange for the vacation of the right-of-way on the east side of 3405 Crystal Bay Road back in 1908. Typically in a right-of-way vacation, the property reverts back to the property that provided the right-of- way. In this situation, since the property at 3405 provided the right-of-way, that property would receive the vacated right-of-way. If both parcels receive half of the right-of-way, 3407 Crystal Bay Road would have lake frontage, which would likely allow for a dock. Staff does not support the vacation of the right-of-way since Lake Minnetonka is a valuable asset to the City of Orono. A vacation of this type that would limit the access is not in the best interest of the City. Further, the applicant has not demonstrated public interest in the property can be maintained. Thiesse asked if there are any other rights-of-way or easements in this area. Barnhart indicated there are some additional ones further to the east. Thiesse asked if Lot 19 can be divided if the easement is applied to that property. Page 1 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated in theory, if the right-of-way were vacated, it would go entirely to Lot 19, and that property owner could then choose to sell the entire right-of-way or a portion of it to the other property owner. Schoenzeit asked what percentage of fire lanes the City vacates and whether there is any history of doing this. Barnhart stated he does not have that information available tonight, but the most recent one he can think of occurred in 2015. Barnhart stated to his recollection the road did not touch the lake in that situation. In addition, the City has vacated unimproved rights-of-way, most recently in the Crestview neighborhood, but that road also did not touch the lake and was not similar to this situation. Thiesse asked if the land in front of Lot lwould give access to the lake. Barnhart indicated that is actually city -owned property. Barnhart stated the City owns the four platted lots on the north side of Crystal Bay Road, which prevents the other four lots from having lake frontage. Landgraver asked what some of the general reasons are that the City would not vacate this type of right-of-way. Barnhart stated Staff does not know the potential future uses for this area and neighborhood and if any ability to access the lake is removed, it is difficult to get it back. Barnhart indicated the right-of-way also provides potential public access from the Dakota Trail to Lake Minnetonka and may also have uses for drainage. Landgraver asked how close the other right-of-way is located. Barnhart stated it is approximately half a mile away to the east and that the topography also gets steeper going that direction. Schoenzeit asked if this has the potential to be precedent setting. Page 2 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated it might. Catherine Sweet, Applicant, 3405 Crystal Bay Road, stated the home at 3407 is currently empty. Sweet stated she understands the City's desire to protect the lake and allow for drainage. Sweet stated she would like to make an alternate proposal, which would be to do what the City did in 1908 and flip flop the easement. Sweet noted her driveway sits on the easement and that she had received permission from the City Council in 2004 to retain that. Sweet stated they could take that 20 feet of easement and put it on the other side of 3407. Sweet stated she would then tear down the garage, remove the existing driveway in that area, and then at some point tear down the small house and sell the property. Thiesse asked if she had presented that to Staff at all. Sweet indicated she suggested it this past Thursday when she received Staff's report. Barnhart stated the challenge with that is that adding a new easement or right-of-way introduces the potential that the neighbor might not necessarily be expecting an easement in that location. Barnhart stated he does not see a lot of value to the City in doing that, but that the Planning Commission is free to examine that alternate option more closely. Sweet noted 3407 does not have a dock but that there is a small stairway. The other three houses have docks and those have existed since at least 2004. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:43 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse continued the public hearing to the City Council meeting on July 10. Thiesse stated he would agree with Mr. Barnhart's statement and that it would be difficult to recommend approval on the alternative option since that was not noticed for a public hearing. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission can discuss that option. Page 3 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could discuss it. Barnhart stated one option is to vacate it entirely and the other option is to vacate the right-of-way and then relocate it. Barnhart stated it appears to be in response to the City's concern about retaining lake access in this area. Landgraver stated it appears the City would still retain access to the lake and that it would be a responsive option by the applicant. Landgraver stated he would agree that the City should notify the neighbor. Thiesse asked if Ms. Sweet would have access to the garage if there was no access over the easement. Sweet stated she would not have access to either of her garages. Landgraver asked whether she intends to sell the lot if the right-of-way is relocated. Sweet stated at this point, if she does not get the easement, she will probably retain both pieces of property and hopefully sell them at some point in the future. If the right-of-way is moved to the other side, at some point the small house would be torn down and the property would become one continuous lot and any new owner would have use of the driveway. Thiesse asked if another application would be necessary to relocate the right-of-way if the Planning Commission denied the request tonight. Thiesse stated in his view the Planning Commission cannot act on that option without providing public notice. Schwingler commented the Planning Commission can only act on what is in front of them tonight. Barnhart stated that is true but that the Planning Commission could comment on the alternative option if they choose. Barnhart stated he does not believe another application requesting vacation and relocating it would be necessary. Schoenzeit stated he is not in favor of vacating the easement without a new and similar replacement. Thiesse and Landgraver stated they also are in agreement with that. Page 4 of 5 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit moved to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3942, Catherine Sweet, 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, granting of a vacation, with the recommendation that the City Council consider approving relocation of the right-of-way in a similar size as the existing vacation in the manner proposed by the applicant during the June Planning Commission meeting. Landgraver asked what mechanism would be used to notify the neighbors of the possible relocation of the right-of-way. Schoenzeit stated the neighbors would have to be notified of the new option. Thiesse asked whether the applicant would need to start over with a new application. Barnhart stated the question is what would need to occur to acquire the new easement and that Staff would make sure the neighbor is notified. Schoenzeit noted the Planning Commission is not interested in the vacation as presented in the application. Barnhart stated it is not uncommon for an applicant to change their proposal following the Planning Commission meeting and before proceeding to the City Council. Barnhart stated he will verify what the exact process is prior to the application proceeding forward to the City Council. Thiesse noted the City Council could also direct that another public hearing be held at the next Planning Commission meeting. Landgraver seconded. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Page 5 of 5 Date Application Received: March 29, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: March 29, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: July 29, 2017 Original 60 day review period extended To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 19, 2017 Subject: #17-3933, Catherine Sweet, 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, Vacation of street Public Hearing Council Exhibit C 17-3933 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting to vacate the unimproved right of way between 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff does not support the vacation of the right of way. A public hearing is scheduled for June 19, 2017. To be consistent with state statute regarding rights of way adjacent to waters of the state, the public hearing must be continued to July 10, 2017. Background The applicant owns the parcels on either side of the subject right of way, though desires to sell 3407 Crystal Bay Road. The subject right of way was provided to the City in exchange for the 1908 vacation of the right of way on the east side of 3405 Crystal Bay Road. In right of way vacation the property reverts back to the property that provided the rights of way. Often, right of way is provided as part of a plat, and upon vacation, both adjoining parcels receive their half of the right of way. In this situation, since one property (3405) provided the right of way, that property would receive the vacated right of way. Originally, assuming both parcels would receive half of the right of way, 3407 Crystal Bay Road would have lake frontage, perhaps allowing for a dock. The City is historically cautious when considering vacation of roads the lead to the Lake. Once vacated, opportunities for lake access, including trails, are lost, and due in part to the value of lake shore and desire for side yard privacy, nearly impossible to regain. Former Senior Planner Michael Gaffron has provided further background information, provided as Exhibit C. Applicable Regulations: Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and FILE # 17-3933 June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 2 posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. Chapter 412-851 of State statute allows a city to vacate a street if it appears in the best interest of the public to do so. The Planning Commission and City Council must find a public interest or benefit to approve a vacation. Analysis Staff does not support the vacation of the right of way. Lake Minnetonka is a valuable asset to the city of Orono, and a vacation of right of ways that serves to limit the access is not in the best interest in the city. The applicant has not demonstrated public interest in the property can be maintained. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission feel the vacation is appropriate? 2. Are there any other issues identified by the Planning Commission? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Survey Exhibit C. MPG background memo Exhibit D. Notification information Exhibit E. State Statute 412.851 Council Exhibit D 17-3933 Minnesota Department 1200 Warner Road • St MNDNR June 20, 2017 of Natural Resources Paul, MN • 55106 City of Orono Attn: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota 55356 Re: Proposed Vacation of the right of way at 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road Dear Mr. Barnhart, Thank you for seeking input from the Department of Natural Resources regarding the proposed vacation of the right of way adjacent to 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road in Orono. Your letter was forwarded to me to review and provide comments as required by M.S. 412.851. M.S. 412.851 indicates that "No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so." In response, "The commissioner must evaluate: (1) the proposed vacation and the public benefits to do so; (2) the present and potential use of the land for access to public waters, and (3) how the vacation would impact conservation of natural resources." The DNR has reviewed the proposed vacation of Lake Street abutting the public waters of Lake Minnetonka in the city of Orono, and we offer the following comments: Lake Minnetonka is a designated public water of the state of Minnesota providing unparalleled water recreation for the citizens of Minnesota. DNR surveys show Lake Minnetonka is one of Minnesota's most popular bodies of water for boating. Changing recreational trends or increased population could result in a need for additional or improved public access to the lake. It is also important to recognize that public access includes activities like shore fishing, hiking, scenic overlooks, and winter access, in addition to launching and docking boats. Vacating this right of way would reduce public access to adjacent public rights-of-way and reduce potential public access to the lake. Preserving this right-of-way in its current state may protect shoreline and offer natural resource benefits. It is not uncommon in considering road vacations for decision makers to be asked to consider whether other public access is available on the public water body, with the argument being that the area to be vacated is not important in the overall context. But statute does not direct this as a point of consideration. We cannot anticipate what needs may exist for public access or www.hr.state.mn.us 416 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'P -,A PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST -CONSUMER WASTE natural resource conservation in 100 years; however, once this valuable land leaves public ownership it is likely gone forever. There is nothing in the application/letter that stated the reason for the proposed vacation, or how it would be in the public's best interest for this to be vacated. We strongly recommend to the city that other means are selected to work with the applicant. For instance, the vacation may be refused, but the city could grant an easement for the purpose of non-exclusive access through the right-of-way. In summary, the Department of Natural Resources concludes the proposed vacation is not in the public interest and is opposed to it. If you have any questions or concerns about this letter, please contact Nancy Spooner -Mueller, with DNR Parks and Trails Division, at Nancy.spooner-mueller@state.mn.us. You may contact her by phone at 651-259-5874. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed vacation. Sincerely, r✓ , Keith Parker Central Region Director Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Cc: Nancy Spooner -Mueller, Division of Parks and Trails www.hr.state.ma.us 416 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER 'P -,A PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER CONTAINING A MINIMUM OF 10% POST -CONSUMER WASTE Council Exhibit E 17-3933 MEMORANDUM To: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director From; Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Date: April 19, 2017 Subject: Zoning Application #17-3933: Street Vacation Request List of Exhibits A — CMP Table 4A-8 B — 1908 Deed documenting west 20 feet of Lot 19 as for Street Purposes C — 2007 Gronberg Survey of 3405 Crystal Bay Road D — 2007 Driveway Encroachment Agreement, Doc. 99000880 E — 2008 Rip -Rap Encroachment Agreement F — Survey Compilation showing relationship to City -owned lake lots, platted "County Road", and Dakota Trail. G — CMP Excerpt regarding Lake Access Preservation and Management H — Background on 4 City Lots The property owner of 3405 Crystal Bay Road is requesting vacation of the 20' -wide street right- of-way that extends along her west property line from the Dakota Trail to the shore of Lake Minnetonka. The right-of-way in question is Orono Lake Minnetonka Access Point #7 on the list of accesses included in the Orono Community Management Plan, Table 4A-8 (Exhibit A). This right-of-way was created in 1908 via what functionally was an equal trade-off for vacation of a 20' -foot wide street located between Lots 18 and 19, WALLACES ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH (see Exhibit B). The applicant's property since then has been comprised of that vacated right-of-way; a 10' strip of Lot 18 along the east side of that vacated right-of-way; and the portion of Lot 19 excluding the west 20' of Lot 19 (see Exhibit C'). Applicant's driveway exists within the 20' roadway that she is requesting to be vacated. That driveway is subject to an Encroachment Agreement, Doc. No. 9000880 dated April 23, 2007 (see Exhibit D). An additional (possibly unrecorded) Encroachment Agreement was executed by the applicant in August 2008 to allow her to rip -rap the portion of shoreline where the 20' right-of-way abuts the lakeshore (see Exhibit E). The existing 20' right-of-way provides potential public access from the Dakota Trail to Lake Minnetonka, and may also have uses for drainage and other purposes in the future (see Exhibit F). Page 1 of 2 As indicated in the attached excerpts from the Orono Community Management Plan, vacation of public streets that provide access to Lake Minnetonka is to be avoided. This right-of-way has the potential to provide such access, and may have future uses or purposes that are as yet unknown. It would be inappropriate for the City to approve the vacation of this right-of-way (see Exhibit G). You indicated that a possible reason for the vacation would be applicant's desire to result in the property at 3407 Crystal Bay Road gaining lake access via acquisition of all or part of the 20' strip proposed to be vacated. 3407 and the three lots directly west of it do not abut the shore of Lake Minnetonka and are not legitimate lakeshore lots, as the portion of the lakeshore lakeward of platted County Road has been owned by the City since 1934. How to resolve the issue of those 4 off -lake parcels gaining legitimate lake access for docks has been a long-standing issue, reviewed by past Councils on numerous occasions, and is extremely complicated due to a variety of factors (see Exhibit H). A recommendation for denial of the requested vacation would be appropriate. Page 2 of 2 pxg. � v E N m � w z O C C •- - W v 'O .a � v '� " C W cOe m w �' C> cOi 0 Y >• R F Q N N .°G b N A s v °�$ m G •= o d •o c w °' •Oo ,>, •°o d y a ^`� 'c o `o ou a o y c' C N❑ x d N W y C R L C) E C O ��. O = � C O C v N m ,=o 'n 3 >1 E 9 ••L, U L 'C Ir- y C 'v R a$n,� N •°p c- iu. Ev o �Ca E o 4 y N Q O a VC v •L T � v F m E� O id �, U N> m Ld w vd. ac V Nj^i T �d .. R •O l3 ��.r X v ro 'C_" •? 7 m otyowF.. [ G SO � t td iYi � � � Ew a� n' co Emr'�N a ° m �o�f3 R.000Yo� m� to O O m N N 0. N ,eCL w d p G u v d F L Vi Ca ^ . Lei C m 7 •O N ° O Q m > > > " r7 0 Y > > •o v •o •a v N .. v � °c •.>-. � 'c Q A Q Ca a: m � x U Zdo � o 5 AO m Ca s � c4 °o� a: a; d �o OC ~ � O C 0O° ai c R7 ma3 O a O O d .a., V] V1 Pi V] ° N CA CO E b b N y C O 0 pp Z La Z= Z p. Z U U aXi a U O Cd 3c s FL Q* W C c g C y = O 3 y y O B 15 d❑ y .R, C a 6. ro y M 'O w 'O A N 0 U O O p Y '�=aCOFs 80 ro Ox � o 2 c o 00 3 R y y p a E x O L Y y O ro C° L ro ro ro w o R y c. s R a ro c v ro a W.cr,, ro U m m m m av o C C Q Q c Q 'f VI O Uy O D U UtwE s C w O 'O O b W M V V O OCC O O _ U Vl O MU.M-.M+.N+ z z z z z z aA A A A A ro R c o c A a o a x s i .07 T ao 5 ❑ A w p � 0 � v a'o s o ti is � > s � � ai R c72 -. A 3o T m «o «o .� T c;° " o s v E�� 3� v 3 3 w 'cc'o � •� � s � .0 w w .O •2p ro .N C O> iy O O m O O _T W= L •fl '� Q o o Q o m o 5p o °A y tl0 m 'C 'C E o 0 0 0 it L RL O L R L N E (r•/1 �'^ 2 a a c, a •a x R v c v v o ;G v v R = o c a a v � � v moo•°mac � �Ex>z z � �.�ro v vv 3 3 3 3 -M-M a a a M y c G O❑ C E v a OO G 0 b T R o0 z z VJ V] V] V] h V] V1 z z U7 V] � y Q 'y °c W d d > > c Q> A p Q� C C wO R •. $ 3 E vi m 00 00 E FC p E E « e ' N a L a — Y A °: •' ro " � a ° o � y on � aro. 'a 'flC , .°a s Y y°U .� .ro Y Y U � y � •O C y p �p y y tLd � t N � ro .�- ❑ 'y FG N •v d ti' i '° y 'D C N 'a0 0 o G o a s �E= 0 0 oro x L E 3 " t v v v3 v 8 •o to°, �e. •� � 'O •�3 W�� `°' O '�3 L L pro O G O L O L O L cptl G p L •d itl L° b i2 °L b 2 P O L T ro �. ro� y N L � wi Wo � � � � � C: b 0. � 3' N � O ro ro m ro s ro m ro ° ro y ro ro ro c°'aYaov°v.E v o v a v_ y v o f v v_ o .� v_ E •o_ a. 3 "3'a •3 •3 E 3 3 ° 3 � + 3 ^� 3 c �° Co •3 M Mo— C E U 3 itl W �n Y a V b R a v�'i C •0 O o o N O O O O o 0 M N U N M WKi N N M V C vii a N a N o N 0 N N N N N N N N N N d " s c c 5 W 4n d cto M M v v 6 P7 U Q W w C7 .T, U bn P1 m 0 ri co co m CO N LO 6i O z x Q CL E--• t�] z Q] ^i Cs l C> U C1. d' N v O z O O N I N O I Q 0 \k k f <• O Q O � �, 544,,1, � Y • t3t O _ G 1� a• J w• /% ' N is 0 \k k f <• O Q O � �, 544,,1, G r J f' c � Y • t3t O _ G G r J f' c N •4 o -3 ,� o v u a, -� D 3� OS D M O U G d O m G i m C 4 •• . 5 47 N 6mi C + o N m C YS m 'a r C y S f4 .•r m ,p _'" a L +t ' ,i 4 -•� O d N a. ,C L. o• o :.� 47 .:l ti Sra EyF 0 03 lb 96 ma r m T miz .i x m G a N 'b •` P G i .i a u P a ra+ o �` O d g rj.. ' �-- .Or. y V V O r N ha` O C i•. O ~ O G {. •: m F ,C N bg S: A V O •: %I W a- O n 3 �l SL M tl ti H L H x a3 h O F 3 \ V O Y G yW'' 9 d L i• Yom. HR�Nss > w p 4 is O F. .� C �' Sa � o m a-_ L o •o• m � e o m � ti � y �' C H M ® •A N C .. �` m :-! � 4 may' O O O .: -i .�•I r+ o' N m G o v L, R s .+ o U c ,>. .+ r1 v .-• = c K � �_ : � p Fm. _c. m e a _ _-,CC yr o a W d o C 9 @ b O C4O O 0 C N H a0 n a a c F m m 44 �" a• t L' -': N A .� K w C v O o m a C N O V O L m R t'C 41 [7 3 0 a o . tl v r u o .. -w'4 o > .... N =L •� m > m C, b 1� > y 'G F K C G d C, ~ C rto u C. m ri 'J a� M C L, � W t1 L 1� F. G 'F O n J EI L G •J. U c) :� N � � � �' a' ✓ •A ¢ s- � C\ N O 7 L `� ( N _ i C� O tl a O N ^ ' f4 .4 O d v ;•• R. C C V •� .� L N N O 6 O W L :- D O.- C n toL AT O G G O +1 Y S. tl _ W �. O C N m m PS e L. O S• d p a .•� C o v oas '*S m +i K N d t O •n S? Y L 6 y p U al v V• C N m O L O y L. r 4 4 �pO S. l� L O O O F[ .-I Y C 4 '_' 6 ? O m 0--- C S' h• .-1 H 7 C L• .+ w C+ • T- p: O d9. •y F W p F � '• �`'- aa O C •r1 :; C1 O O fy z m u k FL 92 it a . ujr e) w ti g m 60 .) _ [: "yy 4 ^ :7 S• t) N .7 O y .•i O N y Y.[ c a Fi M r+ W a ti O O_-ji L• -,�+ u j m •d -- - �S O ^.. >; N _h _ O C m: LL Ca +/ G7 i rl +a4 O u 'o Ri d a "J O'''i • a r+ c d C [^ m c m r u m N y L r.--cr1.-- T µ o X m C o m -! O N' �' a > G V ti O w L• .Fa a S .dC G o 0 D 0 v a. 2 (r N 1: P. 4 e p 44 H _T.' r -- -_'�(�;`a=�: _:�.-:bra �_ ;•mss: •"--`. v� - -_ _ _ -. _-, _ .-- _ - � - - - -- _ %_�' _^- `F;..`-_ _ - _ - "- _ - -_ _��� 6 ..fl..rca�.s. - _ _ _ - - - ._:�.-� :?s �� r _. .. __ - .aa �. _ _ - _ _ _ __ - • - --r•`_ _ - - p•>=� .,sir 66 Ia C1, e{ �.. � .a C. Y v 9 N �• T F C at � _ �_ _� '-:' r•="-.0-;• � _ �r•_�E p G .! C t -. •�+ v y w L'c t. .i o O R C F E P -• Lc r .• N t O .a a, e V>_4 9 m F• - L VS l ck O AOO M lb --s ;- _ v S C. r A •] .yi u -f•'{'. 1 J _ O � � L O b � o N �jo O n A �' 'G a_•_ �>c �=- k ' m 2 ' u � '�J� I Ll =ai s V a C +°k - a = _ c ✓ m o .'ki R m 14 j it A M a z- •'� Li 14 OD CL) -'_It y 6 L L : R r • . = •. h V a ,p O q R V N l7 N S .o -: co ; y$ c C d m N y n y p j t+ G� M L •�i ..V• F O O- ri'.. --Si2 w_ 'e` M - =- a a V 3 c +t+ •�. ' J s ^`�� i� m eo.. c ' n e an+ , N 3 - m.. �M: co e,wi z a J ; L 4 7 N ~ .. ? j J . e-• 7 F 3' a .i n C Y ti r. m R o 7 m. >� a__ •-=.:45 Fi k Ptz v o - n ! :± z a a c a a $ p,=' O - E• u csS _ .� Y •_ r "' •' _ _ F S a 3'i s o N " .■ q -'-,�i ;] r � b s O- 4 4 -' fy[• r La(i� i A C o v l •+ t� _ o .. 9 -. ! /. M T! ' ct: �C - .� { U OC .•• A 9 •. Q: r L � T � r. Sj n O � w F a a• C F s t � � Q16 41 0 i; C V a- 4 v'S - - c _ H O G is .] J J p O t• C Tk N r c h •] ' •.•� •u n s _ w V a� .G 1, G m M w". �.: 's`- i� � N r 9 .= u e c 3 '� e w v � .a+ � � c_ :� r o,. v a a � e � � "�•;=, O`a C S• K ® O •,^� 1. > C1 L 'S - �? v V i'w C• O N f; • O L•7 C ''• � .•f v .r ..: � 3 r � r ., .moi. •� � •' 1 - c :. .� V .0 t � O o G ;.. V G S � U ti = C � a P C r e ti 2 •.� < F d •a O m IJ ,G,• •C J 7! 1� � � V 4 C L a {� V V +< O i--' I• N [ II �. �. �` _. C c ^ T L L ry C O y O y O A N O 4` ! C i' C ^ -• w ( • � ^� 4 A. O Z - o N C J O R i •ri ,� 0. K A >. r � ' =,y � •. e v i.: a v � .-. .+ u G h 1-i r H .1 4 a. N r+ o > � C 6 o {• b a .G � a _ r � � Sy� ti + Y O i. o � a.. • E' e y R �_ y.- . N •'K m N N n o s. Y L .-+ 6 i= V h p H Yw ✓ Vo < O 7 !+ o o A O a S-i�N� dF •+ a` .-• i« v� . e Y m c v ppp h c L c w : g a v a ai o v V a o _y: o=_, v k='- [ -L] - `IF H p •i L fc L: O `• Z _ __ _ O O C 3 ^ L- a A 0. L •] K O , - r� < e °1 xe• _ a c ... L v �. � o e • •='vim s9 _ z q o Q fi S V N C o c 7 0. c t G iNp. O i .'+ c U- ! 6 u L -, 3� �• C V y C -, � , S p C n C' ¢ +� 7~^ v o -.+ n o O o 9 t C`�: _ 4F N t l _ =_ ivi L is F[ O - !i N ( N II • 5 m O `<• ff �� r V L,g V e CL- Q5� .+ � G r O m 4 d •• 7 O V Q T' r .y F M eoe o O 4 M 6• - i6i O 0 �i �o m c o h n ^• m N a o e C o s N v i m c +. o v ■ R c' N si > .- v C a `` .'bi T m s a• a O C as V .Im F e _ _ �• v m u �f ? C e a s e F e r I I T S 07°201 55" E 194.50 . TOCK S„ 161.50 5�O��PPVER\ CONC WALL 570NE `HAIL a _ - MOR7ARE`���-�� .7 4.1 m \ ---_— ---=— n O 42.2 o a � 0 n0 L12m arca-� i m �❑ wo rc LJ/ ZVI YN W d W U 0 O 1 z n. Z o: C rc wz a -H1- 1 m L11: go f1 69 inN is po p p p pp p p p ppo OW OOF oo...0 p .. op.a. F. P. o0a 3405 N 24.0 'fid e 16.0 a I Oe de N Ow6 rc �6 J pw1 o -.�. �o a �mF m otic of q\ n. m OOw O Q 'C 24.0 Doe OF: \,�. \ 112.00 ' 104.49 -�"" OP D IVENAY N 01°42'Ji-< 215. STP i E __ PET CO BLACKT TO BE REMOVED........ CONSTRUCT SWALE — IN AREA REMOVAL F BLACk TOP l�J v L_ N 6 C Q - U'= L� Ul GO oz O w U) Cc cn O _ f nJ - 8 V -C U 0n X (1)L � + U C lqz- \ /I N - / !1 ' I_- C) (D O C a O �- � a J a Q 3 o + E� N a O L I I T S 07°201 55" E 194.50 . TOCK S„ 161.50 5�O��PPVER\ CONC WALL 570NE `HAIL a _ - MOR7ARE`���-�� .7 4.1 m \ ---_— ---=— n O 42.2 o a � 0 n0 L12m arca-� i m �❑ wo rc LJ/ ZVI YN W d W U 0 O 1 z n. Z o: C rc wz a -H1- 1 m L11: go f1 69 inN is po p p p pp p p p ppo OW OOF oo...0 p .. op.a. F. P. o0a 3405 N 24.0 'fid e 16.0 a I Oe de N Ow6 rc �6 J pw1 o -.�. �o a �mF m otic of q\ n. m OOw O Q 'C 24.0 Doe OF: \,�. \ 112.00 ' 104.49 -�"" OP D IVENAY N 01°42'Ji-< 215. STP i E __ PET CO BLACKT TO BE REMOVED........ CONSTRUCT SWALE — IN AREA REMOVAL F BLACk TOP L �o T — _ > N > > JU a U) � C: O O O \ O o \ E — C � 0+ L O N 0 O v U O,C: L L � C: N N O O U L i O d J 0+- 0yo- oO0In O�J^ Q N Q O] 30 aaw q'g< 1Ozo� �o 3d >~ oNa i`o W. pu' a rc U) U) U) U) U) >Z of C) p^W Sopa �mi�' Nop Q N N N N N OZ msa Emil ~ +O- +O+ 0 +O a€ow n. 2 + p - W Z 0 0 !-� y -ON -NO -ON N N O -D 1 -SW U H a��b 31v4 z'm�7a rpo zm Y C) aFN mea €<�p -= O .. .. .. .. m 1 ow O 0 $( V1F+Ono ao -w wn €�€m V v L_ N 6 C Q - U'= L� Ul GO O w U) Cc cn _ QOQ� N V -C U X (1)L � + U C O N - -0 z I_- C) (D O C a � � a a Q 3 > + E� N a O L O Y C U C U cn W L O c: J c O - J Q w � L � Q o Q� w J — C Q O 0 C L �o T — _ > N > > JU a U) � C: O O O \ O o \ E — C � 0+ L O N 0 O v U O,C: L L � C: N N O O U L i O d J 0+- 0yo- oO0In O�J^ Q N Q O] 30 aaw q'g< 1Ozo� �o 3d >~ oNa i`o W. pu' a rc U) U) U) U) U) >Z of C) p^W Sopa �mi�' Nop Q N N N N N OZ msa Emil ~ +O- +O+ 0 +O a€ow n. 2 + p - W Z 0 0 !-� y -ON -NO -ON N N O -D 1 -SW U H a��b 31v4 z'm�7a rpo zm Y C) aFN mea €<�p -= O .. .. .. .. m 1 ow O 0 $( V1F+Ono ao -w wn €�€m ING�IGIINIIIY�Nn���W Doc No 9000880 06/28/2007 12:50 PM Certified filed and or recorded on above date: Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Michael H. Cunniff, County Recorder TranslD 324091 W5 CfOJ 4$ Deputy 65 Fees $35.50 DOC $10.50 SUR $46.00 Total &xq I I> >91Yt-WiNg O'r<Ik0AC lKAk*UT AlsoerWI)vmor TPtJ,"gc1--R ENTERED HENra w'» rviYTMFAMKNOW JUN 9 e 2007 ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 23rd day of April 2007, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and CATHERINE L. SWEET, a single person ("Landowner"). RECITALS A. Landowner is the fee owner of certain real property located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, having a street address of 3405 Crystal Bay Road, Wayzata, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" ("subject property"). B. The subject property is adjacent to a 20 foot wide unimproved street right-of-way owned by the City and legally described on the attached Exhibit "B" (right-of-way area). C. There is an existing paved private driveway on the subject property which encroaches into the City's right-of-way area. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: The City hereby approves the encroachment of the existing paved private driveway into its right-of-way area subject to the following: 13106102 SRN:r04/23/2007 1 (Abstract Property) 14 • The existing private driveway in the right-of-way area must be aiter6 er tl survey attached hereto as Exhibit "C". 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City's rights to the right-of-way area. 3. The Landowner shall be responsible for all costs relating to maintenance and repair, including snow removal, with respect to the existing private driveway. This maintenance agreement is a personal obligation of the Landowner and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Landowner. 4. The Landowner, her heirs, assigns, and successors in interest, does hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability, including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to the Landowner of permission to encroach in the City's right-of-way area for the maintenance, use, operation, and the like of the existing private driveway. The Landowner further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage caused to the subject property, including the existing private driveway, caused in whole or part by the encroachment into the City's right-of-way area. 5. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the then current owner of the subject property a minimum of thirty (30) days advance written notice. The property owner shall remove the existing private driveway by the effective date of the tennination of this Agreement. If the owner fails to do so the City may remove the existing private driveway and assess the cost against the subject property. 6. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event any of the following occur: • Voluntary removal of the house. • Involuntary removal of the house and no permit for reconstruction issued within six (6) months. 131061 v02 2 (Abstract Property) SRN:r04/23/2007 P rty) Relocation of the existing private driveway out of the right-of-way are . Reconstruction of the existing private driveway. Removal of the raised planting bed noted on the attached Exhibit "C". This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to the subject property. CITY OF ORONO BY.*te (SEAL) Mayor AND Linda S. Vee, City Clerk 7LE OWNER: L. ET STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) s�The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this1 day of J (7 ^ 4 2007, by Jim White, the Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. l!lJf /l.Illllllll!lllll ✓✓Illll lllllllll !!lll./. 13106102 SRN:r04/23/2007 o'-�- Ke_ (- i)C)CC� NOTARY PUBLIC (Abstract Property) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) � (ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of K l , 2007, by Linda S. Vee, the City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corp on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. IJJ.I/! l'✓//' ll fII!lJJIJIIIJ� E", I � w ��■ NOTARY STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF er)% in ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this `fes y da of mcm� , 2007, by CATHERINE L. SWEET, a single person. lJIIJ✓JJIIIJJIIJJIIJJJII _/IIJ .+!/JrIIJJJI./lIIJJJIrJIIJ11 THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 SRN:ms NOTARY PUBLIC 131061 v02 4 (Abstract Property) SRN:r04/23/2007 EXHIBIT "A" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Subiect Property Owned by Catherine L Sweet All of Lot 19 save and excepting West 20 feet of said Lot 19, and running ing from the North to South line of said Lot 19 heretofore taken for street purposes. Also a strip of land 20 feet wide formerly lying between Lots 18 and 19 and used for street purposes which said street has been vacated and said strip of land has by Decree of District Court, Hennepin County, declared to be part of said Lot 19. Also a part of Lot 18 beginning at the Northwest comer of said Lot 18, thence easterly 10 feet, thence South to rear line of said Lot 18, thence West 10 feet to Southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence North to point of beginning. All in Wallace's Addition To the Village of Minnetonka Beach, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of Deeds within and for said Hennepin County, Minnesota. 13106102 SRN:r04/23/2007 5 (Abstract Property) RN:r/2 k pw, EXI MITT `B" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Unimproved Street Right -of -Way Area Owned by the Street Right -of -Way Area Owned by the Cid The West 20 feet of Lot 19, WALLACE'S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 4 SRN:r04/23/2007 6 (Abstract Property) RN:r EXHIBIT "C" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Survey of Subject Property Owned by Catherine L Sweet LAKE MINNETONKA BAY KUB+" I $ Y . 1 CRYSTAL I G ' ruw OeP Duzn 1 m 1 1 STONE ST 1 n l O a STONE9� 1 m0 1 O b >s• SA nC Vff NOTE: EXISTING BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY TO RE 1 £ °Ln WEST OF THE HOUSE IN PUBLIC STREETI rmnl 1 1 = 1385+- SOFT. 1' O PROPOSED BLACKTOP DRIVEWAY N PUBLIC I 1 .r5 '' 00 STREET AFTER REDUCING TO 5' WIDTH�_ N 836+- SOFT. I mol Z HP-: PPRa 1 O 1 KooP P 1 R IR1 INi Y m 05 ly , I 1 � s � un wwiz o i �rc Pa 1 to 0 , EXISTINGI H 1 HOUSE 11 II ,951 >oa OSEDi p maa 1 11 >GARA ihP .... �•. .... AIVMF /'�� 1 ..SPIKE 98.p2 O �� - IR= 402 SRN:r Abstract Property) RN:r04/23/2007 � P rtY) (rese—dfor recording information) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this 25-4-` day of &UST , 2008, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City"), and Catherine L. Sweet, a single person ("Landowner") RECITALS A. Landowner is the fee owner of certain real properties located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, having street addresses of 3405 and 3407 Crystal Bay Road, Orono, Minnesota and legally described on the attached Exhibit "A" ("Subject Properties"). B. The Subject Properties abut a street right-of-way easement owned by the City ("Right of -Way Area") legally described as: The west 20 feet of Lot 19, Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota. C. The Subject Properties are in the vicinity of additional property owned by the City ("Lakeshore Parcel") legally described as: That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "Wiley's Park" Lake Minnetonka, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying northerly of a roadway as labeled on said plat as "Old Road". 138587 1 of 6 D. Landowner desires to install riprap along the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, located within the Right -of -Way Area and within the Lakeshore Parcel. NOW, THEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION OF THEIR MUTUAL COVENANTS THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City hereby approves the encroachment of riprap into the Right -of -Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel subject to the following: • The riprap must be installed in the Right -of -Way Area and within the Lakeshore Parcel per the survey compilation attached hereto as Exhibit `B." 2. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver or abandonment of the City's rights to the Right -of -Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel. 3. The Landowner shall be responsible for all costs relating to installation, maintenance and repair of the riprap. This maintenance agreement is a personal obligation of the Landowner and shall be binding upon the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the Landowner. 4. The Landowner, her heirs, assigns, and successors in interest, does hereby agree to defend, indemnify, and hold the City harmless from all costs and expenses, claims and liability, including attorney's fees, relating to or arising out of the grant to the Landowner of permission to encroach in the Right -of -Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel for the maintenance, use, operation, and the like of the riprap. The Landowner further agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage caused to the subject property caused in whole or part by the encroachment into the Right -of - Way Area and the Lakeshore Parcel. 5. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time by giving the then current owner(s) of the subject properties a minimum of thirty (30) days advance written notice. The property owner shall remove the riprap by the effective date of the termination of this Agreement 2 without payment. If the owner fails to do so, the City may remove the riprap and assess the cost against the subject property. 6. This Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event any of the following occur: Voluntary removal of the riprap. Involuntary removal of the riprap. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to the subject properties. CITY OF ORONO BY: 4o�aa4*10-� 7y1. &J (SEAL) es White, Mayor STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) m Linda S. Vee, City Clerk PROPERTY , ;—Catherme L. Sw The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this -06WI day of LL + , 2008, by James White, the Mayor of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporal n, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. 4P�4k a. NOTARY PJIJBLIC ERaE:7 OTA..2010 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by Linda S. Vee, the City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss. COUNTY OF ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of 2008, by Catherine L. Sweet, a single person. NOTARY PUBLIC THIS INSTRUMENT DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNi JTSON Professional Association 1380 Corporate Center Curve, Suite #317 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (612) 452-5000 CRK 2 EXHIBIT "A" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Subiect Properties Owned by Catherine L Sweet Legal description for 3405 Crystal Bay Road (PINS #17-117-23 44 0022): All of Lot 19 and excepting the West 20 feet of said Lot 19, and running from the North to the South line of said Lot 19 heretofore taken for street purposes. Also a strip of land 20 feet wide formerly lying between Lots 18 and 19 and used for street purposes which said street has been vacated and said strip of land has by Decree of District Court, Hennepin County, declared to be part of said Lot 19. Also a part of Lot 18 beginning at the Northwest corner of said Lot 18, thence easterly 10 feet, thence South to the rear line of said Lot 18, thence West 10 feet to Southwest corner of said Lot 18, thence North to point of beginning. All in WALLACES ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH, according to the plat thereof on file and of record in the office of the Register of deeds within and for said County. Legal description for 3407 Crystal Bay Road (PINS #17-117-23 43 0116)• That part of Lot 1, Block 1, "Wiley's Park" Lake Minnetonka, a plat that is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying southerly of a roadway as labeled on said plat as "Old Road". 5 Lakeshore Parcel EXHIBIT "B" TO ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT Survey Compilation Depicting Areas of Encroachment Area of allowed rip -rap encroachment R , %o; Av RE s Locoted 04/05/2 6 /Edge of Water n of PARK 1 2 3P'1"f-,t alld E.i3b" L' -, 1 mdeet l f Lot ,ia keg of b 0.S r f of tD P M y Y � r aV ry CRYSTAL BNN TONKA (LAKE MINNETC eaa• ccM o, fence CRYSTAL BAY E; I (y� A Ivl � Z O L' -, 1 mdeet l f Lot . South Rightof figlo of Woy os H Y - ^ l.Q � N -Proposed garage HOUSE 11 1 iL Exi si'in9, � a house a r t_ n <M �Y I%q % ®RN i '.. t IB.1' o, fence CRYSTAL BAY E; I (y� A Ivl � Z O Al 8 T L-Xa e H � - EXISTING I HOUSE 11 A 7.oU rl % ®RN i '.. Al 8 T L-Xa e CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan kFX R . 6 roads to serve new residential developments of 3 or more units; by limiting the number of curb cuts per residence; by prohibiting direct access to principal arterials; and by a number of other regulations involving the location, type and number of access points to the arterial roadway system. It is the City's policy that new direct access to arterials is to be minimized to the greatest extent possible. However, many of southern Orono's arterials near the Lake Minnetonka shoreline have historically served a dual function as both arterials and as local/collector streets, due to geographic and topographic limitations. Minimization or consolidation of existing driveway and local street access points along these unique roadways is a complex matter which will often require the cooperation of multiple property owners. The City will encourage the use of shared driveways along existing developed arterials wherever feasible. Further, the City will continue to investigate the feasibility of closing existing direct local street access points to principal and minor arterials where suitable alternative access points may be established. LAKE ACCESS PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT With more than 40 miles of Lake Minnetonka shoreline and nearly 5 miles of additional lake shorelines, Orono's lakes provide a significant recreational resource for all Orono residents, not just for those who own property abutting the lakes. This value was long ago realized by the City fathers, as well as by early land developers. In order to provide lake access for the general public, as well as to provide for fire department access to the lake as a water source, a number of lake access con•idors were created as the shoreland developed. These typically are platted, dedicated right-of-ways leading from the local road system to the shoreline, and are commonly from 16' to 66' in width. The historic level of use of these right-of-ways (sometimes referred to as "fire lanes" or "lake access roads") ranges from minimal to year-round. Certain of these corridors have been maintained by the City for local swimming beaches or as winter snowmobile and ice -fishing accesses. Certain accesses are provided with docks for fishing, and some have ramp areas suitable for launching a small boat. However, most do not have designated parking available, and are primarily intended to serve the neighborhood rather than the general public. A number of these access corridors have steep topography and experience a relatively low level of usage. The value of these corridors to the general public both now and in the future is too great to be measured. While an access corridor or fire lane may appear to an adjacent landowner as abandoned, there may well be a future public need for that corridor that may not be obvious today. The Minnesota Supreme Court in 1944 (Application of Baldwin, et al No. 33721 for vacation of a platted dedicated lake access road) upheld the value of retaining the public's right to access the lake. In an excerpt from the findings of the Court: City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 4A-31 CMP Part 4A. Transportation Plan This court requires no proof that Lake Minnetonka is a priceless heritage of the people ofMinnesota, to bepreserved and passed onto posterity. Judicial notice will betaken of the fact that it is one of the most precious jewels in the string of Ten Thousand Lakes of which Minnesota is so justly proud.. Because of its wide expanse and proximity to our metropolitan areas, it is much frequented and used for boating, fishing, picnicking and bathing - perhaps more than any other lake in the state. Its shore line of nearly 100 miles is dotted with permanent homes and summer cottages, not only at its waters edge, but extending jar back from the shore. But the use of the lake is not confined to dwellers on its shore or nearby. During the summer season especially, it is the mecca for thousands upon thousands of urbanites, not sofortunate as to possess a lake home, who -young and old alike -seek its shores and watersfor diverse recreational purposes. To those who do not indulge inactive recreation, it affords the opportunity of communing with nature at its best. With the increase in thepermanent lakepopulation, however, the extent oflakeshore available to the public generally and the means of public access to the lake have diminished and therefore become increasingly valuable from year to year... we must not forget that the public includes persons other than those in the immediate vicinity. The general public has a true concern in the recreational facilities offered by the lakes which nature has so freely given us in this state. Theirgenerous sharing by all will makefor a healthier and happier people. The many not fortunate enough to be able to acquire the advantages of ownership of lake shore properties should not be deprived of these benefits. This we would do if we permitted streets leading to the Lakeshore to be vacated.. The loss to the public of 150 feet of shoreline out of a total of approximately 100 miles may to the Baldwins seem inconsequential or even infinitesimal and nothing to be disturbed about. But, of this 100 miles ofprecious shoreline, only a small fraction has been reserved for the public; and if the courts should create a precedent by permitting a single inroad, however small, upon thepublic k share of the shoreline, other inroads will inevitably follow, until the aggregate becomes areal threat to the public t free access to the lake. To avoid any possibility of such a result, the courts should with equal vigor repulse the first, the second, and every other assault upon the public domain. ' Less than 1% of Orono's lake shoreline has been dedicated as public access corridors. Nearly all the rest is privately owned, and not available to the public for lake access purposes, save for the DNR Maxwell Bay Access, Hennepin County's North Arm Access and the City's Summit Park on Long Lake. Hennepin County's Noerenberg Gardens Memorial Park, while abutting Lake Minnetonka, has deed restrictions that disallow use for docking or launching boats. With shoreland abutting a dozen separate bays in Lake Minnetonka, Orono has a commitment to maintaining access via the dedicated access corridors. Orono's lake accesses are enumerated in Table 4A-8. Lake Access Policies It is the City's intent to permanently retain for public use all existing lake access corridors and fire lanes, regardless of the current level of use or maintenance. To this end, the City will follow these policies: Requests for vacation of dedicated lake access right-of-ways will be denied in all cases except where equal or better lake access will be granted nearby in return. 2. The City will identify and take necessary action to preserve the public's right to use of any such accesses which exist but which may not have been formally dedicated. 3. The City will endeavor to work with property owners adjacent to lake access corridors to ensure that both the rights of the public and the rights of the private landowner are upheld. City of Orono Community Management Plan 2008-2030 Page 4A-32 Summary of Background Information Provided to City Council: 6%. Iq Crystal Bay Road City Lots The City of Orono owns four lakeshore parcels across from residential properties at 3407, 3415, 3435 and 3445 Crystal Bay Road. These parcels were quit -claim deeded to the City in the mid - 1930s. They are subject to deeded "bathing and boating" rights dating back to 1911 for as many as 150 residential lots in the Navarre area (including the four opposite lots), only a few of which have exercised that right. Staff regularly receives questions from realtors, sellers or potential buyers asking what this means and whether their off -lake properties have the right to have a dock. The City's position is that they do not, for a variety of reasons - primarily that a dock is an accessory structure not allowed without a principal structure. It is unknown how many of these 150 can actually claim "bathing and boating rights" pursuant to the Marketable Title Act. The City Council in 2006 had the Lots surveyed and authorized the City Attorney to commence a Torrens action, with an expectation that Hennepin County would do the extensive title work needed to determine what properties had formalized and retained their legal interest in the parcels. In 2008 it was learned that the County would not do that title work and that it would cost the City $25-30,000 to have it completed. Council chose not to proceed. An additional factor is that the four privately owned residence lots directly across Crystal Bay Road have in the past had docks extending from the City parcels. The City has never formally advised the owners of three of the four to remove their docks from the City property; the fourth, 3445 Crystal Bay Road, was the subject of a principal structure tear-down/rebuild variance a few years ago. That variance approval resolution states that the residence property does not include the lakeshore and does not enjoy riparian rights. The other three continue to have docks. In October 2008 (and again in March 2010 and again in August 2010) Karen Elshazly of 3415 Crystal Bay Road asked for a resolution to this issue because she is having difficulty selling her property without established dock rights. In March 2009, Jon Eiss of 3445 Crystal Bay Road requested that he be allowed to have a dock and was turned down by the Council but the Council did offer to look further into the matter of these lots. See Council minutes of 3-9-09 and 4-14- 09. At its April 14, 2009 work session Council was presented with a variety of options to consider for dealing with these lots, including doing nothing; requiring removal of the docks; selling to the opposite landowners; leasing the lots individually or as a group to the four opposite owners; develop the site for rental City dock space; or acquire the nearby properties for park or stormwater management purposes. The Council indicated their preference would be to have staff discuss with the City Attorney the pros and cons of selling the parcels. There was no movement on this issue during the remainder of 2009. In a letter dated March 31, 2010 Karen Elshazly indicated to staff she would be satisfied with an easement granting permanent dock rights rather than full ownership of the lakeshore parcel across from her home. Her follow-up letter of August 23, 2010 suggested that sale of the properties to each opposite homeowner would be the least desirable option unless they can be sold at a nominal price. In reviewing the various hypothetical options prior to the September 2011 Work Session, the City Attorney indicated that granting an easement over City property was not a viable option, Page 1 of 2 and the various scenarios for leasing suggested that the lessees would expect to enjoy some exclusivity of use which the City could not guarantee, or would likely result in ongoing management issues for the City. The three remaining options (sell, do nothing, or require dock removal) each had plusses and minuses: Sale of the City lots to the opposite owners would give them ownership of the lakeshore, but the initial transaction is necessarily quite involved due to the need for a subdivision/re-plat to guarantee the public's use of the traveled roadway (see the survey attached, which indicates the traveled roadway is partly within dedicated right-of-way and partly within the 4 lakeshore parcels). An appraisal to establish land value would be needed. Also, the City would have to transfer the lots via quit -claim deed, as that is how the City acquired them, and therefore all the potential off-site "bathing and boating rights" become the problem of the new owners. Doing nothing does not resolve the issue for property owners who are having difficulty selling their properties without a definite conclusion to this issue, but requires no further City action. Requiring dock removal potentially reduces the value of these four homes without providing a clear benefit to the public, given the nature and relative difficulty of public use of these parcels even if docks were removed (lack of parking, proximity to traveled road, etc.) Staff recommended that if the sale option was pursued, it would be appropriate to vacate portions of the unused 66 -foot right-of-way and dedicate portions of the City lots for future roadway, as the existing traveled road is not fully within its dedicated corridor. The following process would be necessary: 1. Prepare initial subdivision/vacation sketch 2. Formulate necessary easements/covenants to retain 3. Discuss concept with opposite owners 4. Establish value and price (appraisal) 5. If buy -in from opposite owners, hold a public hearing 6. Proceed with subdivision/vacation/dedication via standard City approval processes The above is a summary of the information provided to the Council for the September 12, 2011 Work Session at which the Council directed staff to take no further action on this issue. Page 2 of 2 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 14 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: #17-3944 Westwood Professional Services o/b/o Ugorets 8098 LLC, 2520 Shadywood Road, Rezoning and Master Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a rezoning and master plan for a proposed 40 unit condominium building on 3.11 acres at 2520 Shadywood Road. 2. 15.99 Deadline July 17, 2017 3. Background/ Summary. The property owner is requesting rezoning and master plan approval for proposed 40 unit condominium building on 3.11 acres generally south of the Freshwater Business Center. The building is proposed to be about 48 feet high, 4 stories plus a penthouse and developed as an RPUD (Residential Planned Unit Development). The Council may recall reviewing this project as a sketch plan in March. At that time, the project was a 49 unit apartment building. The Council had noted concerns with the height of the building. In preparation for a new submittal, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting in April, and the results of that meeting are included in Exhibit A. The number of units, density, and type of project have changed from the original submittal. The building height has not changed. There are two other buildings in town higher than 30 feet defined height, Stonebay Condominiums and Orono Woods, both multi -family buildings. In the review of those projects, the Council concluded that a three story multifamily building is difficult to achieve in less than 30 feet, due to building codes. This would appear to support 3 levels, but not a fourth. The proposed use of the property is consistent with the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. The attached PC report outlines the project in greater detail, including the waivers necessary, which are summarized in the following table: Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: D51Z RPUD District Minimum Proposed Flexibility SFR Standard Lot Standards Required? Minimum project size: 5 acres 2.63 acres Yes Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 2.63 acres No Minimum distance from OHW 250' +1000 feet No Minimum front building setback: 50 feet 35 feet Yes Density: Developments with proposed Proposed on B-4 No density in excess of the densities contemplated by the comprehensive plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use. Minimum side yard setback: 35 feet 37 feet No Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40' or Lesser of 40' or 20% of lot depth (30 feet) 20% of lot depth No Maximum FAR: 1.0 unknown TBD Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: D51Z AGENDA ITEM Wetland building setback: 85 feet 75 feet, to be verified TBD Private Recreational Area: 10% of gross project area 0% proposed Yes Building height: Maximum of 30 feet Between 36 and 48'8", to be Yes verified Building Roof Flat roofs prohibited Flat roof Yes Hardcover 50% 36.1% No Due to the "big picture" nature of the RPUD zoning district, waivers from the RPUD requirements are common. The Council should determine if the waivers requested are appropriate for the given project and site. 4. Planning Commission vote and comment. The Planning Commission, after the public hearing on June 19, 2017, recommended denial of the project with a vote of 6-0. Their primary concerns were height, and its impact on the neighborhood. Commissioners, responding to concerns with density and traffic, commented that the traffic levels are beyond the control of the city, and that the proposed traffic demand is actually less than many other likely uses. They also commented on the need for density in the city and cautioned against `kicking the can down the road." Their vote "no" was in part a response to the applicant's request to provide a recommendation to the City Council immediately, staff had recommended tabling. 5. Public Comment. There has been substantial public comment in the form of an online petition and individual comments attached as Exhibits G and H, respectively. Primary concerns have centered on traffic in an already congested area, size of the building, impacts to wetlands and wildlife, and the use of the property. Public comments at the meeting included concern that the waivers requested would harm the character of the neighborhood and the community at large. 6. Staff Recommendation. It is recognized that any development will increase traffic in the area. It is also recognized that any development will address the wetland protection ordinances in place. The proposed density, assuming a reduction in units to achieve Council's height goals, would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, as does the multifamily use of the property. Staff recommends approval of the project, subject to direction as to the height of the building. The Council should provide direction as to a response to the waivers listed, including what they feel is an appropriate height, and direct staff to prepare the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to prepare a resolution approving, modifying, or denying the proposed project. Exhibits Exhibit A. Plans Exhibit B. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit C. PC Staff Report Exhibit D. Traffic comparison Exhibit E. Applicant's Traffic analysis Exhibit F. Applicant's narrative Exhibit G. Resident petition Exhibit H. Resident comments Exhibit I. Council minutes, March 13, 2017 Exhibit J. RPUD standards Exhibit K. Staff comment letter Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W APPENDIX LIST Al A2 A3 A4 131 B2 B3 B4 C. D. E. F. G. H1 H2 H3 H4 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. J. PROPOSED SITE PLAN BUILDING RENDERINGS BUILDING DIMENSIONS BUILDING SECTION NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY NEIGHBOR LETTER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING COMMENT CARDS NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INVITATION LIST CONTEXT MAP SHERMAN SECION-ELEVATION LUNDQUIST SECTION -ELEVATION CODUTE SECTION -ELEVATION PERSPECTIVE ORONO WOODS FRONT ENTRANCE ORONO WOODS REAR ORONO WOODS GARAGE ENTRANCE ORONO WOODS DISTANCES TO HOMES STONE BAY CONDOS FRONT ENTRNACE STONE BAY CONDOS GARAGE ENTRANCE 1 STONE BAY CONDOS GARAGE ENTRANCE 2 STONE BAY CONDOS WETLAND VIEW STONE BAY CONDOS NEARBY RESIDENT STONE BAY CONDOS DISTANCES TO HOMES TRAFFIC REVIEW Council Exhibit A 17-3944 -,I r p- '4 q •4 , i 110000' 1-0001, 10 1000, 4, . ,A 1 \ � #•41a Y 1' K r'4 tt �_ ♦ - r "1 •�-�..5 •�j f �C' � .� ' 1 t� ' �- _'i. •'.� _ - Y •+�`.-� - .t •1 •'.�.w�eJ!!r,F*vr . 1;� • • * '1.-� �` L a{' 3•r' `;� ,�+��``a �, r, '' � . J �,_ ' 'F y * t S. � "�'a'v:-.1 �`�y'��.K` �� �,rd�" ''� �^ . ` f., x h�; � ._• `,< '..y� �'r: t �- _. _ -s-yti .:r 4.� _ar 4., �l� ',�-�i�feY�Sr x .- ., hFL -a�/ --.. . - :V;; : �.�• ._ . _. _ _�� ew i k � - -,i i � . 1 - � ♦Z t Y i �. r .t •s l f. y p '�s 1 t � Y= r '• F v d is , + 047 r Ax l 4.1ir }-rr�•j1N 14 IF ra_ A 4. _ r ti T '`• / ro �. - _ - �` -F _ •� _ '�. -. *• � _ _ eT ,R•�.a r.d.. .-�. � • ��� t. A fi,.�..•S a, 1Ms .y � f �� 1 �,9 ._ - -;^1- � p: ''� . t-� l,..: ' � `,� _ ✓"�-r1 �,7�,t1' �i k' ~{, i `��� .,R '.'6 1�� ,�� ."x,++'1 OWMIZOR Av 11001, 000000 Ln W. - - ll" � - ^`t-, `'► _• i •y°, � F 1 ��� �' Atia�L F 1 . p � ! '�Y{ ,7 • �rKT'..- r-. _ - �. * ., s!N: r it R ,. +r• 7A Y a y e .•. 4 , N.40' .� f J z r- CiCE1 ' - \ ♦ '9 W s L a w Ak a n 1 q ' � '-�:. y _ ,�.�. � / � O ♦ `� , � > o �, III CONCEPT DATA 1 /4,^ Proposed Property Area: 3.16 ac Existing Wetlands (to remain): 0.60 ac �,, - r / �` \ ♦ ~`, y ,'; Net Developable Area. 2.56 ac Proposed Units: 40 units /� ♦ , X1 Overall Gross Density: 12.66 un/ac 40 units/3.16 acres:,,, \ /' Overall Net Density: 15.63 un/ac 40 units 2.56 acres x, Y - + o Westwood Multi -Disciplined Surveying & Engineering westwoodps.com w Mk 'MAS . meo WILKUS ARCHITECTS a AL 4p RON [MI N n -I%-- 4P I%, nnn [.. W�IflINA t -- .41 h -A 4P FRESHWATER APARTMENTS UGORETS 2520 SHADYWO4D ROAD, ORONO, MN 55331 8098 LLC A1.0 SITE PLAN 2017-01-12 .t � � V is �►limits■r AV no in ■° n ,d m■■ ni w Fff w Mk 'MAS . meo WILKUS ARCHITECTS a AL 4p RON [MI N n -I%-- 4P I%, nnn [.. W�IflINA t -- .41 h -A 4P FRESHWATER APARTMENTS UGORETS 2520 SHADYWO4D ROAD, ORONO, MN 55331 8098 LLC A1.0 SITE PLAN 2017-01-12 �■�;�:,��::�::�� ��,.�"ICf ���i��lrll�;��llill����lll� 77 7 Y ,� 16`x[ »■ !� 0 u F IW T �`�\1I1(0I0I• •I• Thursday April 13, 2017 Jeremy Barnhart Community Development Director 2750 Kelley Parkway City of Orono, MN 55356 Re: Freshwater Condominiums Dear Jeremy: 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Main (952) 937-5150 Fax (952) 937-5822 westwoodps.com (888) 937-5150 We held our neighborhood meeting on Wednesday April 12t' from 7:30 to 8:30. Below is the breakdown of who we invited, attendance and their comments. We believe it was a very successful and productive meeting with very good dialogue between us and the neighbors. As expected the biggest concern was traffic followed by a preference of condos over apartments. The concern of density was a much smaller concern, with density largely related to traffic than the number of people. What was difficult to take from the meeting was the concern of height. As you can see we only received 5 comments regarding height. Per this meeting we believe that we can satisfy concerns by reducing the number of units and creating larger and more expensive condominium units to capture the needed costs. We wish to meet with you to discuss the meeting and next steps. Are you available next week either; Monday morning, Thursday morning, Friday morning or afternoon? Invites: 59 Attendance: 25-30 neighbors Council member: Richard Crosby II Comments Card received: 12 Areas of concern noted in comments Density: 3 Wetland impact: 3 Height: 5 Traffic: 9 Condo preference: 6 Safety on 19: 4 Multi -Disciplined Surveying & Engineering TBPLS Firm No. 10074302 westwoodps.com March 14, 2017 Jeremy Barnhart Community Development Director City of Orono PO BOX 66 Crystal, MN 55323 Dear Jeremy: We just had a long talk and visit with Alex Ugorets. From what Alex showed us today, he assuaged our concerns for his apartment/condo project at Freshwater. We were impressed with the quality of the update of the Freshwater building. Regarding the proposed project, we definitely would prefer condos to apartments as owners obviously have a financial investment to protect. We fully understand Alex's logic/need for the new construction to be a three- story structure. Sincerely, John and Linda Freivalds -1:1 3111 COMMENTS &FEEDBACK *NAME *CONTACT INFORMATION (*indicates optional) _ T COMMENTS: Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.goodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952.906.7425 2520 Shadywood Road — Freshwater Apartments., COWMENTS C04 FEEDBACK *NAME *CONTACT INFORMATION (*indicates optiona COMMENTS: d r 7.� Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback vvtj)jbe shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.goodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952.906.7425 `NAME *CONTACT INFORMATI (*indicates optional) COMMENTS: Please leave your feedback in the comment box, Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.aoodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952,906.7425 Jk * NAME.[ Ca�� *CONTACT INFORMATION (*indicates optional) COMMENTS:'. - 6F\��riv --y o Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.goodrum@westwoodps,com or by phone at 952906.7425 COMMENTS & FEEDBACK *NAME *CONTACT INFORMATION --4f al -2 - 2, 1--R (*indicates optional) il a)V\ COMMENTS: Please leave your feedback in the comm4n box d back YOUr feeWill be shard wit project staff ani ncluddin the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom. �we5twq�pds.com or b - y phone - at 952,906.7425 (V\ T-0 C 0 o u2 L Please leave your feedback in the comm4n box d back YOUr feeWill be shard wit project staff ani ncluddin the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom. �we5twq�pds.com or b - y phone - at 952,906.7425 (V\ T-0 2520 Shadywood Road — Freshwater Apartments C#iAMENTS & FEEDBACK *NAMEv: *CONTACT INFORMATION (`indicates optional) COMMENTS: V -- Please leave you r4leecl back in the comment box. Your feedback will be stared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.goodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952.906.7425 r Y 5zk /6-) COMMENTS &FEEDBACK *NAME hn ,f uo Pmy1 v IA.c' �P-he.cc[ *CONTACT INFORMATION (*indicates optional) COMMENTS: r`VtCL� 6Q c(ok t_.i 4 V l dl_ � 1 yv,i i"LL- G tW d;- ° Gc J i C.- +fir G�;i'�t l -t. t> G'L ( U U )'1'1 C} YC''e ,)(2,� a 6'/� �" l ^� Y� [' � 7�rr. GIV- l �t fZ/�i<' 4/o-7- re r) ti ujrl r f:S ease leave your reed' -)n he c mment box. our feed bac cT�will be share with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior planner by email at tom.goodrumPwestwoodps.com or by phone at 952..905,7425 *NAME COMMENTS2520 Shadywood Road — Freshwater Apartments & FEEDBACK - *CONTACT INFORMATION (`indicates optional) COMMENTS: - -- --- a;=c, Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record, Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom,goodrUM@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952.905.7425 (*indicates optional) COMMENTS: `ti q VC l } �� i' )1C.. C... I L �}.-, 41 Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom,goodrum@westwoodps,com or by phone at 952.906-7425 OMIT MW 0.014W *NAME *CONTACT INFORMATION (*indicates optional) COMMENTS: r Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom.goodrum(cDwestwoodps,com or by phone at 952.906.7425 *NAME *CONTACT INFORMATION (`indicates optional) COMMENTS:_}Cis__ f,.. wnc Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom,goodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 952,906,7425 COMMENTS &FEEDBACK Please leave your feedback in the comment box. Your feedback will be shared with project staff and included in the project record. Comments may also be directed to Tom Goodrum, Senior Planner by email at tom,-oodrum@westwoodps.com or by phone at 957.()06 7A?S Old Beach Road Lydiard Avenue Francis & Denise Frangipane James T Wilson 2312 Old Beach Rd. 2565 Lydiard Ave, Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 J.J. Baumer & T.E. Baumer Mary & John Langlas 2314 Old Beach Rd. 2585 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Eric C Walcher John R Lupke 2425 Old Beach Rd. 2595 Lydiard Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Larry & Donna Lundquist Bonnie J Lervik 2455 Old Beach Rd, 2605 Lydiard Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Kirk & Jacqueline Sherman Karen J O'Malley 2505 Old Beach Rd. 2615 Lydiard Circle Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Thomas & Alicia Codute Michael & Cynthia Tsypis 2535 Old Beach Rd. 2625 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 John & Linda Freivalds James Berg 2585 Old Beach Rd. 2655 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 James R Krey Michael Finken 2560 Old Beach Rd. 2684 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 David Mathias Schneider Bruce J Bauer 2540 Old Beach Rd. 2660 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Milan & Melanie 5chwendeman Joshua R Hadrava 2530 Old Beach Rd. 2636 Lydiard Ave. Wayzata, MN 55391 Excelsior, MN 55331 Kelly Ave Alexander L Johnston 2700 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Charles Morin 2699 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Garry & Patty Morris 2697 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Mark & Polly Kieper 2695 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Marilyn H McClaskey P.O. Box 6 Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361 John & Sherry Volkmar 2640 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Steven & Doree Wendling 2650 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Andrew & Pamela Whitehead 2620 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 John L Kozar 2750 Kelly Ave Excelsior, MN 55331 Jessica A Atkinson 2740 Kelly Ave. Excelsior, MN 55331 Gregory T Quirk 5585 Harding La Shorewood, MN 55331 D & T Steinbach/Premium Property Group 215 Walker Ave. S. Wayzata, MN 55391 Pheasand Rd. Todd Realty LLC 206 N. Chestnut Chaska, MN 55318 James & Cheryl Johnson 2655 Pheasant Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Council Members Dennis Walsh P.O. Box 53 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Richard Crosby 11 P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Wendy Dankey P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Aaron H. Printup P.O. Sox 104 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Victoria Seals P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Plannin Commission Catherine Hanson Meagher Denise Leskinen 2720 Kelly Ave. 1125 Willow Drive N. Excelsior, MN 55331 Long Lake, MN 55356 Peter & Rachel Pluimer Kevin Landgraver 2710 Kelly Ave. 2570 Thoroughbred Lane Excelsior, MN 55331 Long Lake, MN 55356 Hoopland LLC Bruce Lemke 17930 Tioga Trail 565 Old Crystal Bay Road Wayzata, MN 55391 Long Lake, MN 55356 Karen Marie Kaverman Chad Olson 2755 Kelly Ave. 116 Chevy Chase Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 Wayzata, MN 55391 Shadvwood Road Loren Schoenzeit 4480 Forest Lake Landing Intl Ministerial Fellowship Mound, MN 55364 P.O. Box 100 Navarre, MN 55392 Jon Schwingler 1550 County Road 6 Casco Ventures LLC Long Lake, MN 55356 16192 State Hwy 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 John Thiesse 3845 Bayside Road David J Delany Long Lake, MN 55356 111.0. Box 721 Long Lake, MN 55356 Janice Berg 2655 Lydiard Ave. Jeanne M Englund Excelsior, MN 55331 2117 Penn Ave. S Mpls, MN 55405 Christopher McGrann 2120 Fox St. Bridgewater Bank Long Lake, MN 55356 3800 American Blvd. W. #100 Bloomington, MN 55431 Jeremy Barnhardt Ashley E Samler 2585 Shadywood Rd. Excelsior, MN 55331 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Provided By. Resident and Real Estate Services LV' 4 1 1 _Aj- 11 20-117-23-14 Buffer Size: 350 feet Map Comments u -16-117-23-33 C) 0 aV-117-23-23 f- 21-117-13-.23 21-11713-.23 v _ C C M a 4 � V p Date: 2/13/2017 0 120 240 480 ft 2011723110036 UGORETS 8098 LLC For more Information contact 2520 Shadywrood Road Hennepin County GIS Office Orono, MN 55331 300 6th Street South Minneapolis, MN 95487 gis.infoChonnepimus CONTEXT MAP '1a. moi` .-� " f•y�� - ��'' ;�♦ � I y �� r Jpo -� - •' T z !I! �'a .� �` l' `�Y � fIl �. ♦� 1�' j. ,s il► �,. .�� '�,.1�+ �.�� �• �. Gf_ � "� . I r lf �� ¢�� ��• i`•j •ti� .*�r � n� ..� ���•!� �.aY � ~ �-(A , • t�C ar.�.i�%-���. "+4i - k - .F .. y��f ( i. �• 4 O • "1� T IF * •T !! • A F • NNNN ILI 41 V. Y, 00% # " lot fa A tv 47 IMF - sop V x 8 %000r f i� / ------------ ` l F ` \ ' U0 ' „ F<- V)Q + 111 z I .: N :• '�'.� '$ Pond �� _ H LV M D I / c tAq::1_ s� O ° I a 0 1 D Ln °y X �,• �'�. -9� ♦ -\Pond 6 NN • �`+ ti �A * �- ' jo ` \ 1-000 Westwood Multi -Disciplined 03.13.2017 Surveying & Engineering 0010413 westwoodps.com (888) 937-5150 - a�'• M N � s • P • t 1 Ar 4k-"� • .- M 4 r * ` r 1., Nd r r F. 9 'R ! P 40 JWL k 40 r • 1 10 k +' r. y 01 + A `r p » + - � � ♦ E 1 ! r + � - �:r - '► ray - � _ ��V ir A' • 16 + - r Nil "Awk +•A*?N C y • z , go �- r •: - Jilll' _ 44 Of a v M �` • .�' Je k 2 2 SHADYWOOD ROAD ORONO, MN A, 11 '001 �1 �I M od M � • 4 it 1M e 1 �r 49 ♦ i� V , '�4.1 - is R • � � � .: • Ad 0 to] Ll WA! 383' 119' 264' h,1*I`pl. <' t,� .c• — `'�• � t �• ,�'t..: +��r;w r �: + ,-;r��i ADZ` '-� .,C,, � :,,y `i -•�'�� ��e• � .;•. � ,Y.-'_ " ', ' ; �e.' r' R"ti�f iY, ?4� '... \ .r r?y" �. ", +�„ p,, -- _ '�''/'.� r",i,tj� 1 )' �A .. r - � � Ys;#' � � 'ty .. ♦�� � '"-�.Y•.a'+`� a. � '. _ �r +�rr'jx;� v. � ,� ,'r^'e.i k�- .�J-�.7r:, ..�[.��•'�;. a+ � � r�_h '�.. y��:"�6' '•. '�' arc' �h r IL, r }> �, ��,���{. - ♦ � � +. �: $, �rv- .- I )' `.'' _ ♦.. � � r fir' r " i 31 ,�J " • �* . y r t a: i. � ` / ti • <Y�"s='9r ,a� ,..�. , ,*•" s. ♦ r , � �a : `, �'7 WE • e:. :,� y, � .P ". �«i ^.;^ � � � • }� �r+'�-wi' °�! `{. .� .a�• a` .alt, .: ,i - . + �L �M 66'- •lir tt - •r 40 IM — t " AW , a _ -. • �Ar ♦ •- ,., �- 4. -.q. r. „ �, - -- l.A 1/e.pr . y � •F^'.'�5, . �"e r r e� 11 _ e. Underground P • SECTION/ LEVATION B Tree Property Lundquist Residence Proposed Canopy Line Apartment Building Height * Foreground trees depicted are actual tree height and type while background tree heights and types are based on aerial photography and subject to change Westwood Multi -Disciplined 05.12.2017 LUNDQUIST RESIDENCE p Surveying &Engineering 0010413 westwoodps.com ORONO, MN (888) 937-5150 • I` Propos Fr,+.AN4. C 177' '.}.; ��x -® �� 'Y�'i �' '`�L -•qtr __ r s _�� 557' • •Y s i t ti + i 4 h 'rt t -MIN y IN . 91 .. of y DDUTE HESIC ORONO, MN 380' o� r q, ♦ w y 1� .L • - - n - o� r q, ♦ w y 1� .L • - yyy��; ir F _ P' 0'Ok It ' _. 1`E ('' �, r '�! -, , 1 _ 51 '' ,• • J - p:*' - E nM. .. i. 7 • ` J Ilk - Ant AL �ay "�", -• rr,�_ _ Proposed Freshwater 3-� ;,- : rr _ .R k Condominiums Area ^ , r _ _ z -•a �1- I � r ._. — r .a p= k _ j+ ^ 71r � i 4 � 6 ' � 1► 4 .t � ' ' _ ^ '4. s. � ` !r - a" s; ,•, ! ON + �r -,1 _ +■i a j' a Jar - s 1♦ - _ ° � I Y r i F - �� ' I A .tea•-- - Y - - - -- Freshwater _ �# y - - a - _ -AL 1 - _ � 1 �.. � - ,, 1 - - � Building 6. . y� 4 � �.' � - � __ y r r .. � � p � �r 1 ' � * ��� _'i.�: =+k `i'� � 9 n # I■r -Te� x+ _ _ �, r.i ` A - �.i.! � . � • '� h r $ r _.'' � P >r r�...1" -i � ' E - � a ■�' m. ■. r'a. � � asp -r's. � _ r A .'�i .� _, ' ' _ T r. - - " } . -. � Y'^i y� IR F w • I w44 dt e - ' � If _ tt OA 1 - r , , . •, AF � r, Approximate 75 _ - Wetland Buffer 7.. t; - - V1 AA - Igo Alf cod ute ,.r . - F*,'► �+ -- r +' f _ ,�i. .•+- - r,�, ` I r, Residence �. 3Approximate � �. - : -� E }erman Wetland f , , IT . Residence ,• � - -•� - R _- a 77 • � _ s !!_ ' � 6 _ ✓fit : p ♦ - 1 . �; Sa r r 4 m± t ` '� • ` ■ ' . A e •f■#y.. r_ z. `= 1 l �` �' = s • .. 3 1 p c u - -.,, � �, � � .� � . ^ "�•1 � { ,. ♦ qt � -• _- -fir. -fj ��. - _ ;F r 1s ` MW : N -+ _ v -` ,� "a.�,r,-�":�- ' ■sem F yr _ s #� f s • _. _ � � yeti - a � � P r k _ • -,� ., i • , '•�, �► ' � J� . r �r = c_F1 ! � � � 1 ! , � _ , �a _ - � a i.-� _ _fir ,. ..- �s. - � 9: s " ci _ ly d' r � .I y %� �_. d,s - � _ s` '�.� - �ji ■ ,_' - �e �'�e 'a1 '°"` -- _ aes � {y �lr f '� w�Y r i ,i , lIR' � it 6 ,A l . r 1. 1 i� 4 _ ,s •e0' 1 fi - -'r' qt' 'a 74 �_' n s d .1 3� •'fit". � _ _ -•� r • � � ,� � i]M,. a=, - ■ q. � t _ ' � ' �' i-� _ r I _ Z _ � c _ :.�, • •4 L _ �- - _ _ _ .- ndq s _ _ r _ r a<r — r u r. J Residence `• _` __�___ A �r1 a _ _ _ _ • _ _ _ t, e _ ' At i E it F. : '�' 'S } q ". �fe yA►-�-- PI ` -1 - !� �� Im -moi - f _ - , ,�' .n. _� -� - 1 r_ CS } _ _ _ n �— - _ 1 � '�` y yi •' . � k � .� �,� - � �� �• ; -'�_ R � s � � � -- „ +•1r - x _ _ a, ', j _ � + : _ �-�^ fIF, _ - � - - . yr h � � A• E"r � - :_- . �•� - � k _ a - � - • - t _. r� _ ' � r +'� ■.,tet; ilk � �� - _ _ _ ,sw. *n . i. is. "i"� +rr.s. -_ '�P — - __ - � !: jj _ ' y - ie Ar ► y id Jf , r 'WOO �. 4 • �'f`' , • �' ` - ' I "-'• .: _' 1. �. . a i. r, r- s .jl • - �.. �� f,� • • _ y ,�f ■ � T - :� P � � M �; - ■���'i77 - , - !k `r' •�L - pr' 41 �• a. 7 �` - f ■3, - - '��` T� --� _ d .w y '� •� r .,A " _ _ v '.�! w 4' r nr - •+t' rd' ,�, � ��... f � .i, _ I! I -W 7t■ Westwood Multi -Disciplined Surveying & Engineering westwoodps.com ORONO WOODS 5ZNM UVIN AT� r �• r y�i ✓�>. r"!�t'� 5.� �1' r ,'.r„�/' c J� 5 �.. r/. ,�`tom.. �d '�� Y /. '�`�`�✓ '!/' 'i�_•�r / 4 '. ,. ��-� - � i �1 �.� „{ 6. 1. m ' �Y it d ,� _ �7 7r� `.!t'¢�dr•.:'!�.. 1:� . � t�._�_ �ti.��. ..=v �E.. :l� ,id-�.�-.�.+'f.� ..t�if ��- �. Ifflumm Ilk It Google Earth Pro dr.a} ISI I I I Sign in a , L " JI f h !ti J , ,... ,;� % �� - .' °el ', aV' � �. - e T� ,/YwI 4 �`Y� � +-��l' �y R I• qry •-i q , ji , • w Y <e+. �, i ,,+ a '+ � 3- #� I! a k a 150 4"er�yar�[y O � 4 •• 5�< • r ,�I -.. 7i _ J - : ca IMF tA ;jr LAIR w , y. r s , � _, " :" ell i6' �� '; I `. {" -�,. d '-� - �; �°• -,y'� - �4jf' � 4 _ 'f ' a I L •.. r1. , . Y .. a • n � » ' • "� r , ,• 4, s + • z� N1 y,., k:,4 . , .., �� ! .y�T s 4_ - �• qp '1 _ �. :, S eau : u, Y .-.,� .n ,., " .i r:': _+ �.:,� :�-r• R. ", +11 Il,:., 'J a '-tet-�_ ° } n � �: ,■ _ , yy or - F y , a� rad .-_ i<."� - �-. - �# - r• - of _r - r .r.' 7 a 'e. +� � •, '.,. k .� :. - , •a',, n., - Imo' �;'.. y1� .+ i- ". ,�' � . .. - ,_ � 'I. '. T,y� , , -JIT•.. _a. T;a• ■ :�" � 4 I , { �. -+` � �:...� -, � ilk. . �' ■� �: ,a �,.r;,, sit 3 , r: I' , a. i - s ry , ,d .. " a L. _:: - W _ ,7+1' X+, kN �s`Y Jf ' :: y' ' ' 7�t,l• } eYi Js ' �r - r co e 1. _:{,'fit'•. e r ,. J* ,__ .. _., _ '. .- :, ,:yyl-_- 'L :' es�}4..1N. ?i". -+, _ .i n, 7, � .. - „"'. � g'� W'�' ,I•• �4'. .1�'�.�} - iY• . �sy,r,,, - ._ ..m , ., '" , .h„ _ a 3r•:• .," �'CN. .� I^, - ,. ani .e �' S�. 4� ' - - '� 9 k' `'� -' a '.r; ". ..'Ta •:'aJ �' _' -. a- ,2 - --j ' - / • x , .1� S .J , } +1. . i - 'Y- _ J �F,+iN' I rte°I -� ''� arJLe 4'eL ieS .•;'dh r ',�. :. '` '!. - �C' ,_ �� � .�..,' Me W,.:J�j_� � •l. If };,, {_ S 1. 4 it S. rra _ _ s< ^y -- r • Hyl , - _c L yp 1 gyp. 7 6 v er i AllmY a {' `_ .IT/, "84 - � � - a 'r - 1 Y Q < �,r�r� .- rs,+>Ps•}.-«.-- .__ _ -e-.-� - - _ -. _. - -- e Jn.. � _ "' � 'llrt - _' _ 1 _.`� .5., ice- -•ti �, . '�-.�.r, N r lor _AMIN e • ;ac-�� .—_ �, I _ k � �� a _-,''�l _ _ _ � - <. 'R . � >, - ,y. I � lj�°° . ��r" �f,; •Irk � � ,� ,y�rICY 74 In 4 I F : 1. .. rR... - "� - � M - .. . _ d: � :'. . � . ,'r��• '',+^JY � • jj • I' 4. , V . M �eY Y S : a 'S- f "... ,- I.. � W .. .�cta I - = r - � - ---- _ - --- - 'r •Y a.-� Yui �� 5. :: - a I• �� : R �^��:.' - _ � s i e a — •° f — z W. t IM F erc ., ,e e W mW _ r I #. f' A I ooq eart Tour Guide r 7997 F �` 9 1 r ��,-�".�-e. � --. � "yRt. ; ' -... � _. O I II J�J�'JlJ 77" U�1 � I �� IJU5 ft eye a I l 2554 I l , '91 ffel ► reWiTleTel rel11 19.12 C-1 �siWooaps.ca I;s - .• _ -� _1 )��� �'•"_. � '-1'�. tea. Pt- .1 _ir'- ___ __ _— - _.` � . i �i 11 I Us ib N " , i 1 ` fi Oil 4r ■ *ARE oggj—� OF Or i AS, 7,4W A 1 mzZ "X ilk oi IWAR-1 'Vot pa, UY, IkI AVIF MW iNl` ) wgp - ka A14 17' SA , 1i Tip Olt; VA L4 4�,roj Of il A i AS, 7,4W A 1 mzZ "X ilk oi IWAR-1 'Vot pa, UY, IkI AVIF MW iNl` ) wgp - ka A14 17' SA , 1i Tip Olt; VA L4 4�,roj Of Google Earth Pro File Edit View Tools -IIR n 40 to jk $' 1° °r - Ji rs— e.+ap. ,. , i : {• .1 moi- u Y A y� ' v M •p J y� • _ , i' n • 'r g !� -. 1 :551 P.: ' ._ - �j �ay� �i - �I n' , c P:. . r.,*..�.�.,. -. (• '1- :��d; - i'¢. ,. ,i Vit` _ '�, _ ,a" a .r. .- is " `d _ • '. 4,yg, �a ''•° - ' 121 _ ^-4 s. n- �rI �,. - _, .•. ... ,� 1 : '.k:y' '.iii '_ - ..�"�i .r � ,.. "� _ "�:,: K `.°� ° �?'�-'_ __ } ° i • - � ''a , • i A aY '�,ir �°P n _ •1Fp u, e r s � r.n : - '...-•�' ., .. ,, r - -�f _ .- ��'��� a'°=_!SGS. 'r� L ayt* - s: i 1uYe - _ _ . _may#• _ ri yq. - r. - . inn .. :... 3 , �., .. ii J _- _ �. - • L G .v �. } s : ± s s•m r. �+ 1 •: ti-iriiVa� �. I: . Y�� i ��'. �R . �:a�-�•• � , " . . • • E .: �; _ _ .. • 4 -1' mrd _ ` +�k'�'�n - '� . , tea' _ '• �,. � .; -� � i aF+o-. .4.. ° •.-... r N• s A f " n • n+ , L ii IC '�r °_ 11'1 �, �t ' '' � • '' � i w",r•- tip' � , f: L n :a ff 77 � r f s: r r S �- ,'.-- 'Ts i :.,-• r •sew. - _ ° s•, , 11 I � _ • J i r L ' I x .L z , 72 Ic 141 POW do nip .r IF h r ki r • _. i+Ci 4d r yi r 3 1 i �1 •, w:. , a �.-- z.. Lis af-'° ,.., � L�. T;M1 i e �' ��.��pr' - • dEt -_ ,.. -s:- �... � � s � _ �� I` .. rY' r ' i � i �F ' F �� d S+�.' Ir• - -. `+s.. ,. -- *'•.�, - ;-- ;�' J�,F.. � "!PL i _ ' � ,gam, 4 : --� i r..' ��''. - ! � 'r. Ji _ a `� y --1r"I I ` �.••' � ' I L .a � • I 1 - i ' u «., +° �r On ° a "i,, rW.. ° •�'... .. � ; ,: ' ' _ - '°- - } _ � s-.'��'" 4, _L�1 "`• k �,� r , SOI r +' •.: x 1 #"•� �, }!ate_ r ,3 r ter'=d _ I '1� J r -. - -' '- ' ,. r _ �' ..: Ty.g_;. 1 r $' _ -,t 'rte. •_ LN s a •,`Z'•" �_� , '� INN vr - e - , + !. — yi` Ujr- �' : ..�- s 1� CJ.`1\41(0I0I• �SiWooapS.ca Westwood MEMORANDUM Date: May 17, 2017 Re: 2520 Shadywood Rd., Orono, MN — Access Considerations File R0010413.00 To: Tom Goodrum, Westwood From: Steve Manhart, P.E. PTOE, PTP 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Main (952) 937-5150 Fax (952) 937-5822 westwoodps.com (888) 937-5150 Per your request, I have reviewed the access considerations for the proposed 40 -unit apartment use at 2520 Shadywood Road in Orono. The following are some of my observations and reactions: The posted speed limit on Shadywood Road south of Shoreline Drive (Co. Rd. 15) is 40 mph. Shadywood Road is functionally classified as an "A -Minor Expander" roadway by the Metropolitan Council. The 2015 MnDOT Metro Traffic Volume Map does not provide a specific Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for this segment of Shadywood Road. Nevertheless, one may estimate the daily volume by averaging the given volumes to the north and south of this site. Therefore, one may assume the AADT for this segment of Shadywood Road is approximately 7,950 veh/day. According Land Use Code 230 of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, the 40 -unit condominiums will generate approximately 232 trips per weekday (116 entering and 116 exiting); 18 trips in the a.m. peak hour (3 entering and 15 exiting), and 21 trips in the p.m. peak hour (14 entering and 7 exiting). According Land Use Code 230 of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, the 40 -unit condominiums will generate approximately 226 trips per day on a Saturday (113 entering and 113 exiting), and approximately 194 trips per day on a Sunday (97 entering and 97 exiting). The Saturday peak hour will Multi -Disciplined Surveying & Engineering TBPLS Firm No. 10074302 westwoodps.com May 17, 2017 Page 2 generate 19 trips (10 entering and 9 exiting), while the Sunday peak hour will generate 18 trips (9 entering and 9 exiting). The MnDOT Access Management Manual provides guidance on offset driveways and streets. According to the manual, "On undivided highways, high-volume (Type 3) driveways and public street connections on opposite sides of the a highway should be aligned with one another to the extent practicable, or they should be offset to minimize overlapping left turns and other maneuvers that could result in safety or operational problems."i o A Type 3 driveway is a driveway designed to provide access to a large development area encompassing multiple properties or structures served by a clearly-defined system of internal streets. o The access driveway proposed for this apartment use does not measure up to the scale of a Type 3 driveway. This would be a minor driveway. o It is advisable to provide an offset driveway across from the Baywind Christian Church driveway on the west side of Shadywood Road, as illustrated below. Overlapping driveways with the church should be avoided, due to back-to-back left -turn lanes. Figure 1 — Overlapping Driveways CHURCH NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH FRESHWATER FRESHWATER FRESHWATER CONDOS CONDOS CONDOS Aligned Offset Overlapping (Source: MnDOTAccess Management Manual, 2008, and Westwood Professional Services, 2017) ' Section 3.4.5., Offset Driveways and Streets, MnDOT Access Management Manual, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, January 2, 2008, p., 35. May 17, 2017 Page 3 Conclusion o Given the modest trip generation during peak hours, the apartment use will increase AADT along Shadywood Road by approximately 3%. o Either an aligned or offset driveway between the apartment use and the church will operate safely and efficiently. An overlapping driveway should be avoided, regardless of the low turning volumes. o It is my engineering judgment that the potential vehicular turning conflicts between the proposed apartment use and the Baywind Christian Church will be relegated to Sunday mornings and possibly one evening a week. Please contact me if you have further questions or comments regarding this review. Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit B ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3944 Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. 17-3944 WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON BEHALF OF UGORETS, 8098, LLC, 2520 SHADYWOOD ROAD, ZONING CHANGE AND MASTER PLAN REVIEW, 7:13 P.M. — 8:25 P.M. Tom Goodrum, and Alex Ugorets, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting a zone change and a master concept plan approval to permit construction of a 40 -unit condominium building on 3.11 acres to the south of the Freshwater Business center. In addition, the applicant is requesting the property be rezoned to RPUD. An RPUD allows some flexibility in land development and redevelopment and helps preserve desirable site characteristics and open space. The condominium building as proposed consists of four stories with a defined height of 48.8'. Site improvements include underground and surface parking. The property is currently zoned B-4 Office Professional but is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use with a prescribed density of 6-15 units per acre. The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed density is 15.63 units per acre, which is just above the guided upper threshold for density contained in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal provides 84 parking spaces, with 51 of those spaces being located under the building and 33 surface spaces. Given that ratio, the City's parking requirements are met. Proposed hardcover on the property is not an issue. The building is intended to be a 40 -unit condominium building, which is different from what was presented at the sketch plan review. The applicant has indicated that condominium buildings require higher ceilings, which has increased the height of the building. At the time of the sketch plan review, the applicant was advised that the Planning Commission and City Council felt 30 feet was an appropriate maximum height. Currently the proposed height is 48.8', but the southern third of the building, closest to Shadywood Road, will be 36 feet in height since it does not include the penthouse. The defined height may change since Staff measures height from the existing grades to the top of the building. The applicant has prepared a traffic analysis which suggests the development will generate 232 trips per weekday; 18 trips in the morning peak hour and 21 trips in the evening peak hour. Overall, the Page 1 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. development will increase traffic in the area about three percent. It should be noted that from a use standpoint, the proposed residential use will have a lower impact on the traffic compared to other possible uses such as retail, an apartment building or a restaurant. Barnhart stated the majority of traffic in the Navarre area comes from the south. Other buildings in the area include the Freshwater Business Center, Culver's, Narrow's Bar and Saloon, and Shadywood Villas, which was approved last year. Access to this site is proposed off of a new shared driveway with the Freshwater Business Center. This driveway will line up with the driveway serving the church across Shadywood Road. Hennepin County supports the offset. The building is proposed to be 35 feet back from the Shadywood Road right-of-way line and about 35 feet from the new side lot line to the north. This has not been verified with an updated survey or site plan. The lot requires a 50 -foot setback from the front yard and a 35 -foot setback from the side yard. The building will also need to be 85 feet from the wetland. The applicant has provided some additional information regarding the residential properties located to the rear of the proposed building. Barnhart displayed a cross section of the building and noted that from the east side it will appear to be a 5 -story building. The penthouse is set to the east of the building so it is not as close to the Shadywood side as it could be. Barnhart displayed a colored sketch of the exterior of the building and an aerial of the nearby residences. A number of comments regarding the project have been received. The applicant is also proposing to modify a portion of the shared property line between the proposed condominium lot and the lot containing the Freshwater Business Center. A boundary line adjustment is a minor administrative action but does impact lot size, setbacks, structural coverage, and density calculations. Staff has not reviewed the grading and drainage plan in detail but the plan depicts holding ponds. A Conservation Design plan will need to be completed. Page 2 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff is recommending tabling the application to allow for the submittal of certain information related to the rezoning request. The applicant is requesting that public comments be received and that the Planning Commission make a recommendation so the plan can proceed forward to the City Council. Thiesse asked if the hardcover will go beyond the 50 percent if it is rezoned to RPUD. Barnhart stated the proposed hardcover is at 36 percent and they would be allowed up to 50 percent. Any amount over 50 percent would require a variance as well as mitigation. Thiesse asked if the City is protecting the neighborhood by allowing condominiums rather than any other use on this site. Barnhart stated the applicant has changed his proposal from an apartment building to condominiums following a neighborhood meeting. Barnhart noted the traffic numbers were provided by ITE. Lemke asked what Staff believes are the main issues. Barnhart indicated the main issues would be height and traffic. Barnhart stated he understands the impacts of traffic on the area, but noted the lot is currently vacant and any development will generate some level of traffic. Barnhart stated this area is not zoned residential, and if it is rezoned to residential, it would require approval from the Metropolitan Council at a density of three units per acre. Tom Goodrum, stated they have listened to the comments of the Planning Commission, the City Council, and the neighbors, and redesigned their plan to be 40 high-quality condominium units rather than 51 apartments. Goodrum stated they are proposing the same footprint but that they have enhanced the building by increasing the height of the ceilings. The number of parking stalls has also been reduced and another 15 feet of buffering along Shadywood Road has been added. The targeted tenants for this site are expected to be empty nesters and retirees, which is also what the residents wanted. Page 3 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Goodrum stated he appreciates Staffs comments, and as it relates to the grading and stormwater calculations, those will be addressed in the near future if approval of the plan is received. Goodrum noted engineering costs a lot of money and that they would like to receive approval prior to incurring those costs. Goodrum stated they understand the main issues are height and traffic and that in their view they meet the seven standards for the RPUD. Goodrum stated while there are arguments on both sides, they believe they have a good argument for life cycle housing. Goodrum stated they are looking from the Planning Commission a recommendation of approval. Goodrum noted the site does have ample room for stormwater ponding and that they are within traffic guidelines for that road. Goodrum stated in their view they are looking at a market that will have the least impact on traffic. As it relates to the environmental impacts, there is a 75 -foot buffer to the edge of the wetland and the proposal is close to meeting the additional ten feet required by the City but it depends on whether the balconies would be counted. Goodrum indicated they have also discussed adding more wetland buffer to the Freshwater Business Center as part of this project. Goodrum noted the building is not near the wetland and the stormwater ponds would be located outside the wetland areas. Thiesse asked if there is any way to eliminate one level of the building and construct a larger structure. Goodrum stated the penthouse will make the project financially feasible and that they did look at other options but they were not economically feasible. Goodrum stated unless more parking is eliminated, they would not be able to expand the structure. The flat roof matches the Freshwater building, Byerly's, and other buildings in Navarre. The proposed building at the west end would be 36 feet high along Shadywood Road. Goodrum noted a pitched roof would be well above the 36 feet and that they are minimizing the visual impacts with the flat roof. Thiesse commented he is more concerned with the residents to the rear. Goodrum stated a pitched roof would be taller than a flat roof. Page 4 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit asked if additional acreage could be added to the property so the building could be lowered and the footprint expanded. Goodrum stated there is another 20 acres that are owned by Mr. Ugorets but that property is not contiguous. Schoenzeit stated the height continues to be a problem. Lemke asked if it would be a deal breaker if the top level is eliminated and the number of units reduced. Goodrum indicated it would be. Olson asked what the cost of a condominium unit would be. Alex Ugorets, Applicant, indicated it would be between $600,000 to $700,000. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:38 p.m. Tim Olson, 2510 Old Beach Road, stated he has been asked to speak on behalf of the Old Beach Road neighborhood and to give voice to over 200 community members in opposition to this project. Olson stated they have had the opportunity to review the proposal for this site and find it to be entirely too large. Olson stated the residents recognize that this would have a negative impact on the established community, would negatively impact the quality of life, affect the natural habitat, unnecessarily impact traffic, and steal away the night sky. Olson stated the residents find that this project is in direct opposition to the Orono Community Management Plan. Although the residents acknowledge a person's right to own and develop a property, they support the community goals and recognize the proper development. They are not opposed to development of the property but strongly oppose this particular project. There are rules and regulations Orono has in place to prevent unnecessary and unreasonable developments. These have been put in place after much thought and discussion. This proposal in its magnitude, if approved, would go forward in opposition of the established community goals, city ordinances, and adversely affect the value of the area. Page 5 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The City is guided by a Comprehensive Plan, a plan written in principle and philosophy. In fact, Orono's Comprehensive Plan has been renamed to the Community Management Plan, which emphasizes the word community. Olson stated the title of this plan has been chosen to signify its intent and purpose. The word community is meant to stress the fact that this is, in fact, the plan and desire of the citizens. The retention of Orono's small town sense of community and personal interaction is a guiding factor. Throughout multiple pages of the Community Management Plan, it defines the purpose, and throughout the introduction, emphasizes the guiding principles of a plan, not as a whim, but is meant in repeated words to offer clear guidance for the future. When interpreting the meaning and understanding of the Community Management Plan, implementation of new developments should be weighted most favorably in the guiding principles, which are to protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka and its water quality, to preserve our distinct urban lifestyles and land use patterns, preserve and protect our many natural resources and open spaces and preserve our local character and identity. The Community Management Plan includes six elements critical to the development philosophy. First and foremost are environmental protections and land use. In this, Orono residents place the highest priority on open space, preservation of woodlands, wetlands, habitat, with a particular emphasis on dark skies allowing for the maintenance of a night sky free from light pollution. Additionally, land use which maintains a historic identity and character of Orono's urban neighbors shall be a key element in Orono's land use planning. The residents have had an opportunity to review Westwood's plan and we find it to be an overwhelmingly and ambitious project, designed outside the extremes of Orono's allowable development of this area. We have found it to be dismissive of community concerns and not particularly accurate in representing the opposition to this project. Olson stated they have reviewed Mr. Barnhart's staff submission to the Commission and appreciate Staffs input. The residents have found that this area would need to be rezoned to RPUD for the implementation of certain housing goals. Mr. Barnhart cites seven significant principles for the RPUD. The Westwood proposal falls woefully short, failing to meet six of the seven; most notably preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and the protection of sensitive environmental features, a Page 6 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. design compatible to the surrounding land uses, sensitive to development in transitional areas located between different land uses, and a development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In addition, the Westwood site does not meet the RPUD standards, being half the required acres needed for a development of this size. Further complicating this project is that it has a proposed density of 15.63 units per acres, which exceeds even the maximum allowable density for a properly sized RPUD site, which is 6 to 15 units per acre allowed for the site. Further challenges outlined in Staff's report include the building exceeds the maximum allowable height, is designed with a nonconforming roof, fails to meet several setbacks, and provides for no open space. Additionally, traffic continues to be a great concern for this area. Having experienced this on a daily basis, the residents can assure the Commission that additional traffic concerns from a project of this magnitude have not be adequately addressed to this point, particularly when paired with anticipated growth in areas north and west of Navarre. On its face, this plan appears to ignore the primary and driving tenets of the Community Management Plan for the benefit and development of this particular parcel - a benefit that is being extended to one commercial developer at the expense of the citizens of Orono and its neighboring communities. Olson stated there is a reason Orono has a Community Management Plan and established zoning ordinances. Although the residents appreciate the flexibility of a project, flexibility should not fundamentally change the meaningful restrictions that are in place. The residents ask the Planning Commission to take notice that Westwood is asking the City to take an undeveloped lot that is not large enough to trigger an RPUD and then proposes building a structure that exceeds the maximum number of residential units for a properly sized lot and then proposes the building be constructed with a nonconforming flat roof. Even with a flat roof, it will exceed the maximum allowed height. To make this building fit, the City must ignore setbacks and open spaces. Olson stated there is nothing about this particular project that remotely meets the City's requirements, preserves the characteristics of the neighborhood, is transitional to the neighboring areas, and is inconsistent with the driving components and philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan. In short, this project is simply too large; and if approved, will forever negatively impact the community and adversely affect growth and future development in the area. Page 7 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The residents ask the Planning Commission to not table this plan but to reject the proposal outright. Further, the residents would ask the Planning Commission and Staff to encourage development of this property on a much smaller scale nearing the low end of the six units per acre, more suitable for this nonconforming lot size, and to continue to review all future development proposals for this area under the terms reflected in the guiding principles and philosophy of the Community Management Plan that is in place. Olson requested the Planning Commission and Staff also take an opportunity to review Exhibit G submitted by Mr. Kirk Sherman, who was unable to attend tonight's meeting. Olson thanked the Planning Commission for their time. Shawn Macentee, 2490 Old Beach Road, stated when he started considering the application, he looked at the City variances. When looking at variances, the City Council may grant variances in cases where there are practical difficulties and the weight of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter, taking into account the character and development of the neighborhood. In considering applications for variances, the Council shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing traffic conditions, light and air, and the risk to public safety and the effects on the values of property, and to grant variances only when it is demonstrated that such actions with be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the chapter. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The Planning Commission heard tonight that this five -story building would be very uncharacteristic of this area. Acting on the considerations alone does not constitute practical difficulties. There have been questions tonight whether it is economically feasible to go smaller, which is not one of the considerations under the statute. The granting of such variance is not to serve the convenience of the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The Planning Commission also heard a little bit about flexibility for the RPUD regulations. Although flexibility may be something to take into consideration, the standards set forth in the statute say within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with certain characteristics. The characteristics of this potential building is that it requires numerous variances that are broad in their scope. The project Page 8 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. acreage is half of what is required under the statute. 78-626 lists four exceptions the Council can use to provide a variance, none of which exist on this project. Macentee stated the purpose of the RPUD district is to encourage sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the City. Installing a five - story building is not sensitive and is intrusive and inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Macentee stated for anyone who has ever driven Shadywood at rush hour, the traffic lines up from the intersection past the Narrows Bridge pretty much every day. Macentee stated he appreciates putting in parking spaces for this number of people but they will also have people turning in and out of this development on a routine basis, which will further exacerbate the traffic situation. Macentee stated the residents support some type of condominium development on this property but they feel this proposed project is too large. The residents are also concerned that condominiums are turned into apartments when they are not sold. Tom Lowe, 2630 West Lafayette Road, stated his primary concern is the traffic. Lowe stated one night last week the traffic was backed up all the way to Hazelwood in Tonka Bay. If someone is going to make a right turn to go into Wayzata, they have to get into the line of traffic. Lowe stated there is no way they can get into that line. If they want to take a left turn, they are taking their life into their hands because they have to cross traffic that is going north. Lowe stated unless Hennepin County is going to do something about this intersection, something drastic is going to happen. Lowe stated he questions the veracity of the traffic study because it looks like the traffic numbers were pulled out of a book somewhere. Lowe stated they need to go thereat 5:00. Lowe jokingly stated that if this project is approved, he is going to try to get Old Beach Road opened up so traffic can get out that way. Lowe stated the traffic situation is very serious. Lowe stated he also believes the zoning should stay as it is. Dave Schneider, 2540 Old Beach Road, stated this is not about Old Beach Road but that the proposal will impact the entire area and will affect everyone that lives there. Schneider stated it is not about opening Page 9of14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Old Beach Road again. Schneider stated he is not a traffic engineer or an environmental engineer, but through a grassroots campaign they have gotten over 200 people that are against this project through petitions and meetings. Schneider commented the residents have to remember that Navarre is finally, after 30 years, changing with the dental office, Bridgewater Bank, and Byerly's, but that he does not know if this will help with that transformation. Schneider stated once there is a real transformation at 19 and 15, there may be an opportunity to develop this area. Schneider stated he is not opposed to development but that he is opposed to this project. Ralph Kempf, 3675 Toga Road, stated the preferred choice of the residents would be to leave it natural, but the fact of the matter is that Navarre is one of the two urban destinations of Orono and this lot will get developed at some point. Kempf stated he had mixed feelings when he saw it was up for redevelopment since it would put a high density of people very close to the main intersection of Navarre. Kempf stated it is a given that people on the sidewalks are the building block of a community, and to date, Navarre is transforming and going very much in the right direction in his view. Kempf stated he would ask the Planning Commission and Council to pay attention to something that has been overlooked in Navarre, which has made the business district basically a no pedestrian zone. Kempf stated in his view it is necessary that the City consider a way that people can easily walk to downtown Navarre, and that the way things are set up now is that the people who are going to live on this site will get in their cars to drive to downtown Navarre. Kempf stated hopefully the Council will look at a pedestrian connection between the Navarre Park, the Navarre business district, and the Dakota Rail Trail since there is not currently a safe pedestrian access to downtown Navarre and that trail. Kempf commented it is unfortunate that this development did not happen before the Freshwater redevelopment took place because somebody would have made sure that there was some sort of trail or sidewalk along the road in this area. Kempf noted the City advocated for and got Hennepin County to agree to redevelop the intersection in 2019 and that it would be wonderful if the City could figure out a way to incorporate pedestrian friendly methods of travel. Kempf stated in his view this kind of development is a good one in the overall larger picture. Page 10 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sandra Keegan, Walters Point Lane, stated the height is the scary part of this proposal, and once someone puts up a building that size, there is no going back. Keegan stated in his view Navarre is changing for the better, but that this property has been vacant for a while so they do not have to rush to develop it. Tom Goodrum stated in his view they can work with Staff on the RPUD standards and that they are willing to put a trail in. Goodrum noted they have heard several times concerns about the size of the parcel. Goodrum noted they have more than 2.5 acres with this parcel and that they can add 18 more acres to the property. Goodrum stated in his opinion these items can be resolved. Goodrum stated as it relates to the traffic, it comes down to perception, and that the actual traffic numbers show what is happening out. In addition, in regards to height, Orono has other similar buildings three and four stories high that have been approved, and that it comes down to someone's perception of the height. Alex Ugorets, 175 Brentwood Road, stated he can understand why the residents are not happy about the project since it will impact their lives. Ugorets stated any development will affect the neighborhood but that 30 feet only allows for a two-story building with a decent ceiling height. Ugorets stated the footprint is the way it has to be, and that if they are talking about 20 units versus 40 units, there is no way in this day and age a building can be constructed for that few units. Ugorets commented he also cannot think of another project that will minimize the traffic and fit all the criteria that everybody desires. Ugorets stated he would love to accommodate everybody here, but if he did that, it would be a parking lot, which is not going to happen. Ugorets noted an office building will generate more traffic. Ugorets stated the higher the building, the more people want to be on the upper floor for the views. Ugorets stated the building they are proposing is barely making it, but what makes it feasible is to put the penthouse up there. Page 11 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Ugorets requested the Planning Commission to either deny or approve the application. If it is denied, the City should revisit the Comprehensive Plan and guide people for something that is doable on this site and not somebody's dream. Ugorets stated he understands the property is guided to 15 units per acre and that they can move some property lines around to meet the density. Ugorets stated he would like to get clear direction on whether the Planning Commission recommends approval or denial before he spends any more money on the project. Ugorets stated the footprint and height are in stone and that he will not redesign and come back with another project. Ugorets stated people in single-family homes or townhouse projects do not want to live next to an office building. Ugorets stated every time there is a multi -family building guided, it is next to a busy road, and that they changed their proposal from an apartment building to condominiums because they thought the residents would be happier with the condominiums Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:12 p.m. Schoenzeit stated it is clear that the intersection of County Roads 19 and 15 does not work and that 95 percent of the traffic comes from the south and the other three directions are almost empty. Schoenzeit stated a police officer directing traffic would be far more efficient than a stoplight. Schoenzeit encouraged the City to move this intersection up to a higher priority independent of what happens with this property. Chair Thiesse reopened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. John Frewalds noted the latest edition of Lakeshore has an article written by him regarding the traffic in this area. Frewalds commented the Lakeshore Weekly liked his article on traffic so much he will be doing a regular column on it. Frewalds stated a good way to look at traffic is to look at it as a glass that is full, and then when you add two more drops, it overflows, which is where they are right now. Frewalds noted they have had to add boulders at the cul-de-sac since GPS shows that it is a through road. Frewalds suggested the speed limit from Shadywood down to County Road 30 be reduced. Page 12 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse noted it is a county road and that only the state can change it. Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Thiesse stated he cannot get over the height of the building in the back. Thiesse stated in his view this site is a condominium site and that the applicants have done a wonderful job in designing the building but that the height is an issue for him. Thiesse stated they are looking at an RPUD, which allows for some flexibility, but that the applicant has said he has no more flexibility. Lemke noted the traffic will be impacted no what goes on this site so it is not as much of a factor. Thiesse commented this is the best use for the property as it relates to traffic. Lemke stated he also has issues with the height since it seems to be too much building for the area. Landgraver stated the proposed use does seem to be an optimal use of the site in terms of minimizing the traffic impact. Landgraver stated he is struggling with the height and in his view it is too much. Landgraver commented it is unfortunate the economics do not work for a building that is not as high. While the Planning Commission has always been sensitive to views of the lake and the visual nature of Orono, the height of the penthouse pushes it too much. Olson stated he is in agreement with Commissioner Landgraver and that he cannot support the project. Schwingler indicated he also is in agreement with the other commissioners. Schoenzeit stated when the proposed density is above what it is guided for, it shows that there is not enough land. Schoenzeit stated the height of the building is the number one show stopper. Schoenzeit asked if including the wetlands would help the dry buildable calculations. Barnhart stated the City does not include the wetlands or the wetland buffer in that calculation. Page 13 of 14 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 19, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted there is some flexibility in shifting the property line, but it raises the question of how shifting that property line will impact setbacks. In addition, the height of the building, density, and traffic are also other issues that have been discussed tonight. Thiesse stated the City has no control over who drives on the road. Landgraver noted the City keeps kicking the density issue down the road and that this was a constructive approach to reaching maximum density on the site. Landgraver stated in his view the higher density helps Orono to a certain extent. Schwingler stated he agrees the density has to be figured out and that this was a good solution. Lemke stated he would prefer the Planning Commission take action on this item tonight. Thiesse stated he wishes there was more flexibility but that the applicant has indicated he cannot reduce the size of the building. Ugorets commented he could put in affordable housing with 500 square foot units and keep it at 30 feet. Landgraver moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3944, Westwood Professional Services on behalf of Ugorets, 8098, LLC, 2520 Shadywood Road, Zoning Change and Master Plan Review. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. John Thiesse, Chair Page 14 of 14 Date Application Received: May 17, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: May 17, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: July 17, 2017 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: June 19, 2017 Council Exhibit C 17-3944 Subject: #17-3944, Westwood Professional Services o/b/o Ugorets 8098, LLC, 2520 Shadywood Road, Rezoning and Master Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting zone change and master concept plan approval to permit construction of a 40 unit condominium building on 3.11 acres to the south of the Freshwater Business Center. The condominium building as proposed is 4 stories with a defined height of 48'8"*. Site improvements include underground and surface parking. The project is proposed to be a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD). Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the application be tabled pending resolution of the items outlined in staff comment letter dated May 25th, 2017 (Exhibit E), this staff report, and additional comments provided by the Planning Commission. *Defined height may be adjusted based on grading plans Background The property is currently zoned B-4 Office Professional, but is guided in the Comprehensive Plan for mixed use with a prescribed density of 6-15 units per acre. The Comprehensive Plan suggests mixed use to include senior assisted living, townhomes, condominiums, or apartment buildings. The use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The density of 40 units on 2.56 net acres is 15.63 units per acre, just above the upper threshold of the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the area. The proposal also suggests modifying a portion of the shared property line between the proposed condominium lot and the lot housing the Freshwater Business Center. A boundary line adjustment is a minor administrative action. The lot boundary though does impact lot size which impacts setbacks, structural coverage, and density calculations. The applicant proposes rezoning to a RPUD. The purpose of the RPUD zone is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain housing goals established in the comprehensive plan. It is intended to encourage the following: (1) Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; (2) Provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs; (3) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; FILE # 17-3944 June 19, 2017 Page 2 of 5 (4) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; (5) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; (6) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and (7) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. RPUD has its own specific standards, attached as Exhibit F. Staff reviewed the project based on those standards and comments were provided in a letter dated May 25, 2017, attached as Exhibit E. To date, no reply has been received. Staff recommends delaying action on the rezoning and preliminary master plan until these comments have been addressed. Based on initial review, the RPUD standards and necessary waivers are summarized: The following items are important individual issues of note: Access. Access to the site is proposed off of a new shared drive with the Freshwater Business Center. This driveway will line up with the driveway serving the church across Shadywood Road. The County supports the offset; the turning movements do not conflict. RPUD District Minimum Proposed Flexibility SFR Standard Lot Standards Required? Minimum project size: 5 acres 2.63 acres Yes Minimum lot size: 15,000 square feet 2.63 acres No Minimum distance from OHW 250' +1000 feet No Minimum front building setback: 50 feet 35 feet Yes Density: Developments with Proposed on B-4 No proposed density in excess of the densities contemplated by the comprehensive plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use. Minimum side yard setback: 35 feet 37 feet No Minimum rear yard setback: Lesser of 40' or Lesser of 40' or No 20% of lot depth (30 feet) 20% of lot depth Maximum FAR: 1.0 unknown TBD Wetland building setback: 85 feet 75 feet, to be verified Yes Private Recreational Area: 10% of gross project area 0% proposed Yes Building height: Maximum of 30 feet Between 36 and 48'8", to Yes be verified Building Roof Flat roofs prohibited Flat roof Yes Hardcover 50% 36.1% No The following items are important individual issues of note: Access. Access to the site is proposed off of a new shared drive with the Freshwater Business Center. This driveway will line up with the driveway serving the church across Shadywood Road. The County supports the offset; the turning movements do not conflict. FILE # 17-3944 June 19, 2017 Page 3 of 5 Traffic. The applicant has prepared a traffic analysis, attached as Exhibit D. It suggests the development will generate 232 trips per weekday, 18 trips in the morning peak hour, and 21 trips in the evening peak hour. The analysis also suggests a similar number of trips each weekend day (226/ Saturday, 194/ Sunday). These additional trips will increase traffic about 3%. City engineering staff have reviewed the traffic analysis and noting that that the assumptions are valid, have no reason to question the findings. Engineering notes bullet point 3 assumes an AADT of 7950 vehicles/day where the Hennepin County 2016 Traffic Flow Map depicts at AADT of 11900 vehicles/day. It should also be noted that from a use standpoint the proposed residential use will have a lower impact compared to other possible uses such as retail. The Commission should note that the development of any vacant lot will increase traffic. For this specific area, much of the traffic is generated by communities west and south of Navarre (Shorewood, Tonka Bay, Excelsior, Mound, Spring Park) as County Rd 15/19 is one of the few corridors connecting these communities with Metro area jobs and services. The Commission should be cautious in basing a land use decision solely on traffic caused by outside sources limits the use of the land to passive uses. Parking. The proposal provides 84 parking spaces, a ratio of 2.1 spaces per unit. 51 of those spaces are under the building, and 33 surface spaces are proposed. The parking requirements are met. Building. The building is intended as a 40 condominium building. This is a change from the sketch plan and public meetings, where the applicant heard condominiums were more desirable. The applicant has stated that condominium buildings require higher ceilings, ultimately increasing the height. The defined height of the building is 48' 8", though the southern third of the building, closest to Shadywood Road, will be 36 feet in height as this portion does not include the penthouse. The height of the building was a point of conversation for the Planning Commission, City Council, and during the neighborhood meeting. The Council advised 30 feet was an acceptable limit. The applicant has provided information as to other projects in Orono higher than 3 stories, including Orono Woods (4 stories in the front, 3 visible in the rear) and the Stonebay Condominiums (3 stories visible in front, 3 plus a garage level in the rear.) The applicant should be asked for additional testimony to support the increase in height. The building is proposed to be 35 feet back from the Shadywood Road right of way line and about 35 feet from the new side lot line to the north, though this has not been verified with an updated survey/ site plan. Setbacks are summarized in the table on page 3, 50 feet fro the front yard and 35 from the side yard. The building will need to be 85 feet (75' MCWD buffer and 10' city setback) from the wetland. Each unit will have a balcony. The building as shown includes brick, steel, and glass with stucco accents. Care will need to be taken to ensure mechanical units are shielded from public view. Wetland The adjacent wetland is a "Preserve" classified wetland, requiring a 75' wetland buffer, plus a 10 FILE # 17-3944 June 19, 2017 Page 4 of 5 foot city setback. The project does not propose an impact to the wetland buffer area, though clarification of the wetland setback on the site plan will be needed. Grading. The grading plan has not been reviewed. Stormwater will need to be retained and treated as required by applicable stormwater regulation. Conceptual ponds are pictured, though sizes and drainage sheds have not been verified. Utilities. The project will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. Conservation Design. A Conservation Design plan will need to be completed as required by city ordinance. This has not yet been completed. Hardcover/ structural coverage. By virtue of RPUD zoning, the property is Tier 4; 50% hardcover is permitted. The proposal includes 48,988 sq ft (36.1%) of hard cover. A rough calculation of the structural converge shows 16,720 sq ft of structural coverage, or 12% of the lot area. Though there is no structural coverage maximum as the property is over 2 acres, 12% of structural coverage is well below the 20% afforded other residential lots. Fees. Preliminary review of the fees are summarized: Park dedication $130,000 Stormwater trunk $ 22,328 (estimated) Sanitary trunk $204,000 Sanitary SAC $ 99,400 Water connection $169,600 Total fees $625,328 Public Comment The applicant has hosted a neighborhood meeting earlier this spring. This neighborhood meeting generated a number of comments, provided in Exhibit C - B3. In addition, neighborhood residents have provided additional comments, Exhibit G. Also, an online petition has been distributed, attached as Exhibit H. Staff has not verified the residency of the petitioners. Issues for Consideration 1. What issues should be addressed in a revised application? 2. Does the Commission find the use of RPUD zoning appropriate for this project? List of Exhibits Exhibit A Application Exhibit B Narrative Exhibit C Applicant's Exhibits Appendix List Al. PROPOSED SITE PLAN A2. BUILDING RENDERINGS A3. BUILDING DIMENSIONS A4. BUILDING SECTION B1. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING SUMMARY B2. NEIGHBOR LETTER B3. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING COMMENT CARDS FILE # 17-3944 June 19, 2017 Page 5 of 5 B4. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INVITATION LIST C. CONTEXT MAP D. SHERMAN SECION-ELEVATION E. LUNDQUIST SECTION -ELEVATION F. CODUTE SECTION -ELEVATION G. PERSPECTIVE H1. ORONO WOODS FRONT ENTRANCE H2. ORONO WOODS REAR H3. ORONO WOODS GARAGE ENTRANCE H4. ORONO WOODS DISTANCES TO HOMES 11. STONE BAY CONDOS FRONT ENTRNACE 12. STONE BAY CONDOS GARAGE ENTRANCE 1 13. STONE BAY CONDOS GARAGE ENTRANCE 2 14. STONE BAY CONDOS WETLAND VIEW 15. STONE BAY CONDOS NEARBY RESIDENT 16. STONE BAY CONDOS DISTANCES TO HOMES Exhibit D Traffic Analysis Exhibit E Comment letter dated May 25, 2017 Exhibit F RPUD standards Exhibit G Resident Comment Exhibit H Online petition Council Exhibit D 17-3944 Use Comparison ITE Trip Generation 9th edition Daily trips are per 24 hour period. AM peak is the highest value hour of site traffic between 7 and 9 am. PM peak is the highest value hour of site traffic between 4 and 6 pm. Peak Hours Daily AM PM 40 Unit apartment 266 20 25 40 Unit condominium 232 18 21 20,000 sqft office 386 53 101 20,000 sr retail 2386 58 204 15,000 sf restaurant 1349 12 112 Daily trips are per 24 hour period. AM peak is the highest value hour of site traffic between 7 and 9 am. PM peak is the highest value hour of site traffic between 4 and 6 pm. Westwood MEMORANDUM Date: May 17, 2017 Re: 2520 Shadywood Rd., Orono, MN — Access Considerations File R0010413.00 To: Tom Goodrum, Westwood From: Steve Manhart, P.E. PTOE, PTP Council Exhibit E 17-3944 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Main (952) 937-5150 Fax (952) 937-5822 westwoodps.com (888) 937-5150 Per your request, I have reviewed the access considerations for the proposed 40 -unit apartment use at 2520 Shadywood Road in Orono. The following are some of my observations and reactions: The posted speed limit on Shadywood Road south of Shoreline Drive (Co. Rd. 15) is 40 mph. Shadywood Road is functionally classified as an "A -Minor Expander" roadway by the Metropolitan Council. The 2015 MnDOT Metro Traffic Volume Map does not provide a specific Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for this segment of Shadywood Road. Nevertheless, one may estimate the daily volume by averaging the given volumes to the north and south of this site. Therefore, one may assume the AADT for this segment of Shadywood Road is approximately 7,950 veh/day. According Land Use Code 230 of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, the 40 -unit condominiums will generate approximately 232 trips per weekday (116 entering and 116 exiting); 18 trips in the a.m. peak hour (3 entering and 15 exiting), and 21 trips in the p.m. peak hour (14 entering and 7 exiting). According Land Use Code 230 of the ITE Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition, the 40 -unit condominiums will generate approximately 226 trips per day on a Saturday (113 entering and 113 exiting), and approximately 194 trips per day on a Sunday (97 entering and 97 exiting). The Saturday peak hour will Multi -Disciplined Surveying & Engineering TBPLS Firm No. 10074302 westwoodps.com May 17, 2017 Page 2 generate 19 trips (10 entering and 9 exiting), while the Sunday peak hour will generate 18 trips (9 entering and 9 exiting). The MnDOT Access Management Manual provides guidance on offset driveways and streets. According to the manual, "On undivided highways, high-volume (Type 3) driveways and public street connections on opposite sides of the a highway should be aligned with one another to the extent practicable, or they should be offset to minimize overlapping left turns and other maneuvers that could result in safety or operational problems."i o A Type 3 driveway is a driveway designed to provide access to a large development area encompassing multiple properties or structures served by a clearly-defined system of internal streets. o The access driveway proposed for this apartment use does not measure up to the scale of a Type 3 driveway. This would be a minor driveway. o It is advisable to provide an offset driveway across from the Baywind Christian Church driveway on the west side of Shadywood Road, as illustrated below. Overlapping driveways with the church should be avoided, due to back-to-back left -turn lanes. Figure 1 — Overlapping Driveways CHURCH NEIGHBORHOOD CHURCH FRESHWATER FRESHWATER FRESHWATER CONDOS CONDOS CONDOS Aligned Offset Overlapping (Source: MnDOTAccess Management Manual, 2008, and Westwood Professional Services, 2017) ' Section 3.4.5., Offset Driveways and Streets, MnDOT Access Management Manual, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Saint Paul, MN, January 2, 2008, p., 35. May 17, 2017 Page 3 Conclusion o Given the modest trip generation during peak hours, the apartment use will increase AADT along Shadywood Road by approximately 3%. o Either an aligned or offset driveway between the apartment use and the church will operate safely and efficiently. An overlapping driveway should be avoided, regardless of the low turning volumes. o It is my engineering judgment that the potential vehicular turning conflicts between the proposed apartment use and the Baywind Christian Church will be relegated to Sunday mornings and possibly one evening a week. Please contact me if you have further questions or comments regarding this review. Council Exhibit F IWASLEA! PROJECT NARRATIVE FRESHWATER CONDOMIUMS REZONING FROM B-4 TO RPUD We are excited to take the next step in our proposal for a high-end market rate condominium adjacent to the newly remodeled Freshwater Office Building. After listening to the feedback we received on our concept plans from the Planning Commission, City Council and the Neighborhood meeting we incorporated changes that we heard as being desirable for the project. Condominiums rather than Apartments Reduce Density High --End Market Rates High --End Quality Reduce Traffic Impact We are proposing to develop a 40 unit high-end condominium building (See Exhibit Al). This removes 10 units from our original concept plan, thus reducing the density and traffic. Traffic will be further reduced as our expected homeowner will be a retired higher -income resident who will likely have a seasonal home and who typically do not contribute to the higher AM and PM peak traffic flows. Due to the reduced units we are also able to reduce the number of required parking stalls from 100 to 80 (84 provided). It is our intent to keep the 51 underground stalls and remove the 16 surface stalls along County Road 19. This will provide us with 84 stalls, four over the city standards. We will replace the 16 stalls with additional berming and landscape. The reduction of surface stalls will also reduce the hardcover and ponding. The additional four stalls could also be removed if the city desires more green space over parking. To accommodate this type of housing and keep a financially viable project we were able to use the same code -complying building footprint but adjusted the floor plates to accommodate larger more expensive residential condominium units. However, to meet the higher -end market demands the rooms will need 9 -foot ceilings, which increases the proposed building height from our concept plan from 31 feet to 36 feet in front and 54 feet to 58 feet, 8 inches in back (See Exhibits A2 -A3). Although height was noted at all three forums it did not appear to be of great concern to the residents attending the neighborhood meeting. We had invited 59 neighboring property owners to the meeting and 25-30 attended. Out of the attendees we received 12 comment cards which only five noted a concern about height. Condominium preference and traffic were the two highest listed concerns. (See Exhibits 131-134). At the neighborhood meeting we demonstrated, through drone aerial photography, how the height of the building will be screened by existing trees from the few neighbors beyond the wetland in back of the building. The photography showed that the existing trees are taller than the proposed building thus blocking views. We also proposed to add evergreen trees to provide a more year round screening. (See Exhibits C -G) Comparable Height Waivers We have seen similar height waivers relating to the Orono Woods Senior Living and Stone Bay Condominiums. Both developments are similar to ours as they utilized the existing topography to minimize grading impacts and created varied heights. Orono Woods (See Exhibits H1 -H4) has three stories at the main entrance of the building and then drops down to two stories on the east as the topography rises. An exposed underground garage element was also created as part of the project. The front of the building also includes a taller architecture element and pitched gables. Our review of the City's architectural plans found that the front of the building consists of several elevations. At the garage door location, the top of the roofline is 36 feet. The top of the roofline at the front entrance is 48 feet, with an additional 10 feet to the top of the tower for a total height of 58 feet. Stone Bay Condominiums (Exhibits 11-16) are more closely related to Freshwater as the front is three stories and then drops toward the back. The side of the building has three stories with an exposed underground garage element along the base. Stone Bay also abuts up against a wetland with views from neighboring residential properties. We did not find any architectural drawings at the City for Stone Bay but with a 3 -story front with a pitched roof and a 3 -story plus exposed garage on the side, it appears that Stone Bay is even a taller building than Orono Woods. The proposed Freshwater building will have a front of building height of 36 feet and a rear of building height of 58 feet, 8 inches along the penthouse. The penthouse portion of the building will be stepped back from the front building line and located in the northeast corner of the building. The penthouse roofline will be in line with the height of the Freshwater office building with a height of 54 feet. By using a flat roof design we matched the roofline of the office building and minimized the height associated with a pitch roof. Neighboring Resident Visibility Not only are the buildings taller at Orono Woods and Stone Bay but the neighboring residents are closer than our proposed Freshwater building. At Freshwater, our closest neighbor is 383 feet with the other residents at the respective distances of 706 and 557 feet. The homes behind Orono Woods are 175, 182 and 263 feet (see Exhibit H4). The closest home at Stone Bay is 122 feet with minimal screening by trees. (See Exhibit 16). By preserving existing trees and adding evergreen trees the visual impact to neighboring residents will be minimal and comparable to other neighborhoods adjacent to business and multi -family zoning districts. Traffic Westwood's traffic engineer reviewed the impacts of a 40 -unit condominium building to the existing traffic volumes and the proposed County Road 19 improvement plans (See Exhibit J). In review of the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual, Ninth Edition a 40 - unit building will add 232 vehicle trips per day (116 entering and 116 exiting trips) and could increase the traffic volume by 3%. This increase is well below traffic volume standards for this classification of road (A -Minor Expander) which is designed for a traffic volume of 10,000- 15,000 vehicles/day. The AM peak volume for the proposed building is estimated at 18 trips (3 trips entering and 15 trips exiting) while the PM peak would be 21 trips (14 trips entering and 7 trips exiting). However, as noted above, our expected resident will be a retired empty nester with a second residence that will typically not be driving during AM or PM peak hours. The proposed County Road 19 improvement project will relieve traffic back-up in this area. The proposed plan will reconstruct County Highway 19 (Shadywood Road) to a three lane section (one lane in each direction with a center two-way left turn lane). This alignment would increase safety and mobility along Shadywood by allowing left turning traffic to enter the center lane while allowing through traffic to proceed on by. Thus, with the proposed improvements the added vehicles from our site will not adversely impact traffic volumes in the area. Neighborhood Compatibility The Freshwater Condominiums are designed both architecturally and physically to be compatible with the surrounding area. We are seeing a revitalization in the Navarre area with several buildings being remodeled and updated. The fresher look and image from these buildings reflect a more contemporary design of flat roofs and modern architectural elements. We are complimenting this look with our Freshwater Office Building and proposed condominiums. The Freshwater Condominiums and Office building will provide a nice transition along the County Road 19 corridor from residential neighborhoods to the city guided commercial and higher density district. Entering Navarre from the south the Freshwater Condominiums will be set back away from County Road 19 nestled into the trees then gradually stepping closer to the corridor in conjunction with the Freshwater Office building. The flat roofline will add to this transition as it minimizes the jaggered roofline and view shed of pitched roofs. (See Exhibit G) We believe that our proposed design is best suited for the site and neighborhood. The condominiums are strategically placed into the existing grade rather than altering the site with extensive grading. The height in the back side of the building is created solely because the site slopes away from County Road 19. By using the existing grade we are best able to preserve the existing topography and vegetation that would otherwise be removed. Rezoning The proposed rezoning from B-4 to RPUD is in conformance with the City's comprehensive plan which anticipates development of this site to include a mix of uses, including condominiums and apartments. The overall gross density we are proposing is 12.66 units per acre and the overall net density is 15.63 units per acre. We understand that an RPUD may have some flexibility to zoning standards which can be incorporated into the new zoning district. In preparing our site plan we worked hard to incorporate existing zoning standards and aimed to avoid requesting numerous deviations from the code ordinance. The only deviation we are requesting is to the city's height standard. In support of our request, we hope that we have demonstrated the minimal impact of the building height by strategic planning of the building footprint location, using existing grades, tree preservation, additional screening, architectural design elements that match surrounding buildings and minimal views. The addition of the Freshwater Condominiums will provide a housing option to the Navarre area that doesn't currently exist for Orono. It is exciting to see the revitalization of the Navarre business district and we are glad to be a part of that growth with the updates to the Freshwater Office building. It is during the improvement project that we heard from aging local residents who are looking for housing other than single-family homes to move into. They want to stay in the Navarre area and to enjoy the shops and restaurants with their friends. The business owners will also benefit by having a larger customer base, especially one with local ties and disposable income. We hope that the City Council can support our plan as one that meets the City's comprehensive plan and vision for the area with desired needs of residents and businesses. We look forward to be part of this community and welcome your comments of our plans and rezoning request. ipetitions YOUR VMCE COURTS This petition has collected 188 signatures using the online tools at iPetitions.com Printed on 2017-06-14 Page 1 of 18 Council Exhibit G `vacle-Ll:l Stop 40 -Unit Apartment/Condo Building on Freshwater Institute Property About this petition A developer proposes building a multi -tenant condominium/apartment building adjacent to the Freshwater Institute in Navarre (2520 Shadywood Road) (the "Project"). The Project involves 40 units, is 4 stories high (5 stories -58' 8"—on the wetland side), with includes 84 to 100 parking spots. The Project would require rezoning the property and other variances from the City of Orono and other governmental agencies. Citizens of Orono and cities neighboring Navarre oppose this Project due to, among other things, the high density, height, increased traffic and congestion, increased noise, increased light, negative impact on animal habitats and wetlands, negative impact on adjoining neighborhoods and the precedent this Project would set for Navarre and the City of Orono. We, the undersigned concerned citizens of the Navarre area, urge Orono, MN leaders to deny the rezoning and boundary line adjustment of, and variances and any other special accommodations for, the Project due to the adverse impact the Project will have on the purpose and value of Orono's zoning regulations and the health and welfare of the citizens of Orono and its neighbors. Page 2 of 18 Signatures 1. Name: Kirk Sherman on 2017-06-02 02:34:52 Comments: 2. Name: Tim Olson on 2017-06-02 15:40:33 Comments: Not the right type of development for the site. Massive building blanketing the sky and big traffic problem for Navarre, Mound, Spring Park residents 3. Name: Beth Schmitt on 2017-06-02 15:41:47 Comments: 4. Name: Scott Ellingboe on 2017-06-02 15:47:28 Comments: 5. Name: Lisa Bergquist on 2017-06-02 15:48:08 Comments: 6. Name: Catherine Stepanek on 2017-06-02 15:48:14 Comments: I'm not opposed to multi- unit dwellings, but the scale of this project is double what is appropriate for the site, the neighborhood, the wetlands etc. 7. Name: Lynsey Aul on 2017-06-02 15:52:39 Comments: 8. Name: Jon Eiss on 2017-06-02 15:53:01 Comments: 9. Name: Ellie Langlas on 2017-06-02 15:58:53 Comments: 10. Name: Dave Eiss on 2017-06-02 15:59:49 Comments: 11. Name: jim zimmerman on 2017-06-02 16:11:10 Comments: jimz@thezimmermangroup.com 12. Name: Thomas P Lowe on 2017-06-02 16:12:58 Comments: traffic problems created with this project will be tremendous. Traffic is terrible during rush hours and this will just make it worse. If this is not already zoned for this much density it should be denied. 13. Name: Patty Morris on 2017-06-02 16:16:29 Page 3 of 18 Comments: 14. Name: Tracy Baumer on 2017-06-02 16:30:14 Comments: 15. Name: Vail Baumer on 2017-06-02 16:35:55 Comments: 16. Name: John Withrow on 2017-06-02 16:36:43 Comments: 17. Name: David Stepanek on 2017-06-02 16:44:23 Comments: no 18. Name: Shawn Mclntee on 2017-06-02 16:52:47 Comments: 19. Name: jill bauer on 2017-06-02 16:56:42 Comments: 20. Name: Christine Hardten on 2017-06-02 16:57:57 Comments: 21. Name: Alicia Codute on 2017-06-02 17:00:16 Comments: 22. Name: Amy Abouelenein on 2017-06-02 17:16:54 Comments: 23. Name: Dena on 2017-06-02 17:19:17 Comments: 24. Name: Steve Englund on 2017-06-02 17:24:26 Comments: TRAFFIC!! 25. Name: Scott Wine on 2017-06-02 17:26:17 Comments: 26. Name: Heidi Witte on 2017-06-02 17:35:16 Comments: Traffic in this area is so incredibly congested even now- this area cannot support this type of development Page 4 of 18 27. Name: Jessica Withrow on 2017-06-02 17:39:41 Comments: 28. Name: Sheila on 2017-06-02 18:26:12 Comments: 29. Name: Robin Dodson on 2017-06-02 18:26:48 Comments: Developer needs to work within the zoning and ordinances already in place. They are there for a reason. Deny the variance request. 30. Name: Greg Hayhurst on 2017-06-02 19:01:51 Comments: While I would usually support a project like this, this one makes no sense based on the location, size and impact to the community. Traffic on 19 heading north during rush hour is already a joke. Accidents trying to turn left onto 19 for cross streets is increasing and this will only add to the problem. I could maybe support it if access could be off of county 15 via the road on the other side of the marsh -- but I am sure those neighbors would be pissed. I know I would. All in all, bad idea. 31. Name: Brent Reid on 2017-06-02 19:05:40 Comments: 32. Name: Gayle Hayhurst on 2017-06-02 19:07:22 Comments: This is a terrible idea and will permanently and negatively damage the neighborhoods. Traffic on 19 is already a huge problem during morning and evening rush hour. I don't know how it can accommodate 100 more cars. I worry about the wildlife in the marsh and we should seek to preserve our shrinking wild areas! 33. Name: Jacqueline Sherman on 2017-06-02 19:14:45 Comments: This project is too big for this location. 34. Name: Sandra Keegan on 2017-06-02 19:19:33 Comments: This area is not suitable for this type of development with all the wetlands right there. 35. Name: Kyle Klossner on 2017-06-02 19:27:55 Comments: 36. Name: Bridgette Olson on 2017-06-02 19:30:05 Comments: 37. Name: Linda L Eckland on 2017-06-02 19:35:41 Comments: Traffic is already congested at the intersection of 15 & 19, especially mornings and evenings. The impact on the wetlands and habitat would be devastating! Page 5 of 18 38. Name: Gigi Jabbour on 2017-06-02 19:37:52 Comments: 39. Name: James krey on 2017-06-02 19:38:09 Comments: Approving this re -zoning project will only further exhasperbate the traffic congestion in Navarre. Traffic on Cnty RD 19 and 15 is already at a crawl in the AM and PM. This is the WRONG location for this proposed project. 40. Name: Kelley Diekman on 2017-06-02 19:39:47 Comments: 41. Name: Michelle on 2017-06-02 19:40:16 Comments: 42. Name: Hannah Stone on 2017-06-02 19:42:37 Comments: 43. Name: Doug Eckland on 2017-06-02 19:45:08 Comments: 44. Name: Kyla Hudson on 2017-06-02 19:45:45 Comments: 45. Name: Amy Palmer on 2017-06-02 19:48:44 Comments: The traffic is already too busy there, and this complex would not help our community at all.No more building!! 46. Name: Cil Cullen on 2017-06-02 19:59:11 Comments: The traffic would be horrendous, there would be huge negative impact on the surrounding neighborhoods. We can't let this happen... 47. Name: Penny Saiki on 2017-06-02 20:11:11 Comments: 48. Name: Kelly Eichmeyer on 2017-06-02 20:11:38 Comments: 49. Name: Heather Musman on 2017-06-02 20:29:38 Comments: Too big --keep within zoning limits. 50. Name: Michaela Diercks on 2017-06-02 20:37:12 Comments: Page 6 of 18 51. Name: Paul Chermak on 2017-06-02 20:40:34 Comments: This complex would severely increase traffic, damage wildlife and not fit into a small community. It must be stopped. 52. Name: Rebecca Moore on 2017-06-02 20:43:07 Comments: 53. Name: Jeff Garberg on 2017-06-02 20:44:11 Comments: 54. Name: Sheila McSherry on 2017-06-02 20:46:05 Comments: 55. Name: Susan Chermak on 2017-06-02 21:18:49 Comments: This will have a major impact on traffic, wildlife and not fit the small footprint of Navarre. We already have major traffic problems on 19. This must not happen ! 56. Name: Don Schrader on 2017-06-02 21:44:30 Comments: To much traffic now. it will kill the charm of Navarre! 57. Name: Sonja Lockman on 2017-06-02 21:50:51 Comments: All the development all over the Orono area is destroying the charm of the city and making traffic unbearable. 15 and 19/McCulley both are already getting nearly impossible to cross (or sometimes even enter going the same direction) at certain times. 58. Name: JoAnn Barbetta on 2017-06-02 21:54:14 Comments: Traffic will be adversely affected by this development. We strongly oppose this development. 59. Name: Lawrence Barbetta on 2017-06-02 21:55:46 Comments: I strongly oppose this development. 60. Name: Lucas Detor on 2017-06-02 22:22:08 Comments: 61. Name: Sunhi Ryan on 2017-06-02 22:55:47 Comments: 62. Name: Paul Taylor on 2017-06-02 23:17:15 Comments: Stay strict and strong on the current zoning laws. This type of development is not suited to be on a swamp, nor the dredging and channel proposed to let residents get to Lake Minnetonka. There is a reason this has remained a swamp for so many decades and should remain so without any disturbance from a developer who cares nothing for the wetlands or nature that uses it. Page 7 of 18 63. Name: Scott Hutton on 2017-06-02 23:21:21 Comments: 64. Name: Barbara Miller on 2017-06-03 00:14:17 Comments: 65. Name: Marlys Ogle on 2017-06-03 00:25:46 Comments: 66. Name: Jan Berg on 2017-06-03 00:27:15 Comments: 67. Name: Joe Sanguinetti on 2017-06-03 00:54:37 Comments: I am strongly opposed to this development 68. Name: Roxanne Heaton on 2017-06-03 01:14:58 Comments: 69. Name: Pamela Janisch on 2017-06-03 01:34:28 Comments: Lake (water) quality is an important issue for Lake Minnetonka. Disturbing the wetland will only be another negative impact. 70. Name: Diane York on 2017-06-03 02:04:44 Comments: 71. Name: Libby Detor on 2017-06-03 02:36:14 Comments: 72. Name: Kathy Kladek on 2017-06-03 03:13:51 Comments: There is a place for everything and this is not the place to be putting in a 4-5 story, 40 unit condo/apartment unit. Looks like greed to me and it is to small of an area to do this. It's a wetland for nature to use! 73. Name: George Jones on 2017-06-03 03:22:09 Comments: I live about a 2 wood away from the site of this proposed debacle. It does not belong in that location. It does nothing enhance the character of downtown Orono (Navarre). Traffic has already ballooned to an unsafe level in that area. Please do not change any zoning or approve variances to allow this project's approval. 74. Name: Anita Ridge on 2017-06-03 04:17:05 Comments: Page 8 of 18 75. Name: Ashley England on 2017-06-03 04:32:40 Comments: 76. Name: Kevin Duck on 2017-06-03 04:54:28 Comments: No way, any cars too many people too many more boats. We don't need to cram people in here it's already full. Look at how close the houses are to their neighbors. Find something somewhere that already exists! How much irony in having a freshwater area donated, dedicated to always be undeveloped that way and then you put in a bunch of apartments, boat slips and hundreds more cars on our little go cart track of 30 miles an hour in and out of town, depending on who the front vehicle is and if they decide to go the speed limit otherwise there's always a train of cars going 25-30 in a45 mph. It's just all gotten crazy. 77. Name: Connie Clair on 2017-06-03 08:44:56 Comments: 78. Name: Janice Jamieson on 2017-06-03 11:29:38 Comments: How can this benefit the environment or the quality of life here in Navarre? It will not. 79. Name: David Jamieson on 2017-06-03 12:11:58 Comments: 80. Name: Nikki Jabs on 2017-06-03 13:28:09 Comments: 81. Name: Kelly Eiss on 2017-06-03 13:28:44 Comments: 82. Name: David hardten on 2017-06-03 13:46:45 Comments: 83. Name: Lynn Adams on 2017-06-03 14:33:07 Comments: 84. Name: v Maddock on 2017-06-03 15:13:03 Comments: 85. Name: Sue Heurung on 2017-06-03 15:52:21 Comments: 86. Name: Betsy Myers on 2017-06-03 17:18:38 Comments: Navarre cannot handle a development of this size!! Page 9 of 18 87. Name: Lori schlottman on 2017-06-03 17:20:08 Comments: 88. Name: Debbie White on 2017-06-03 18:38:24 Comments: I used to live in Navarre for many years and I agree that the area cannot support this type of development for a variety of reasons, Traffic flow being one but as already stated, the irony of building high density housing on a protected habitat and fresh water area. Making money should not be the primary concern. 89. Name: Michelle Brassington on 2017-06-03 19:13:42 Comments: 90. Name: Barbara Bedell on 2017-06-03 19:18:10 Comments: 91. Name: Brooks chandler on 2017-06-03 19:29:45 Comments: 92. Name: Heather Parris on 2017-06-03 19:43:39 Comments: 93. Name: Pamela Bozonie on 2017-06-03 19:51:17 Comments: Doesn't fit our community and would destroy our wetlands! Absolutely not! 94. Name: Stacy Joslin on 2017-06-03 20:19:42 Comments: 95. Name: June Tearle on 2017-06-03 20:37:29 Comments: We live in Navarre. 96. Name: Lori Spear on 2017-06-04 03:05:13 Comments: Too large for the street. 97. Name: Owen Liu on 2017-06-04 06:38:30 Comments: 98. Name: Dave Fredrickson on 2017-06-04 13:55:54 Comments: 99. Name: Mary Benson on 2017-06-04 14:19:40 Comments: Page 10 of 18 100. Name: Andrew Schmidt on 2017-06-04 17:32:55 Comments: 101. Name: Jamie Lohr on 2017-06-04 17:33:50 Comments: 102. Name: Betty hayes on 2017-06-04 17:35:02 Comments: the proposed site is inappropriate for a multi -tenant complex. In addition, the Increased traffic would be a negative impact on the area. 103. Name: Scott Brown on 2017-06-04 19:50:12 Comments: Destroys wetlands, traffic would be excessive Just not what we want for our community 104. Name: Pamela Scott on 2017-06-04 20:39:19 Comments: Traffic congestion; noise levels; the impact on the fragile lake area; the addition of this building will be so very harmful in so many ways. 105. Name: Dave Schneider on 2017-06-04 22:43:20 Comments: 106. Name: David Wheaton on 2017-06-05 02:05:36 Comments: Please do not do this. High density housing will make an increasingly congested area even more so. In my opinion, the over development of Wayzata has ruined the city. Don't do the same to Navarre. 107. Name: Brodie Wheaton on 2017-06-05 03:14:27 Comments: There is such a push in every local community to bring in these big condo/apartment buildings. Lets keep Navarre quaint and small! The traffic is already a problem during the week and this will make it much worse. 108. Name: Marry Bliskowski on 2017-06-05 06:58:45 Comments: NO... to this development 109. Name: Chris Joslin on 2017-06-05 12:28:13 Comments: Please stop the development! 110. Name: Camille Sherman on 2017-06-05 13:09:25 Comments: 111. Name: Dennis Richards on 2017-06-05 13:31:43 Comments: Remove the bridge at the Narrows if this is built to keep the line of traffic Page 11 of 18 backed up in Orono. 112. Name: regina engebritson on 2017-06-05 14:00:06 Comments: 113. Name: Jim Gagne on 2017-06-05 14:08:24 Comments: 114. Name: Sheila Bakke on 2017-06-05 14:42:09 Comments: As I recall, when the Fresh Water Institute first acquired that land it promised that that land would never be built on, primarily because it was a wetland. Of course that promise was broken when some of the land was donated to the U of M which chose to sell it for single family houses on Old Beach Road. Orono should not let that happen again. 115. Name: Rebecca on 2017-06-05 14:57:30 Comments: 116. Name: Lee Louise Sundet on 2017-06-05 14:59:06 Comments: 117. Name: Heidi Haberman on 2017-06-05 15:07:41 Comments: 118. Name: Suzanne Walcher on 2017-06-05 17:28:15 Comments: It's quite challenging and often dangerous to take a left hand turn onto Shoreline Drive when driving south on CR -19 at rush hours, as it is (no left arrow going this direction). I can't imagine how it would be with additional traffic that would be added by this development. In addition, this structure would tower over existing homes and be detrimental to the preserved wetlands. I'm very much against this. 119. Name: Aaron Gross on 2017-06-05 18:21:41 Comments: Stop development. 120. Name: Julie Hadden on 2017-06-05 21:10:43 Comments: 121. Name: Janet Dunn on 2017-06-05 21:53:52 Comments: 122. Name: Linda Ruiz on 2017-06-05 22:39:36 Comments: Page 12 of 18 123. Name: Evalina korba on 2017-06-05 23:20:17 Comments: Did the Lofts and The Mist condos not tank due to over -building? These too shall burst when this current bubble bursts. and what happened to the park island deal? 124. Name: Carol Grones on 2017-06-06 00:45:32 Comments: 125. Name: Joni Lohre on 2017-06-06 02:02:52 Comments: 126. Name: Debbie Getlin on 2017-06-06 02:14:39 Comments: 127. Name: Catherine Dremel on 2017-06-06 02:27:11 Comments: Too busy in area for this type of development! 128. Name: Erin tully on 2017-06-06 04:17:20 Comments: This building is insane. Navarre needs to save its charm 129. Name: Carolyn Squires on 2017-06-06 13:55:06 Comments: 130. Name: Mary Sherman on 2017-06-06 14:07:39 Comments: 131. Name: Emily goetz on 2017-06-06 15:10:56 Comments: 132. Name: Margaret Jagodzinski Wood on 2017-06-06 15:39:37 Comments: I oppose this project because 40 units would cause traffic congestion and have negative impacts on both wetlands and wildlife. 133. Name: Kirk Johnson on 2017-06-06 17:30:21 Comments: I strongly oppose this project! 134. Name: Susan Paulson on 2017-06-06 17:42:57 Comments: Just say no 135. Name: Alyssa Baumer on 2017-06-06 17:43:58 Comments: 136. Name: Linda Kelley Freivalds on 2017-06-06 17:58:08 Page 13 of 18 Comments: I strongly oppose this project. The impact on the already congested traffic would be extremely negative. The projected size and density would have a negative impact on the animals and wetlands. 137. Name: John Freivalds on 2017-06-06 18:00:25 Comments: Strongly oppose due to negative impact on character of neighborhood and dangerously increased traffic on currently congested roads. 138. Name: Linda Sallee on 2017-06-06 20:15:15 Comments: 139. Name: Sonja on 2017-06-06 22:44:05 Comments: 140. Name: Shirley Bull on 2017-06-06 23:10:24 Comments: 141. Name: Cathy Hart on 2017-06-07 03:20:44 Comments: 142. Name: Noah Hoffman on 2017-06-07 03:39:54 Comments: 143. Name: Janice Hurd on 2017-06-07 05:06:25 Comments: 144. Name: Kendall Mclntee on 2017-06-08 00:42:04 Comments: 145. Name: M A Dahlquist on 2017-06-09 00:15:40 Comments: NO!!!! This is a crazy proposal for this site for Many reasons! 146. Name: Larry Lundquist on 2017-06-09 13:29:38 Comments: This is primarily a too tall building. 147. Name: Donna Lundquist on 2017-06-09 13:31:33 Comments: 148. Name: Thomas Codute on 2017-06-10 16:07:09 Comments: Way to big and too many units for such a small area. Congested area, brings more congestion. I strongly oppose this project. Page 14 of 18 149. Name: Patrick Motherway on 2017-06-12 16:37:36 Comments: 150. Name: Andrew Pratt on 2017-06-12 17:51:14 Comments: 151. Name: Addie Hardten on 2017-06-12 17:57:18 Comments: 152. Name: Melanie Flessner on 2017-06-12 18:08:22 Comments: 153. Name: Shannon Burger on 2017-06-12 18:16:54 Comments: 154. Name: Pete Hanson on 2017-06-12 18:34:53 Comments: 155. Name: Davida Suiter on 2017-06-12 18:35:15 Comments: 156. Name: Anne Nelson on 2017-06-12 18:40:50 Comments: This is out of bounds. Traffic is a nightmare as is. It is not in keeping with the character of the area. Not to say how it will impact local habitat/animals. 157. Name: elli on 2017-06-12 18:55:26 Comments: The impact of this type of project would overwhelm the area in so many negative ways. 158. Name: Linda Meffert on 2017-06-12 18:57:00 Comments: I object having any more traffic on city rd 19. The proposed condo would make it extremely difficult to get in and out of driveways. The line up on 19& 15 he's ridiculous at this point. He's ridiculous at this point 159. Name: Candice Nadler on 2017-06-12 19:07:57 Comments: This is already a dangerous traffic situation. Traffic on County Road 19 backs up for miles - even beyond the Narrows bridge during rush hours. Navarre has no history of such density and is not in keeping with the neighborhood or wildlife areas. County Rd 19 is a major recreational county asset with a huge number of cyclists touring Lake Minnetonka along this route. Single family would be in keeping with the history of this neighborhood. 160. Name: Kris Brown on 2017-06-12 19:19:30 Comments: Page 15 of 18 161. Name: Stephanie Olson on 2017-06-12 19:23:49 Comments: Please rethink this project from a community stand point. This will forever ruin any potential for Navarre to develop into a charming small-town atmosphere, destroy the beautiful habitat and the pleasant skyline, not to mention the traffic!. There are so many possibilities for this location,,,, put a little thought into it. 162. Name: Roban Smith on 2017-06-12 19:30:21 Comments: I don't care for a number of things about this project but the traffic situation at this intersection is already dangerous and I believe this would make it much worse. 163. Name: Sarah Affolter on 2017-06-12 19:40:30 Comments: 164. Name: Rosie iversen on 2017-06-12 19:43:33 Comments: 165. Name: Tracy Turner on 2017-06-12 19:45:54 Comments: 166. Name: Daniel C Buerman on 2017-06-12 19:48:19 Comments: I travel Cty Rd 19 often, sometimes several times daily and the traffic is already terrible without any additional traffic. A building that large would also be an eyesore to what is supposed to be maintained as a Wildlife area. 167. Name: Karlton Gempler on 2017-06-12 20:17:45 Comments: There must be space available that doesn't involve limiting the view to just a few apt. dwellers. 168. Name: Bonnie Lervik on 2017-06-12 22:15:00 Comments: 169. Name: Michelle Heins on 2017-06-12 22:34:56 Comments: Please reconsider the location of this project. Traffic is already terrible at the intersection of 15 &19, this will only make it worse. It backs up to West Point Road during rush hour. I oppose this project. 170. Name: Jim White on 2017-06-12 23:22:59 Comments: A good traffic analysis paid for by the developer and reviewed by the city engineer and Hennepin County would likely show that at peak travel times traffic is already too congested in Navarre. 171. Name: Steve Bakke on 2017-06-12 23:32:24 Comments: Page 16 of 18 172. Name: Evie engler on 2017-06-13 00:04:33 Comments: 173. Name: John Shedon on 2017-06-13 01:35:43 Comments: 174. Name: Deborah Butler on 2017-06-13 01:38:06 Comments: 175. Name: John Motzko on 2017-06-13 02:53:55 Comments: 176. Name: Jamie on 2017-06-13 03:11:50 Comments: 177. Name: Jeff Baumer on 2017-06-13 03:51:51 Comments: I'd like to see a building that would have less impact on the already heavy traffic. 178. Name: Mary Mueller on 2017-06-13 13:45:14 Comments: It is not only traffic, it is the impact upon the wetland area, which is precious to our region. This is one of the last wooded areas adjacent to the freshwater wetlands lets hold on to it. 179. Name: Martha Mayer on 2017-06-13 14:08:21 Comments: 180. Name: Dick Adams on 2017-06-13 15:59:58 Comments: I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. We do not have the road capacity for the project, it would impact the charm of the area, and it is not in keeping with the comprehensive plan of the City of Orono. 181. Name: Curt Holt on 2017-06-13 17:05:31 Comments: I oppose this development as described. In addition to increasing traffic on already congested local roads, this project is simply too large and not in scale with the neighborhood. It would also adversely affect the adjacent wetland and the natural flow of water into Lake Minnetonka. 182. Name: James Brisley on 2017-06-13 19:12:20 Comments: 183. Name: Bill Boudewyns on 2017-06-13 19:33:02 Page 17 of 18 Comments: 184. Name: Blaine P Bailey on 2017-06-13 19:41:04 Comments: 185. Name: charles nadler on 2017-06-14 01:11:40 Comments: As so many other citizens, I am very concerned about the increased traffic, the outsized development for the neighborhood , impact to the wetlands and what liberal interpretation of variances could allow this project even to get to this stage. One final point, the traffic was so bad on 19 over a decade ago that commuters were using Old Beach Road as a shortcut to CR 15 that the city closed the Old Beach Road entrance onto CR 19. The traffic now back up to the Narrow bridge during rush hours. When will the city of Orono learn? 186. Name: Ann Purcell on 2017-06-14 03:23:15 Comments: 187. Name: Julie Ellingboe on 2017-06-14 14:59:20 Comments: 188. Name: Brenna Mueller on 2017-06-14 18:28:51 Comments: Page 18 of 18 Council Exhibit H 17-3944 MEMORANDUM TO: ORONO CITY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: RESIDENTS OF OLD BEACH ROAD, NAVARRE DATE: June 12, 2017 RE: Opposition to Proposed Rezoning of, and Master Develop- ment Plan for, 2520 Shadywood Road Summary The Planning Commission should deny the rezoning request and master development plan for 2520 Shadywood Road in its current form. The pro- posed development conflicts with the vision and standards for growth contained in the Orono City 2010 to 2030 Community Management Plan. It would have a significant detrimental effect on the setting, the adjacent properties and residents due to its detrimental impact on: (i) Traffic and pedestrians, (ii) Established neighborhood character (e.g., extreme height), (iii) Wetland/Lake Minnetonka, and (iv) Dark skies. Overview The residents of Old Beach Road listed on Exhibit A oppose the master development plan proposed for 2520 Shadywood Road. The proposal is inconsistent with the setting and community, and antithetical to the prin- ciples and vision expressed in the Orono City 2010 to 2030 Community Management Plan ("CMP"). We urge the Commission to reject the pro- posed plan and deny the request for rezoning until a revised plan com- patible with the setting, community and CMP is presented.' 1 We acknowledge that property owners have full rights to develop their prop- erty within applicable zoning restrictions. We do not seek to stop all develop- ment of the subject property. We only ask that the development be done con- sistent with the setting, community and CMP. In this memorandum, we: • Review the CMP's guiding principles and vision as it relates to Navarre generally and the subject site specifically • Describe how the proposed plan is inconsistent with the CMP's guiding principles and vision in the areas of o Traffic and pedestrians o Building height o Wetlands and Lake Minnetonka o Dark skies • Propose other uses for the subject property that would be con- sistent with the CMP CMP Guiding Principles and Vision The CMP was developed between 2008 and 2010, predating a period of growth in Orono and surrounding communities that has significantly in- creased the pressures on Navarre and its residents. However, even as Na- varre was nearly a decade ago, the CMP expresses concern about manag- ing that growth in a way that would preserve Orono and Navarre's unique natures and resources. For example, even in identifying the subject property as potentially re- ceiving a "mixed use" designation, the CMP recognizes the need for cau- tion, calling upon public input: The "Mixed Use" designation allows for the possibility of higher density multi -family residential development such as senior assisted living, townhomes, condominiums or apartment buildings. Actual development of such uses on any given property would not occur until a developer applies for and successfully completes a formal re- zoning process during which there would be ample opportunities for public input.2 The CMP continues this cautious tone in outlining the general principles for development that should guide any zoning change for the subject property (all emphasis is added): 2 CMP page 4 2 The basic goal of [the CMP] is preservation: Preservation of our resources; preservation of our distinct urban and rural life- styles; preservation of Lake Minnetonka and its sensitive watershed; and preservation of individual initiative and responsibility' The concern of the residents is to provide for continuing maintenance and preservation of those natural resources and social amenities which attracted people to Orono in the first place. Near the lake, density of development has to be regulated in or- der to minimize the resultant stormwater runoff pollution which, if unrestricted, could permanently alter and destroy the ecology of this very unique resource.' Orono's managed growth policy means that the need to use and enjoy Lake Minnetonka will be balanced with protection of its water quality and accessibility for future generations. This policy means that the acceptance of growth and development changes will be balanced with conservation of our resources and natural amenities, and maintenance of our small town social character.' Additional urban development will occur in the urbanized ar- eas consistent with the capacities of the existing urban services and at limited densities consistent with all environmental constraints.' Urban Community Goal 3 — To improve the quality of life and neighborhood aesthetics while maintaining the existing diversity of housing and shopping opportunities.' Urban Community Goal 4 — To prevent overly dense development or any excessive demand for services which would in any way ad- versely affect Lake Minnetonka or its associated wetlands or drainage areas.8 ' CMP page 2-9. 4 CMP page 2-10. 5 CMP page 2-11. 6 CMP page 2-15. 7 CMP page 2-17. 8 CMP page 2-17. • Urban Planning Policy 1— Future urban development will be carefully integrated into the existing neighborhoods. No new devel- opment will be permitted to conflict with or adversely affect the es- tablished neighborhood character.' • Urban Planning Policy 4 — Urban developments will be carefully screened for environmental sensitivity. Most of Orono's urban neighborhoods are located very close to Lake Minnetonka; therefore, any urban development has the potential for direct adverse impact on the lake. Storm water runoff control, erosion and sedimentation are particular concerns requiring careful de- sign attention in all new urban developments. In addition, par- ticular care will be taken to preserve open spaces, wooded areas and solar access." • Urban Planning Policy 5 — Urban developments will be limited to the extent that they can be adequately served by the existing or planned public facilities and services. New development will not be permitted to exceed the existing or planned capacity of local roads, utilities, parks, police and fire protection." Application of Guiding Principles and Vision to Proposed Project Impact on Traffic /Pedestrians — The proposed building and its impact on an already difficult and dangerous traffic and pedestrian situation di- rectly conflict with the CMP's principles and findings. Attached as Exhibit B are the results of a petition circulated by foot and online among Navarre residents. Over 160 individuals signed the peti- tion, objecting to the proposed building. Without prompting or encour- agement, over 50 people responding to the online survey described key objections. They nearly all focused on the size of the proposed building. Thirty of these specifically named traffic as a concern with the project. For example: - Way to big and too many units for such a small area. Congested area, brings more congestion. I strongly oppose this project. ' CMP page 2-17. 10 CMP page 2-18. 11 CMP page 2-18. 4 Strongly oppose due to negative impact on character of neighbor- hood and dangerously increased traffic on currently congested roads. It's quite challenging and often dangerous to take a left hand turn onto Shoreline Drive when driving south on CR -19 at rush hours, as it is (no left arrow going this direction). I can't imagine how it would be with additional traffic that would be added by this de- velopment. In addition, this structure would tower over existing homes and be detrimental to the preserved wetlands. I'm very much against this. This will have a major impact on traffic, wildlife and not fit the small footprint of Navarre. We already have major traffic prob- lems on 19. This must not happen! This is a terrible idea and will permanently and negatively dam- age the neighborhoods. Traffic on 19 is already a huge problem during morning and evening rush hour. I don't know how it can accommodate 100 more cars. I worry about the wildlife in the marsh and we should seek to preserve our shrinking wild areas! Navarre traffic already far exceeds capacity. The dense rush hour traffic makes it difficult and dangerous to turn onto County Road 19 or County Road 15 from any Navarre side streets. During evening rush hour, traffic on County Road 19 regularly backs up past the Narrows Bridge. And the intersection of County Road 19 and County Road 15 is already notorious among commuters for being unsafe, awkward, and even frightening. As noted above, a guiding CMP principle regarding future urban devel- opment states: Urban Planning Policy 5 — Urban developments will be limited to the extent that they can be adequately served by the existing or planned public facilities and services. New development will not be permitted to exceed the existing or planned capacity of local roads, utili- ties, parks, police and fire protection.1z (Emphasis added.) The CMP also addressed the County Road 15 traffic problem specifically: 12 CMP page 2-18. Additionally, County Road 15, which is the key roadway serving Orono's suburban areas and particularly the Navarre area, is far over capacity. It is not practical from an economic or environmental standpoint to expand County Road 15 to increase its capacity. There- fore, additional housing options will be primarily developed along Orono's Highway 12 corridor in specifically identified areas that are or will be served by urban services.13 (Emphasis added.) The CMP also lists "a number of challenges to be addressed as Navarre redevelops in the years to come."14 The first of these relates to keeping/ making Navarre a pedestrian -friendly location: High traffic volumes and the existing traffic management infrastruc- ture result in poor pedestrian accessibility. Pedestrians have limited options for crossing CR 15 or CR 19.15 In the seven years since the CMP was updated, the traffic and pedestrian situations have significantly worsened not only due to Orono's growth, but also due to the growth in surrounding communities, increasing through traffic. Adding 200 to 300 car trips per day for the proposed pro- ject would exacerbate in a meaningful way the current bad and danger- ous traffic and pedestrian situations in Navarre. Established Neighborhood Character - The height of the proposed build- ing far exceeds that of adjacent structures and is entirely inconsistent with the established neighborhood character. Northwest of the proposed building is the Freshwater Office Building ("FOB"). As shown by the pictures on the following page, the FOB is one story when viewed from the front and two stories when viewed from the back." 13 CMP page 3C-25. 14 CMP page 3B-38. 15 CMP page 3B-38. 16 Small architectural details of the FOB extend above the rest of the structure, but they do not change the one-story front/two-story back of the FOB. M By comparison, the proposed structure is four stories when viewed from the front and five from the back, more than twice the height of the FOB and significantly taller than most of the surrounding tree canopy. To the east of the proposed building are the single-family homes of Old Beach Road. The closest is 2505 Old Beach Road. The developer's material states the proposed building is 384 feet from the home and 119 feet from the dividing property line. This means significant portions of the 2505 property and adjacent properties would be well within 200 feet of the building. Exhibit D to the developer's submission to the Commission illustrates the relationship of 2505 Old Beach Road to the project. The illustration shows the distance between the two structures and a few trees in-between: 7 ,rp�rcrsu��ei.�anq What the illustration misses is the relative height and elevations of the two structures. The illustration below maintains the distance between the two structures and then, on the same scale, shows the heights and eleva- tions of the two buildings. Considering (i) the proposed building's "un- derground" parking is actually above ground in the rear, (ii) the actual relative heights of the structures, and (iii) the lower starting ground level of the home, the proposed building would tower over the home, being nearly twice as tall: (Exhibits E and F to the developer's submission illustrating the relation- ship of the proposed building to the Lundquist and Codute residences re- quire similar adjustments to accurately represent the relative heights of the structures.) The trees between the building and the Old Beach Road homes provide little screening: M • For seven months of the year, the trees are bare, providing no screening. 17 The residents will have their westward views con- sumed by the building, and will have dozens of balconies and windows peering down on their properties and into their homes. • During the five months with leaves, significant portions of the building will still be visible given the building's height and breadth. • Many of the existing tall trees would have to be removed to make way for the building. • Trees that remain show signs of age and ill -health and would likely not survive long enough for new tall trees to take their place. Some of these are ash that are expected soon to be taken out by emerald ash borers. Therefore, tree screening is not a realistic or reliable response to the Old Beach Road residents' objections to the building's extraordinary size. To the north of the proposed building is a magnificent wetland, then County Road 15, and then the homes of the "Ridge" in Minnetonka Beach. The five -story view of the proposed building will have even less tree screening, if any, when viewed from the North given the building's proposed location so close to the wetland. It would impose on all passers- by and Ridge residents a stark and unpleasant contrast to the green vege- tation and blue water that otherwise grace the area. Impact on Wetland and Lake Minnetonka — The proposed site is part of a land parcel IDS donated to the Freshwater Biological Research Founda- tion in the early 1970's. After a series of five tornados wreaked havoc with Lake Minnetonka in 1965, Dick Gray began researching and recording the health of Lake Minnetonka. In February 1968, drilling through 20 inches of ice to take his weekly water samples, he was shocked to see red water pouring out of the hole, "a sure sign of bad pollution." A few months later Gray teamed with the University of Minnesota to es- tablish the Foundation, and in 1974 they moved into the new Freshwater 17 Nearly all evergreen trees illustrated in the developer's material are not actu- ally in the sight lines between the proposed building and the homes. Biological Institute of Navarre. Teamed with doctoral students from the University, they began their research in earnest.18 Renamed the Freshwater Society, the headquarters have now moved to St. Paul, resulting in the sale of the property to the current owner. The subject property has long been a significant and respected landmark in Navarre, bringing with its name and work a high standard of steward- ship over Lake Minnetonka and its surrounding wetlands, the same high standards reflected in the CMP when it comes to protecting these valua- ble resources. While we are not scientists, we cannot imagine how putting 100 or more cars and people and their pets and trash bins on the very edge of a wet- land that feeds directly into Lake Minnetonka could be anything but harmful. That harm could come during construction (reports are that silt flow has already been a problem at the development across County Road 19) or over the years of additional foot and car and pet traffic. Impact on Dark Skies - The CMP states the following regarding the desire to allow all Orono residents to enjoy dark skies: Dark skies are one of the treasured elements of life in Orono. The CMP now includes a section devoted to maintaining our night skies free from light pollution, and is expected to lead to an update of the City's lighting ordinance.19 Number 5 on Orono's list of 8 planning goals is: To preserve open space, light, air and solar access for all citizens while maintaining our 'dark sky' at night.20 (Emphasis added.) The CMP then devotes an entire section to "Preservation of Dark Skies." The section begins: A key element that adds to the quality of life in Orono is its dark night sky. The ability to view a naturally dark, star -filled sky is a 18 See https://freshwater.org/2010/01/20/looking-back-tornadoes-ugly-algae- spurred-community. 19 CMP Page 2. 20 CMP Page 2-14. 10 precious resource as valuable as our forested landscapes and our fresh air and clean water." Forty balconies and hundreds of lit windows, exterior lighting and head- lights of cars entering and exiting the parking garage would be a signifi- cant trespass of light on adjacent properties and a material reduction in the dark sky vision expressed in the OMP. It would deprive all surround- ing properties of this "key element that adds to the quality of life." Compliant Uses As we began, we recognize that the property owner has the right to build something on the site. We encourage consideration of a project that is con- sistent with the setting and respectful of the wetland and neighbors. This could be garden homes (like the project across County Road 19 from the site) or a few upscale townhomes or condominiums. Planning Commission Meeting/Questions We look forward to discussing this material with the Commission at the June 19th meeting. However, if you have any questions in advance, please feel free to contact Kirk Sherman (612-670-0991) or Tim Olson (952-471- 8685). zl CMP page 3A-37. 11 Exhibit A Residents of Old Beach Road Submitting this Memorandum Kirk & Jacqueline Sherman 2505 Old Beach Road Alicia & Tom Codute 2535 Old Beach Road Linda & John Freivalds 2585 Old Beach Road Curt & Vicki Holt 2313 Old Beach Road Larry & Donna Lundquist 2455 Old Beach Road Tracy & Jeff Baumer 2314 Old Beach Road Tim & Stephanie Olson 2510 Old Beach Road Shawn & Jackie McIntee 2490 Old Beach Road Larry & JoAnn Barbetta 2440 Old Beach Road Jerry & Diane Carlson 2496 Old Beach Road Kirk Johnson & Jim Frey 2560 Old Beach Road Joe Sanguinetti & Amy Abouelenein 2420 Old Beach Road Dave Schneider 2540 Old Beach Road 12 Exhibit B Survey Results 13 0 E .m E 0 Ma C 0 L UL Z 0 r. .0 V L N 0 0 a lfJ C L (tf (6 m d -C -C s" -C U E 4a O N O (� > ® '� �� C � N L- L ' _C cn cn C CD N (m ® co a) 0 `CU m' >N OVCU N L N O cu /f � � Q (u C� .0 CCU -W Lo a) cn C N O 0) a) -c p O N., -7'U C O i�� �_-+-' N (,C (a o p o .� d- C C >, (a ca -E U c p CD �-, cu co N C � ('� 0)> W O C CU (U �=' > L (U N > a) ® VJ E '0CU -C CU Z 0 .� _ L ® N O Rf aL e o ° O% a� E .a) . c � 0 ° O E - -t � N L O O L C: :2 cm 0L '`U " CU +r E �C CN Q. U � 'a) � OU O Q. O C .E 0 6 �,0 > C O V C cu O O O � Q cu cn Q p O �O � CD N � U o O N _�� p _C C N Ocu N 6.a) L p C -C 00 +�-+ p0 > N :3 0 � 'r 'p N C O C vcn O NCS to O N (6 ;�-� O O Li O p 'p -0 cn U �- C C 0 c �' "Q (Q C = (6 U , cncu L cn CO„ a O O N C O = OO O C C cn Ocu N- QL7 Q O O (6 0 -0 > O N O ° (is O C -0 > (a O M I � C CU (ii L° C L> .. Cu 00 O U N �- C C cn _ �,.- o O �—Z C� p C� m ` 0 C C p'a C V� O N O IO N N C N .0) N E O cn O 'O �o u N N N O O Q—cna- '*_' ® C UUo L :t-- CU 1., C L m d E _ E� 4a C O O- O C _ O � � Q O O 0 N E .m ■E E O no C O V LMm N L LL LmL m Z O r. .O V L O V m x .O 0. N, 4W s • :-d M �NT N �vi� O® Zvi LO a) ® -a U C 0 a) m M �+�e U C ® ® C .�E .� L Co M H O)O 'p 0- O L C:o 0 0 O O O c-000 a0 0-0 O 0) m �m U 0 +-+ N m .� O .L LO a) > N �� O L O 0>I� 0- m 00 Z 2D_ C: U-) m CL % pO _Q � C � U C > m 0 U) 0 Fo _ mU (D C L N � m m Z i O C:a) m 0) C O O 4-a U N U E a) O Q) O > C- cn O �!E E� m a) o�� O g) U -0-0 N U (n a) m a) U -0 CC U) W-0 a)' p O O O (n -Q O O c) c O 0.- C: •Cc v O N U 6 o E O L cu :3 C: -� oa) C: m a) -O Q) .O N O CU O L Co EM O 'C: am E N O O - 0 r- 4- m 0 (0 O O a) O �CL � Hca _r_> O a) >, m N C U O -0 C:0__Q a) cu L (A 6.. cm a) U U � C O ,m C U O a) > a) o .�M O cn Co c Lw._; — O _0 0 ' O O O 0 lop ,12 v 9 *r i q � C ! I 1-2 UJ f I 3 � W 8 V-1 f I � � I 4 L i � I i i d� Oi :::) I- i -�kl f -pa Ics .� .E.. �, Ll Q 71 � \ y R_v � r L �� CDCl \ �i CL — --5 Jeremy Barnhart From: Linda Kelley Freivalds <lindafordkelley@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2017 3:04 PM To: Jeremy Barnhart Cc: Kirk Sherman Subject: 2520 Shadywood Road Project - Clarification Jeremy, My husband, John, and I sent a letter to you on March 14, 2017 stating that we had met with Alex Ugorets and reviewed the preliminary plans for the proposed apartments/condos. At that time, based on the information available, we expressed concern that the project be condos, not apartments, but otherwise had no strong objections. Subsequent to that date, we attended a meeting for the neighborhood at the Freshwater Business Center and reviewed the drawings provided by Westwood regarding the height of the building and the landscaping. Since that time we have walked our land and that of our neighbors (Codutes and Shermans) and are very concerned about the project and the detrimental effects it will have on the neighborhood. Three items concern us greatly: • Building height: The height of the building will dominate the view for all homes on Old Beach Road and forever alter the character of the neighborhood. • Tree buffer: The treed areas on the drawings do not appear to be realistic. Much of the land behind the Freshwater is wetlands. We have planted trees in our marsh area and are aware that there limited types of trees that will flourish in that environment and to expect a tall buffer of trees, as suggested by the exhibits, is something that would be achieved only with many years of growth. • Traffic: The traffic on CR 19 is already heavy and backs up past our home daily. With a speed limit of 40 mph, the addition of up to 100 additional cars attempting to enter and exit the Freshwater parking area will only increase the backup and the occurrence of accidents. Based on the above, at a minimum, we withdraw all support for the project and request that the City of Orono not approve the required variances to enable this to proceed. I John and Linda Freivalds 2585 Old Beach Road 612-339-1261 cc: Kirk Sherman Council MINUTES OF THE Exhibit I ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING 17-3944 Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 12. #17-3903 ALEX UGORETS, 2520 SHADYWOOD ROAD, SKETCH PLA N Barnhart stated the property owner is seeking City Council feedback on a sketch plan for a proposed development at 2520 Shadywood Road located south of the Freshwater Business Center. The lot is currently vacant. The proposed use and density is within the guidelines of the City's Comprehensive Plan but the property will need to be rezoned from the current business zone to a residential zone to accommodate the residential use. The development, the site plan approval of the actual building, and the rezoning will require a formal public hearing since it represents a policy change. Barnhart stated it is appropriate to review it as a sketch plan at this point but there will be formal public hearing if the property owner chooses to proceed with an application. The proposal includes a 49 -unit apartment building. The building will be three stories in the front and four to five stories in the rear depending on the angle. There will be parking for 100 cars, with 50 of those being surface parking and 50 underground. Access to the site will be off of Shadywood and will line up with the church access across the street. This will require reconfiguration of the access that services the Freshwater Business Center. Hennepin County appears to be supportive of the proposed driveway location. The proposed density is slightly higher than what is guided for in the Comprehensive Plan. The property owner owns four lots in this area and the lot lines can be rearranged if necessary. Barnhart stated the Council should provide some direction on what they feel is appropriate density for the site. The hardcover as currently proposed appears to meet the requirements of the zoning district. Barnhart displayed an aerial of the area and pointed out the location of the Freshwater Business Center, Shadywood Road, Lund's and the bank. Barnhart noted those three businesses recently went through a facelift last summer. The most impacted residential homes are to the east and south of the site. The site plan shows the proposed parking lot sits on the upper portion of the vacant lot. The property slopes towards the wetland. As the property drops down, the building is sighted to accommodate that drop. The proposal minimizes grading impacts to the wetland. The grading plan will be reviewed as part of the zoning process in greater detail. Barnhart stated a sketch plan is primarily an opportunity for the applicant to prepare a project for the Planning Commission and City Council to review and comment on what is being proposed. There is no public hearing scheduled with a sketch plan and it is more of an opportunity for feedback. Barnhart indicated the applicant has a number of photographs he would like to show as part of his presentation but that this aerial picture depicts the building from the front with three stories and a penthouse. A flat roof building is proposed, which is different than most residential structures in town, but the Planning Commission indicated they are comfortable with the flat roof, citing the fact that a number of commercial buildings in Navarre have flat roofs. Barnhart stated a flat roof may also appear to be less massive. Barnhart displayed a view of the building from the wetland. From the back the building does appear to be 5.5 stories with the penthouse level. Barnhart noted the penthouse does not cover the entire upper level of the building. Barnhart displayed a number of sketches depicting the proposed building on the site from different angles. Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. The Planning Commission reviewed a number of issues and indicated they were comfortable with the density. In addition, the Planning Commission discussed the height and recognized that Orono has historically stood firm on three stories. Last summer the City adjusted the height limitation to not be calculated on the number of stories but rather calculated on the actual height elevation. From a height standpoint, this project will likely be a PUD and the City will have some flexibility on the height. The Planning Commission also talked about fire safety and the expectation that Fire Code would be met. It is Staff's expectation that some sort of driveway will be required around the back of the building to meet Fire Code but that Staff will defer to the Fire Chief on those issues. One of the comments that the Planning Commission noted was the residential homes will be the most impacted from a visual standpoint based on the proximity of the building to the homes. There is a large wetland that separates the property and impacts the property owner's ability to develop the entire site. The developer has provided some sketches to illustrate the separation between the proposed building and the residential area. Crosby noted the people on Lydiard will also be impacted. Barnhart stated it is likely there will be some type of development on this site and that the question is what is the most appropriate. The site is currently guided for mixed use, which could either be business use or an apartment building. Crosby asked whether this area could be developed as single-family homes. Barnhart stated the Comprehensive Plan would need to be amended and that the site is currently guided for 6 to 15 units per acre. When the Comprehensive Plan amendment was approved for Shadywood Villas, the density on this site was increased. Seals asked how many acres the site consists of. Barnhart stated to his knowledge it is approximately three acres of upland. Barnhart stated the applicant is proposing 15 units per acre. Printup asked if sewer, utilities and infrastructure can handle that many units. Barnhart stated the expectation at this time is that it can but that will be a key component of the formal review. Barnhart stated Staff would be more concerned if the applicant was proposing a density of 30 units per acre but that he is comfortable with the 15 units. Seals stated it is obvious the three residential lots will be the most impacted. Seals asked how the City will go about notifying everyone. Seals stated everyone in Navarre will be affected by the traffic and that when she looks at the sketch plan, it does not appear to fit in with the Navarre area. Seals stated she wants to make sure there is a good group of people from Navarre to provide input. Walsh noted he has discussed making the sketch plan process part of the notification process and that he would like to keep that on the burner for the City Attorney. Walsh stated he would like to avoid having the developer spend a lot of money on plans if it turns out the neighborhood is opposed to the project. Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Crosby commented traffic is a major issue in that area and that traffic will tie up all the way to the Narrows Bridge at times and that it is a very dangerous intersection. Walsh stated this lot will be developed in some way and that it is a matter of what is appropriate from a size, height, and density point of view. Walsh stated they all agree there are traffic issues in the area but that Hennepin County will be dealing with the intersection in 2019, with public hearings coming up later this year. Seals stated sometimes when there is a dramatic change, people are more hesitant to support the project and that she does not want the developer to invest a lot of money into something that does not have the support of the neighborhood. Seals stated if someone looks around Navarre, everything is so different and that every house and business is its own individual building. Seals asked if there is a way to make it look like it is not so massive. Walsh stated the City Council can provide guidance on the density and the height of the building but that the Council cannot design it for them. Seals commented if someone is a resident of Navarre, they will see this big flat roof building and that public feedback would be very helpful in this situation to help guide the developer. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission recommended a formal traffic study be done as part of the application. From the standpoint of the impact to the neighborhood, the Planning Commission did discuss that as well and encouraged the applicant to reach out to the neighbors as soon as possible before final decisions are made by them on the sketch plan. Barnhart stated to his understanding the applicant did visit with some of the residents and that correspondence has been provided to the Council. Crosby stated he would like to see that discussion expanded to the residents on Lydiard and Kelly and that it will impact more than the three residences. Seals noted there was discussion at the Planning Commission meeting about having a meeting at the Freshwater Institute with the residents, which would be a good idea. Walsh stated he understands there was some talk about realigning the driveway with the church across the street and then the Council also discussed aligning the driveway with the new development across the street. Walsh stated he is not sure what will happen to the other driveway. Barnhart stated the original plan was to coordinate the Shadywood Villas' access, access for the Freshwater Building and this lot, and then eventually the church. The applicant has talked extensively with Hennepin County. Based on the future plans for turning lanes that will be proposed for this area, the County is comfortable with the driveway offset. Barnhart stated the original goal was to coordinate them all into one. Barnhart noted this alignment does have some benefits to the Freshwater building because that driveway would minimize the amount of parking. Barnhart stated businesses will experience more traffic than a residential property and that Hennepin County is comfortable with the proposal. Crosby asked what the Freshwater site is zoned at. Barnhart indicated the building is zoned B-4, which is office and office related uses. Currently the only use being proposed is office for that site. Page 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Tom Goodrum, senior planner for Westwood Professional Services, stated he would first like to talk about the neighborhood and then talk about the design of the property and why it is an appropriate use for the site. Goodrum indicated they did send a letter out to everybody within 350 feet following the Planning Commission meeting and that they received one letter back from the neighbor behind the property. Goodrum stated they did correspond with that person and that they will be meeting with that neighbor on the site tomorrow to speak with him about the impacts. Goodrum stated that neighbor basically would like some more information on the project. Goodrum stated when Mr. Ugorets purchased the Freshwater building, he was excited about the recent improvements in Navarre and went ahead and made improvements to the Freshwater building. Goodrum commented this area is becoming a popular place to be and that Mr. Ugorets has received a number of positive comments about how nice the Freshwater building looks. Goodrum noted there currently are not a lot of housing choices available in this area. Goodrum stated they do not have a specific housing type in mind at this time for the site and that they are open to what best meets the needs of the neighborhood. Condominiums or market rate apartments are an option. At 15 units per acre, the density is within Orono's Comprehensive Plan. In addition, Mr. Ugorets owns an additional 12 acres of land. If those 12 acres are added to this property to this site, the density would be five units per acre. Goodrum noted they are using approximately12 percent of the land for building. Goodrum noted his office, Westwood, does have a traffic division within their company and that they will be taking a more in depth look at the traffic impacts. Crosby asked what percentage of the property is wetland. Goodrum stated the wetlands for this property are on the edge of the site so it would only be a small percentage. Goodrum stated he would estimate it at under 10 percent. Discussions have been had with the Watershed District and they were able to walk the property. Goodrum indicated they will be meeting the Watershed District's requirements and that they were pleased with the approach being taken to the property. Goodrum indicated they also met with Hennepin County and they looked at the best access point for the site. Hennepin County indicated they were fine with combining access to this site with the Freshwater site. Goodrum stated based on their experience, the development would have a very small impact to the flow of traffic but that they are prepared to submit a formal traffic study. Goodrum stated when they were designing the sketch plan, they wanted this building to be complementary to the Freshwater building because they do not want it to have a negative impact to the office building. Being proposed are similar type features to the Freshwater building, especially as it relates to the height. The front of the Freshwater building is 30 feet, the height of this building is 30 feet in the front, and the penthouse steps up another nine feet in the back corner on the far side of the property. Goodrum stated the purpose of the penthouse is to provide beautiful views, meet market demand, and to match the height of the Freshwater building, which is 54 feet tall from the back. Page 4 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Goodrum indicated they used the Freshwater building to match this building and that it will have the same visual impact as the Freshwater building. As you move south past the building, the penthouse is stepped down and the building goes down to 31 feet. Goodrum indicated that is a transitional area from the Freshwater into the residential area. Goodrum stated the reason for that height is because the ground slopes 12 feet down into the wetland area. Goodrum commented it makes more sense to use the natural topography and having the proposed elevation than it would to haul in a bunch of fill. The lowest floor is the exposed parking garage, which will have screening around it. Goodrum stated they could bring in a bunch of dirt to cover the bottom two stories but that would result in hauling a lot of dirt into the site and does not work with the natural topography. Goodrum stated they are hoping the height is something the City will not consider to be a negative impact, especially since that corner of the proposed building matches the height of the Freshwater building. Goodrum noted the building is also set back from the road to avoid creating a tunnel effect. In addition, a berm will be constructed as well as landscaping to help block headlights and to help screen the building. Goodrum commented they spent a considerable amount of time fitting the building on the property and have it conform to the natural topography. Seals asked if there is a potential to put a right -turn lane into this property. Barnhart stated the County would likely object to that. In addition, the wetland is also fairly close to that area, which is where some separation would be required. Barnhart noted there is a right-in/right-out at the north end of the parking lot. Hennepin County would like to get rid of that at some point but at this time they are willing to accept that. Goodrum stated the visual impact of the building is focused primarily on the three residential homes and the windows in those homes are faced more away from the building. Goodrum displayed some aerial pictures of the site, noting there are a number of trees on the site between the building and the residential homes that will remain. Goodrum displayed some pictures depicting the view of the site from the residential homes. Crosby asked what the people on the other side of the road will see. Goodrum stated they would see a 30 -foot high structure similar to the Freshwater building. Seals stated the last time she remembered a development being discussed by the Council there were a number of residents who appeared and that she would encourage the developer to reach out to a wider area. Walsh asked if the height of a house could be 30 feet or 39 feet if it was stepped back part of the way. Barnhart stated on a flat roof, Staff measures from the top point of the highest adjacent grade. Barnhart stated the applicant is suggesting that there are some design elements that will mitigate some of that. Walsh noted residential homes would be peaked at 30 feet and could not be stepped back in the front or the back. Page 5 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Goodrum noted residential homes have pitched roofs, which makes them appear taller. Walsh commented they are actually getting more because they do not have the pitch. Walsh stated if one person is allowed a higher height, other people will want the same thing. Goodrum noted there is a 75 -foot buffer from the wetlands and that the trees in the area will not be removed. Goodrum stated they also need to incorporate some stormwater ponding in that area but that they want to preserve as many trees as possible. Walsh asked how many acres there are total. Goodrum indicated it is approximately 20 acres if all the lots are combined. Walsh asked how much of that is dry buildable. Goodrum stated the area they are looking at is approximately three acres. Barnhart stated he does not have that exact number, but to his knowledge there are approximately three acres of dry buildable on this site and Freshwater has around five acres. Walsh noted only the dry buildable counts towards the density. Barnhart stated Orono only allows dry buildable but the Metropolitan Council allows the wetland area to be included in the density calculations. Gaffron stated the dry buildable and the buffer area can be included but not the actual wetland. Goodrum noted there is some additional dry buildable on the other lots. Walsh stated his only issue is the height of the building. Walsh commented a house gets 30 feet and that they should try to work with the 30 feet. Printup asked what it will look like aesthetically as someone comes from Wayzata and whether someone would be able to see this flat roof apartment building across the wetland. Crosby stated as you go west on Shoreline, you would see it. Goodrum noted this building would be somewhat shielded by the Freshwater building and that someone would be able to see further west on Shoreline. Goodrum stated if you look across the wetland, you will see the corners of the building. Walsh stated the lot will get developed in some way and that the Council needs to provide the applicant direction on the height. Walsh stated he is leaning towards limiting it to 30 feet. Seals commented she would like to get some input from the neighbors since they will be looking at it. Goodrum noted the 30 feet from the front is doable. Page 6 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh stated the penthouse would need to be included in the 30. Barnhart stated the direction he has heard from the Council so far is to limit the height at 30 feet and that they would like neighborhood input. In addition, concerns were also expressed about the traffic impacts and the need to have a better understanding of those impacts. Crosby stated the dry buildable on this site compared to all the lots would be interesting. Crosby stated the main issue is to get the input from the neighbors and make sure the residents in the area are aware of what is going on. Seals commented she understands the public hearings are further down the road but that she would like to get the word out earlier. Goodrum stated they did reach out to everyone within 350 feet and that they will do that again. Dankey encouraged them to go beyond the 350 -foot area. Crosby commented he still has a major concern with traffic. Dankey stated it is very difficult to pull out of Lund's since there is always traffic there. Alex Ugorets, 175 Brentwood Avenue, Tonka Bay, stated he bought the Freshwater business center and tried to bring it back to life. Ugorets commented it is a lot of work and cost a lot of money but that he gets a lot of compliments from people stopping by. Ugorets stated he is very proud of that project and that in his view it will be very successful. Ugorets stated his taste is very contemporary and that he noticed Byerly's and Lund's have been doing similar things. Ugorets stated the whole neighborhood is becoming more modern and that this building could be apartment units or condominiums or senior care but that he just wants to know what size box they can put in there. Ugorets stated it could also be turned into a parking lot for the Freshwater Business Center. Dankey suggested he consider a little smaller box than what he is proposing. Ugorets stated he has had a lot of requests to turn it into an event center and that his original idea was to turn a portion of the building into an event center. Ugorets indicated he has people who would be willing to run it and the neighbors have indicated they would like to have weddings there. Ugorets stated he put that on hold given his concerns with parking, but if this project does not go through, one of his options is to add more parking for an event center. Ugorets stated that is not a bad use for the neighborhood but that they will be looking at a parking lot rather than a building. Ugorets indicated he will do just fine with a building or without a building but that this project would be an asset to the city and to the neighborhood. Ugorets commented there are a lot of older people who would not mind living in the penthouse and that it is a major feature of the building. Without the penthouse, it will be just another ordinary building, which he does not really want to build. Ugorets stated he wants it to be a nice property for the people who can afford it and enjoy it, but if the building is reduced in height, it will be a different building. Ugorets stated the penthouse will bring in enough revenue to make the building feasible. Page 7 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday March 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. Ugorets stated as far as the distance from the wetland, the City is encouraging him to have underground parking, but that creates a whole story. Ugorets stated 30 feet in the front is not that much when there are 10 -foot ceilings. Ugorets stated people like high ceilings and that he wants to put a nice expensive building there, but that if the size of the building is reduced too much, he might not be building anything there. Ugorets noted the person that sent the letter is actually located on County Road 19 and that his property borders this property by a tiny little section. Ugorets stated he also wants a fence in there and that he is willing to give him a fence but his complaint does not make much sense since he is one of the least ones being impacted. Seals stated the Council would like to thank him for all the improvements to the Freshwater building. Seals encouraged him to reach out to the residents to get more feedback and to try to get them to support the project. Ugorets indicated he will be meeting with him tomorrow morning and try to keep him happy. Ugorets noted they did send out letters for an event center notification and not one person showed up. Ugorets indicated they also sent out another letter for this meeting and they received one letter back. Ugorets commented he is happy to meet with all the residents. Barnhart noted no further action is required on the sketch plan. The City Council took no formal action on this item. Page 8 of 8 Council Exhibit J 17-3944 DIVISION 11. - RPUD RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Footnotes: --- (7) --- Cross reference— Planned unit development, § 78-1001 et seq. Sec. 78-621. - Purpose. The purpose of the residential planned unit development (RPUD) district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the 2000-2020 Orono Community Management Plan ("CMP" or "comprehensive plan"). The RPUD district is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the planned unit development concept. The RPUD district will encourage the following: (1) Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; (2) Provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs; (3) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; (4) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; (5) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; (6) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and (7) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(1), 2-26-2001) Sec. 78-622. - Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any residential PUD or PRD which has received preliminary or final approval by the city council prior to the effective date of the ordinance from which this division is derived, unless such application is requested by the property owner and approved by the city council. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(9), 2-26-2001) Sec. 78-623. - Permitted uses. Within the RPUD district, no structure or land shall be used except for one or more of the following uses: (1) One -family detached dwellings. (2) Publicly owned parks and playgrounds. Page 1 (3) Municipal buildings. (4) Multifamily attached dwellings only when consistent within the areas of the city designated as urban area in the comprehensive plan. (Code 1984, § 10.20(2); Ord. No. 202 2nd series § 1(2), 2-26-2001) State Law reference— State mandated permitted uses, Minn. Stat. § 462.357, subd. 7. Sec. 78-624. - Conditional uses. Within the RPUD district, no land or structure shall be used for the following uses except by conditional use permit: (1) Public service structures. Public service structures, including but not limited to electric transmission lines, buildings, such as telephone exchange stations, booster or pressure regulating stations, wells, and plumbing stations, elevated tanks, lift stations and electrical power substations, provided no building shall be located within 50 feet from any lot line of an abutting lot in an R district. Prior to granting such permit it shall be found that the architectural design of service structures is compatible to the neighborhood in which it is to be located and thus will promote the general welfare. Public service structures that have been approved by the city at required public hearings for public improvement projects shall not require a conditional use permit, but such structures shall be subject to all other appropriate standards set forth in this section; amendments to approved plans involving design and/or placement of these structures will require written notice by the city to all affected property owners 14 days prior to the adoption of the amended plans by the council. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered public service structures. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall be reviewed for compliance with the PUD master development plan and with the applicable conditional use permit standards of this division. Uses allowed by conditional use permit shall also be subject to site and building plan review pursuant to this division. (2) Assisted living facilities. Assisted living facilities as defined in this chapter, subject to the general conditions and multifamily -specific conditions applicable to uses in the RPUD district. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(3), 2-26-2001; Ord. No. 75 3rd series, § 1, 7-12-2010) Sec. 78-625. - Accessory uses. Within any RPUD district, the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (1) Private garages and parking space. (2) Private swimming pools, tennis courts, and paddocks. (3) Home occupations, as defined in this chapter. All home occupations shall comply with the provisions of section 78-1376, and the licensing provisions of section 26-76, when applicable. (4) Signs, as regulated in this chapter. (5) Buildings temporarily located for purposes of constructing on the premises for a period not to exceed time necessary for such constructing. (6) Gardening and other horticultural uses, including aviaries and decorative landscape features. (7) Communication reception/transmission devices as follows: a. Accessory antennas, which shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, and amateur shortwave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Page 2 Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts, provided they meet the following conditions: 1. Height. A ground -mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level. 2. Yards. Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, corner side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. 3. Roofs. If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. 4. Location. Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. 5. Building permits. A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The building official must approve the plans before installation. 6. Lightning protection. Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 7. Electrical code. Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 8. Color/content. Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. b. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts, provided they meet the following conditions: Height. When an amateur shortwave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. Yards. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front corner side or side yard. Setbacks. Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and town from the property line. (8) Privately owned buildings to be used for recreational or social purposes, or for use as storage areas for maintenance equipment or rubbish. (9) Other uses that are customarily incidental to, and subordinate to, the allowed permitted and conditional uses in this district. (Code 1984, § 10.20(4); Ord. No. 161 2nd series, § 6, 6-7-1997; Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1 (4), 2-26-2001; Ord. No. 221 2nd series, § 3, 9-23-2002; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 12, 6-10-2013) Sec. 78-626. - Development standards. Within the RPUD district all development shall be in compliance with the following: Page 3 (1) Minimum area; shoreland district limitation. Each site proposed for rezoning to RPUD shall have a minimum area of five acres, excluding areas within a designated wetland, floodplain or shoreland district or right-of-way, unless the council finds the existence of one of the following: a. Unusual physical features of the property itself or of the surrounding neighborhood such that development as a RPUD will conserve a physical or topographic feature of importance to the neighborhood or community. b. The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD or planned residential development and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. c. The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. d. The property contains steep slopes or a substantial number of significant trees that could be preserved through the clustering of buildings or other design techniques not generally allowed by the existing zoning district. No property located within 250 feet of the ordinary high water level (OHWL) of a protected lake or tributary as defined in article IX of this chapter shall be rezoned to RPUD. However, for a property that is partially located less than 250 feet from the OHWL and partially located more than 250 feet from the OHWL, the portion located more than 250 feet from the OHWL may be rezoned to RPUD at the discretion of the city council when all other requirements are met. (2) Uses. Each property rezoned to RPUD shall only be used for the use or uses for which the site is designated in the comprehensive plan, except that the city may permit rezoning to RPUD on a site designated for commercial use if the city council finds that such use is in the best interests of the city and is consistent with the requirements of this division. If a commercial site is to be rezoned to RPUD, the city may forward a copy of the request to the metropolitan council for review. (3) Sewer availability. A site proposed to be rezoned to RPUD with proposed density greater than one unit per two acres must be in the metropolitan urban services area (MUSA) and must be serviced by municipal sewer. (4) Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. If the site is not designated in the comprehensive plan for residential use, the appropriate density shall be determined by the city based upon the city council's finding that such density is consistent with the intent of this division and of the comprehensive plan. Developments with proposed densities in excess of the densities contemplated in the comprehensive plan shall be allowed only on properties which are currently zoned and guided for commercial use, in order to maintain the character and integrity of the areas zoned and guided for residential use. (5) Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. Incentives may include modification of density (only for properties currently zoned and guided for commercial use) and floor area ratio requirements for developments providing lifecycle housing and affordable and moderate cost housing. Incentives for affordable and moderate cost housing may be approved by the city only after the developer and city have entered into an agreement to ensure that the low and moderate cost units remain available to persons of low and moderate income for at least 20 years. (6) Floor area ratio . Floor area ratios (FARs) shall be limited per the following table Maximum Floor Area Comprehensive Plan Designation Ratio* Page 4 Low or medium density residential (up to 50 and including 6.0 units per 0.5 acre) High density residential (in excess of 6.0 units per acre) 1.0 *FAR = Total Building Floor Area/Total Lot Area Individual lots within a development in the RPUD district may exceed these standards as long as the average meets these standards. (7) Development standards for attached and multifamily dwelling structures. Each site rezoned to RPUD and developed for attached or multiple -family dwelling uses shall be subject to the following standards: a. Setbacks and separation of uses. Within the RPUD district the setback for all attached and multifamily dwelling buildings and their accessory buildings from any bordering or abutting street line shall be 35 feet for local streets and 50 feet from railroad lines or collector or arterial streets, as designated in the comprehensive plan, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. The setback for all buildings from exterior RPUD site lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 35 feet, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. Building setbacks from internal public streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Parking lots and driving lanes shall be set back at least 20 feet from all exterior lot lines of a RPUD site. The setback for parking structures, including decks and ramps, shall be 35 feet from local streets and 50 feet from all other street classifications, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure. Parking structure setbacks from external lot lines shall be 50 feet or the height of the structure, whichever is greater, when adjacent to residential properties; 35 feet, when adjacent to nonresidential properties. Parking structure setbacks from internal public or private streets shall be determined by the city based on characteristics of the specific RPUD site. Where industrial uses abut developed or platted single-family lots outside the RPUD site, greater exterior building and parking setbacks may be required in order to provide effective screening. The city council shall make a determination regarding the adequacy of screening proposed by the applicant. Screening may include the use of natural topography or earth berming, existing and proposed plantings and other features, such as roadways and wetlands, which provide separation of uses. Property rezoned to RPUD shall be considered a residential district for purposes of determining building and parking setback requirements on adjacent high density residential, commercial and industrial property outside the RPUD. b. Height limitations. For properties guided for residential use in the comprehensive plan, a building height limit of 30 feet shall apply. For properties currently zoned or guided in the comprehensive plan for commercial use, height may exceed 30 feet but shall not exceed three stories (not including underground parking level) and shall maintain a residential character by incorporating pitched or hipped roof structure. No mansard or flat roofed multiple -family building will be allowed. C. Outside storage limitations. Building materials, recreational vehicles, boats, RV's, snowmobiles, and other items of personal property shall not be stored outside within any site used for attached or multifamily uses. Page 5 (8) Development standards for single-family detached dwellings in the RPUD district. Each RPUD site developed for single-family detached dwellings at medium density (i.e., densities ranging from one unit per acre to six units per acre) shall be subject to the following standards: a. Permitted locations: in areas of the city where smaller single-family detached dwelling lots will allow for clustering to preserve significant natural features, or in areas where a mixture of higher density attached dwellings and lower density detached single-family dwellings will result in a development that does not exceed the overall guided density. b. Minimum SFR lot size: 15,000 square feet. C. Minimum lot width at the setback line: 90 feet. d. Minimum lot depth: 125 feet. e. Minimum front yard setback: 25 feet on internal streets within the RPUD site. On exterior or through streets a setback of 35 feet must be provided on local streets and a 50 -foot setback on collector or arterial streets, as defined in the comprehensive plan. f. Minimum side yard setback: ten feet along interior lot lines; 15 feet on lot lines along the exterior of the RPUD site. Side yards abutting streets must meet the minimum front yard setbacks as noted in subsection (8)e of this section. Structures in side yards abutting another residential zoning district shall meet the side yard setback requirement of the adjacent zoning district. g. Rear yard setback: minimum of 40 feet or 20 percent of the depth of the lot, whichever is less. h. Building height: maximum of 30 feet. i. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a depth of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their width. All dwelling units, including manufactured homes, shall have a width of at least 20 feet for at least 50 percent of their depth. j. All dwellings shall have a permanent foundation in conformance with the state building code. k. Accessory structures shall conform to the setbacks established for principal structures, except as follows: 1. All accessory structures located more than ten feet from a principal structure may be located a minimum of ten feet from a rear or side lot line when that line does not abut a street right-of-way. 2. No accessory structure shall be located closer to the front lot line than the principal structure, regardless of the principal structure setback. I. No accessory structure shall occupy more than 30 percent of the side or rear yard in which it is located, nor exceed 1,000 square feet in area, nor exceed 12 feet in height. m. Off-street parking shall be provided for at least two vehicles for each single-family dwelling. A suitable location for a garage measuring at least 20 feet by 24 feet without a variance shall be provided and indicated as such on a site plan or certified site plan to be submitted when applying for a building permit to construct a new dwelling or alter an existing garage. (9) More than one building allowed. More than one building maybe placed on one platted or recorded lot in a RPUD site. (10) Single housing type permitted. Any RPUD development which involves a single housing type shall be permitted, provided that it is otherwise consistent with the objectives of this division and the comprehensive plan. (11) Private recreational area. Each RPUD development shall provide a minimum of ten percent of the gross project area in private recreational uses for project residents. Such area shall be for active or passive recreational uses suited to the needs of the residents of the project, including Page 6 swimming pools, trails, nature areas, picnic areas, tot lots and saunas. Private recreational area requirements are in addition to the standard park dedication requirements. (12) Ownership. All property to be included within a RPUD development shall be under unified ownership or control, or subject to such legal restrictions or covenants as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the approved master development plan and final site and building plan. (13) Signage. Signs shall be restricted to those which are permitted in a sign plan approved by the city and shall be regulated by permanent covenants. (14) Landscaping, screening and buffering. a. Landscape plan requirements. Landscape plans shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other qualified person acceptable to the city, drawn to the scale of not less than one inch equals 50 feet and shall show the following: Boundary lines of the property with accurate dimensions; Locations of existing and proposed buildings, parking lots, roads, trails and other improvements; Proposed grading plan with two -foot contour intervals; 4. Location, approximate size and common name of existing trees and shrubs; A planting schedule containing symbols, quantities, common and botanical names, size of plant materials, root condition and special planting instructions; Planting details illustrating proposed locations of all new plant material; Locations and details of other landscape features, including berms, fences and planter boxes; Details of restoration of disturbed areas, including areas to be sodded and seeded; Location and details of irrigation systems; and 10. Details and cross sections of all required screening. b. Minimum landscaping requirements. Vegetation Type Overstory deciduous trees Coniferous trees All open areas of a lot which are not used or improved for required parking areas, drives, trails or storage shall be landscaped with a combination of deciduous and coniferous species, including overstory trees, understory trees, shrubs, flowers and groundcover materials. The plan for landscaping shall include ground cover, bushes, shrubbery, trees, sculpture, foundations, decorative walks or other similar site design features or materials in a quantity having a minimum value in conformance with the following table: Size Minimum Tree and Shrub Requirements Quantity 2.5 -inch bb One tree per 1,000 gross square feet of building footprint area or one (Caliper) I tree per 40 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. 6 -foot height Minimum of 30 percent of required overstory trees must be bb coniferous Page 7 Understory 3-gal. potted One shrub per 300 gross square feet of building footprint area or one shrubs or 18-inch shrub per 30 lineal feet of site perimeter, whichever is greater. Ornamental 1.5-inch bb Not required; but two ornamental deciduous trees may be T deciduous trees (Caliper) substituted for one required overstory deciduous tree (maximum substitution equals 25 percent of required overstory deciduous trees) Credits for existing trees: The city council shall have sole discretion whether credit shall be granted for existing healthy trees In instances where healthy plant materials of acceptable species exist on a site prior to its development, the application of the standards in subsection (14)b of this section may be adjusted by the city to allow credit for such material, provided that such adjustment is consistent with the intent of this division. A reasonable attempt shall be made to preserve as many existing trees as is practicable and to incorporate them into the site plan. 3. All new overstory trees shall be balled and burlapped or moved from the growing site by tree spade. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum caliper of 2'/Z inches. Coniferous trees shall be a minimum of six feet in height. Ornamental trees shall have a minimum caliper of 1'/2 inches. 4. All site areas not covered by buildings, sidewalks, parking lots, driveways, trails, patios, or similar hardcover shall be covered with sod or an equivalent ground cover approved by the city. This requirement shall not apply to site areas retained in a natural state. In order to provide for adequate maintenance of landscaped areas, an underground sprinkler system shall be provided as part of each new development, except one- and two-family dwellings and additions to existing structures which do not at least equal the floor area of the existing structure. A sprinkler system shall be provided for all landscaped areas, except areas to be preserved in a natural state. Not more than 50 percent of the required number of trees shall be composed of one species. The city shall maintain a list of prohibited species, which shall not be used for landscaping. Interior parking lot landscaping. All parking lots containing over 100 stalls shall be designed to incorporate unpaved, landscaped islands in number and dimension as required by the city. All landscape islands shall contain a minimum of 180 square feet. Islands which are necessary to promote the safe and efficient flow of traffic shall not be subject to the 100 -stall standard and shall be required by the city when warranted. Parking lot landscape areas, including landscape islands, shall be reasonably distributed throughout the parking lot area so as to break up expanses of paved areas. Parking lot landscape areas shall be provided with deciduous shade trees, ornamental or evergreen trees, plus ground cover, mulch and/or shrubbery as determined appropriate by the planning commission. Parking lot landscape trees shall be provided at the rate of one tree for each 15 surface parking spaces provided, or major fraction Page 8 thereof. Parking lot landscaping shall be contained in planting beds bordered by a raised concrete curb or equivalent approved by the planning commission. d. Maintenance of landscaping. The owner, tenant and their respective agents shall be jointly and severally responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping in a condition presenting a healthy, neat and orderly appearance and free from refuse and debris. Plants and ground cover which are required by an approved site or landscape plan, and which have died, shall be replaced within three months of notification by the city. However, the time for compliance may be extended up to nine months by the city in order to allow for seasonal or weather conditions. e. Retaining walls. Retaining walls exceeding four feet in height, and staged walls which cumulatively exceed 16 feet in height or involve more than four tiers, must be constructed in accordance with plans prepared by a registered engineer or landscape architect. f. Landscaping performance security required. When screening, landscaping or other similar improvements to property are required by this division, a letter of credit shall be supplied by the owner in an amount equal to at least 1'/2 times the value of such screening, landscaping or other improvements. The letter of credit shall be conditioned upon reimbursement of all expenses incurred by the city for engineering, legal, contracting or other fees in connection with making or completing such improvements. The letter of credit shall be provided prior to the issuance of any building permit and shall be valid for a period of time equal to two full growing seasons after the date of installation of the landscaping. The city may accept some other form of security in lieu of a letter of credit in an amount and under such conditions that the city may determine to be appropriate. If construction of the project is not completed within the time prescribed by building permits and other approvals, the city may, at its option, complete the work required at the expense of the owner and the surety. The city may allow an extended period of time for completion of all landscaping, if the delay is due to conditions which are reasonably beyond the control of the developer. Extensions, which may not exceed nine months, may be granted due to seasonal or weather conditions. When an extension is granted, the city shall require such additional security as it deems appropriate. g. Screening and buffering. The following uses shall be screened or buffered in accordance with the requirements of this section: Principal buildings and structures and any building or structure accessory thereto used for residential uses at a density of greater than four units per acre shall be buffered from residential lots located in any R district. Off-street parking facilities containing six or more spaces shall be buffered from streets located within 50 feet. Parking facilities shall be buffered with landscape zones. iii. Loading docks shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. iv. Trash storage facilities shall be screened from all lot lines and public roads. Access roads serving multifamily buildings shall be screened as necessary to eliminate the impact of vehicle headlights shining toward adjacent residential neighborhoods. Required screening or buffering may be achieved with fences, walls, earth berms, hedges, or other landscape materials. All walls and fences shall be architecturally harmonious with the principal building. Earth berms shall not exceed a slope of 3:1. The screen shall be designed to employ materials which provide an effective visual barrier during all seasons. All required screening or buffering shall be located on the lot occupied by the use, building, facility or structure to be screened. No screening or buffering shall be located Page 9 on any public right-of-way or within eight feet of the traveled portion of any street or highway. 4. Screening or buffering required by subsection (14) of this section shall be of a height needed to accomplish the goals of subsection (14) of this section. Screening methods incorporating roofs over storage, trash or mechanical facilities to screen from higher adjacent properties or buildings may be required. Height of plantings required under subsection (14) of this section shall be measured at the time of installation. (15) Architectural standards. a. It is not the intent of the city to restrict design freedom unduly when reviewing project architecture in connection with a site and building plan. However, it is in the best interest of the city to promote high standards of architectural design and compatibility with surrounding structures and neighborhoods. Architectural plans shall be prepared by an architect or other qualified persons acceptable to the city and shall show the following for all structures other than single-family detached dwellings: Elevations of all sides of the building. Type and color of exterior building materials. A typical floor plan. 4. Dimensions of all structures. The location of trash and recycling containers and of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. b. Unadorned prestressed concrete panels, concrete block and unfinished metal shall not be permitted as exterior materials for residential principal and accessory buildings. This restriction shall apply to all principal structures and to all accessory buildings. The city may, at its discretion, allow architecturally enhanced block or concrete panels. Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with principal structures. d. All rooftop or ground -mounted mechanical equipment and exterior trash and recycling storage areas shall be fully enclosed or screened so as to be not visible with materials compatible with the principal structure. e. Underground utilities shall be provided for all new and substantially renovated structures (the term "substantially renovated" shall mean when the renovations exceed 30 percent of the prerenovation value of the structure). (16) Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements, if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. (17) Traffic studies. The city may require a traffic analysis to be prepared by a registered traffic engineer approved by the city to assess potential traffic impacts on local streets. If impacts on service levels of roadways and intersections are anticipated, the project will be approved only contingent upon a traffic management plan that adequately mitigates those impacts. The plan may include travel demand management strategies, use of transit facilities or other appropriate measures to reduce traffic generation, and necessary improvements to road systems. The developer shall have the responsibility to install all necessary road system improvements. (18) Building permits. No building or other permit shall be issued for any work on property included within a proposed or approved RPUD development, nor shall any work occur unless such work is in compliance with the proposed or approved RPUD development. Page 10 (19) General regulations applicability. The requirements contained in this division pertaining to general regulations for residential districts and performance standards shall apply to a RPUD development as deemed appropriate by the city. (20) Lighting standards. All RPUD developments shall be subject to the general performance standards for lighting in this chapter. (21) Trails. When any portion of the project is within 1,000 feet of a public trail system, pedestrian access shall be provided to the trail system by means of a public trail constructed at the developer's expense. Where public rights-of-way are available, at the city's discretion the trail may utilize the public right-of-way. Trails shall be of bituminous construction, or such other material as may be approved by the city and shall be not less than eight feet in width. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(5), 2-26-2001; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 2, 9-24-2012; Ord. No. 189 3rd series, § 6, 4-10-2017) Sec. 78-627. - Review of application; procedures. (a) Concept plan review. In order to receive guidance in the design of a RPUD prior to submission of a formal application, an applicant may submit a concept plan for review and comment by the planning commission and city council. Submission of a concept plan is optional but is highly recommended for large RPUDs. In order for the review to be of most help to the applicant, the concept plan should contain such specific information as is suggested by the city. Generally, this information should include the following: (1) Approximate building, road and trail locations; (2) Height, bulk and square footage of buildings; (3) Type and square footage of specific land uses; (4) Number of dwelling units; (5) Generalized grading plan showing areas to be cut, filled and preserved; and (6) Staging and timing of the development. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall address the consistency of the concept plan with this section. The comments of the planning commission and city council shall be for guidance only and, if positive, shall not be considered binding upon the planning commission or city council regarding approval of the formal RPUD application when submitted. (b) Master development plan and rezoning. Approval of a rezoning to RPUD and approval of a master development plan shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this chapter for a zoning map amendment. The master development plan shall contain the following: (1) Building location, height, bulk and square footage; (2) Type and square footage of specific land uses; (3) Number of dwelling units; (4) Detailed street and utility locations and sizes; (5) Parking layout; (6) Drainage plan, including location and size of pipes and water storage areas; (7) Grading plan and drainage plan, including two -foot contours; (8) Generalized landscape plan; (9) Generalized plan for uniform signs and lighting; Page 11 (10) Plan for timing and phasing of the development; (11) Covenants or other restrictions proposed for the regulation of the development; (12) Renderings or elevations of all sides of buildings to be constructed in the first phase of the development; (13) Trail plan; and (14) Lighting plan. Approval of the master development plan shall indicate approval of the listed items in subsections (b)(1)— (b)(14) of this section and shall occur in conjunction with rezoning of the property to RPUD. After rezoning the property to RPUD, nothing shall be constructed on the RPUD site except in conformance with the approved plans and this section. The procedure for notification of and public hearing on the master development plan shall be the same as required for a zoning map amendment by this chapter. (c) Development agreement/financial guarantee. Following the approval of the master development plan but prior to final plan approval, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the city relating to the terms of the RPUD development, and shall also provide such financial guarantees as the city requires or deems necessary. Such agreement may take the form of: (1) A development contract; (2) A site improvement performance agreement; and/or (3) Another form of binding instrument as may be required by the city. (d) Final site and building plan. Approval of a final site and building plan for the entire RPUD or for specific parts of the RPUD shall be subject to the procedures outlined in this division. The final site and building plan shall contain information as required by the city, including the following: (1) Detailed utility, street, grading and drainage plans; (2) Detailed building elevations and floor plans; (3) Detailed landscaping, sign and lighting plans; and (4) Detailed trail plan. (e) Substantial compliance. The final site and building plan shall be in substantial compliance with the approved master development plan. Substantial compliance shall mean: (1) Buildings, parking areas, roads and trails are in substantially the same location as previously approved; (2) The number of residential living units has not increased or decreased from that approved in the master development plan; (3) The gross floor area of any individual building has not been increased from that approved in the master development plan; (4) There has been no increase in the number of stories in any building; (5) Open space has not been decreased or altered to change its original design or intended use; and (6) All special conditions required on the master development plan by the city have been incorporated into the final site and building plan. Approval of a final site and building plan shall signify approval of all plans necessary prior to application for a building permit, subject to conformance with any conditions on the approval and subject to other necessary approvals by the city. (f) Simultaneous review. Applicants may combine the final site and building plan review with the master development plan review by submitting all information required for both stages simultaneously. Page 12 (g) Basis for approval, conditions. In evaluating a site and building plan, the planning commission and city council shall base their recommendations and actions regarding approval of a RPUD on a consideration of the following: (1) Compatibility of the proposed plan with this section and consistency with the goals, policies, and objectives of the comprehensive plan and surface water management plan; (2) Preservation of the site in its natural state to the greatest extent practicable by minimizing tree and soil removal and designing grade changes to be in keeping with the general character and appearance of neighboring properties; (3) Creation of compatible relationships between buildings and open spaces both on the site and adjacent to it, incorporating natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship to the development, giving special attention to: a. An internal sense of order for the buildings and uses on the site and provision of a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. b. The amount and location of open space and landscaping. c. Materials, textures, colors and details of construction as an expression of the design concept and the compatibility of the same with the adjacent and neighboring structures and uses; and vehicular and pedestrian circulation, including walkways, interior drives and parking in terms of location and number access points to the public streets, width of interior drives and access points, general interior circulation, separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic and arrangement and amount of parking. (4) Promotion of energy conservation through design, location, orientation and elevation of structures, the use and location of glass in structures and the use of landscape materials and site grading; (5) Protection of adjacent and neighboring properties through reasonable provisions for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of views, light and air and those aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations which may have substantial effects on neighboring land uses; and (6) Such other factors as the planning commission or city council deem relevant. The planning commission and city council may attach such conditions to their actions as they shall determine necessary or convenient to better accomplish the purposes of this section. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(6), 2-26-2001) Sec. 78-628. -Term of approval. (a) If application has not been made for a final site and building plan approval pursuant to the approved master development plan for all or a part of the property within a RPUD by December 31 of the year following the date on which the RPUD zoning map amendment became effective or, if within that period no extension of time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the absence of a rezoning, the approved master development plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the RPUD. (b) If construction on the property included within an approved final site and building plan has not started by December 31 of the year following the date on which such final site and building plan was approved or, if building construction in a phase of a RPUD approved to be built in phases has not started within this period, or, if within that period no extension of the time has been granted, the city council may rezone the property to the original zoning classification at the time of the RPUD application or to a zoning classification consistent with the comprehensive plan designation for the property. In the Page 13 absence of rezoning, the approved master development plan and final site and building plan shall remain the legal control governing development of the property included within the RPUD. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(7), 2-26-2001) Sec. 78-629. - Amendments. Major amendments to an approved master development plan may be approved by the city council after review by the planning commission. The notification and public hearing procedure for such amendment shall be the same as for approval of the original RPUD. A major amendment is any amendment which: (1) Substantially alters the location of buildings, parking areas or roads; (2) Increases or decreases the number of residential dwelling units; (3) Increases the gross floor area of any individual building; (4) Increases the number of stories of any building; (5) Decreases the amount of open space or alters it in such a way as to change its original design or intended use; or (6) Creates noncompliance with any special condition attached to the approval of the master development plan. Any other amendment may be made through review and approval by a simple majority vote of the council. (Ord. No. 202 2nd series, § 1(8), 2-26-2001) Secs. 78-630-78-640. - Reserved. Page 14 �l Y� L May 25, 2017 Westwood Professional Services Attn: Tom Goodrum 7699 Anagram Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55331 Re: Condominium rezoning File # 17-3944 Council Exhibit K 17-3944 CITY OF ORONO Street Address: i4'�ailing ,Address: iele,ohone (952)249-4604 2750 Kelley Parkway 1?a. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.d.orono.nin.us VIA EMAIL tom.goodrum@westwoodps.com The City has received your application for a rezoning to the RPUD zoning district, to allow for the construction of a 40 unit residential condominium unit building. Review of a rezoning to RPUD is actually one of two simultaneous steps; review of rezoning, or map change; and review of a master development plan. The RPUD allows for flexibility in land development in order to achieve several goals, including provision of lifecycle housing, preservation of desirable site characteristics, high quality of design, sensitive development in transitional areas, and development consistent with the comprehensive plan. This flexibility is offered because of the comprehensive review of a project. The review of the rezoning will be concurrent of the review of the general concept plan, much of which has been provided, either with this application, are as part of the sketch plan. We do require you to submit information for the concept review and approval, I cannot refer to previous applications for certain materials. Approval of the rezoning will be subject to the formal approval of the master plan, which identifies the final details of the project. I. RPUD standards. The city has reviewed the standards for a RPUD and offers the following comments. These comments are based on Division 11 of the Orono City Code, starting at Section 78-626, which prescribes the review process and development standards for the proposed district. The numeral in parenthesis corresponds to that paragraph of 78-626, a copy of which is provided. (1) The property must be 5 acres to be rezoned to RPUD. The Council will need to approve flexibility as the subject parcel is currently 2.63 acres. (6) Please confirm the floor area ratio. (Total Building Floor Area/ Total Lot Area= FAR.) If this exceeds 1.0, flexibility will be required. (7) Requires a 50 foot setback from Shadywood and a setback equivalent to the height of the building from the side and rear property lines. (7b) discusses height, and the height was an issue for the City Council. City Code identifies height as: Building height means the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch - type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height. For a pitched or hipped roof situation, regardless whether the highest living space in a building is a half -story or full story, if the highest living space contains windows (excluding skylights) the upper measuring point for defining building height shall be the median height of the top of the highest window and the highest peak of the roof. It might be helpful to identify the actual defined height of the building. To do this, the building will need to be sited and the height calculated based on existing topography. A grading plan will need to be combined with the building elevations provided. Assuming the highest adjacent grade is one foot below the first floor elevation, the defined height of the building appears to be 49.8 feet tall. Flexibility would be required. To illustrate the impact of your height proposal, perhaps a perspective drawing, or picture, superimposing the building into the street scape, both north and south bound Shadywood, and from the residential area to the east, would be helpful to the public and City officials. (7b) expressly prohibits flat roofed buildings, flexibility will be required. (11) requires 10% of the gross project area to be set aside as private recreational use. These can include trails, nature areas, picnic areas, etc. This area should be identified. (14) Landscape plan must be submitted to correspond with paragraph 14. (14 g) screening of the parking lot adjacent to Shadywood is required. I recommend continuing the pattern established by the existing Freshwater business center. Trash receptacles, if not located in the underground parking area, will need to be screened or in a building. (15) Specifics on the building must be provided as part of the rezoning application, including Elevations, floor plans and dimensions, location of trash, recycling, and HVAC units. The HVAC units may not be visible from the road. (17) The city engineer is reviewing the traffic information provided; future comments, if any, will be forwarded. (18) Approval of the final development plan will need to include utility, grading, and drainage plans, detailed building elevations and floor plans, landscaping, sign, and lighting plans. A permit may not be issued until this plan is approved. II. The following comments are based on a review of the project: a. Section 78-1707 A4 outlines a maximum hardcover of 50%. Please provide hardcover calculations. b. Stormwater calculations should be provided to ensure that ponding size is adequate. c. Please confirm the number of units. Exhibit C: Context map suggests 49 units, the narrative and other materials suggest 40 units. d. Exhibits D, E, and F suggest an apartment building. It is advisable to review the application for consistency in terms. e. Has a wetland delineation been completed and approved? If so, documentation must be provided and appropriately shown on the site plan. f. Please provide a dimensioned site plan, showing parking, drives, wetland delineations, wetland setbacks (10 feet from the MCWD buffer), easements. III. Platting The narrative describes the gross density at 12.66 units per acre, and 15.63 units net, which indicates a plan to shift the shared property line to the north and west. This alone will require a subdivision exception, and legal descriptions of both parcels, before and after the shift. However, a condominium building implies ownership of individual units, plus a share of the common areas. Please identify how you propose this subdivision. Are both actions anticipated to be covered in a plat or other method? These comments reflect my best effort at being comprehensive. Please recognize additional comments may be generated based on new information, or further review of the project. Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email atjbamhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions on the above requirements. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO IIr Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Additional Public Comment Item 14 17-3944 To: Orono Mayor Dennis Walsh and City Council From: Jan Berg Re: Application 17-3944 40 unit condo building In response to the 40 unit condo building proposed at the Freshwater site I would like to make several points regarding this application. 1. This is not a good fit for the character of this neighborhood. Unfortunately the comp plan recommends this type of higher density development, but to accomplish this particular project there are several steps that need to take place to move forward with it that requires code changes and variances. It would seem with the recommendation for this type of development we are not looking at a vision for prudent planning in this area of Orono and how best to develop the Navarre area. 2. The building is too massive which will negatively impact on the surrounding area and not necessarily in in a good way. Look at the Mist and downtown Wayzata. This is not what this area should look like or become. The Mist couldn't even sell their condo units, so they turned it into rental. There is no conclusive evidence of whether there is even a market for this type of project in this area. Primarily the characteristic of this area is lower density development in keeping with the surrounding area. 3. This will have a negative impact on the environment, wetland and eventually the lake. Orono prides itself on preserving the wetlands and lake quality, even so much so as the Orono sign depicts waterfowl. 4. Traffic this project will bring will have significant negative impact on the area which is already congested. Traffic studies can say 19 can handle this type of project but they do not show the real impact at certain times of day or year and the impact it will have for the neighborhoods who needs to get onto 19. Please read the comments in the petition signed by 180+ individuals as this represents the opinions of your constituents regarding this project and its impact. In conclusion, I am asking you to deny this project. It will not be a benefit for this area of Orono. From: Bohn, Bonnie K To: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: Shadywood Condo Project Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:48:35 PM Importance: High Please vote No to the proposed 40 unit condo building on Shadywood Road. Not only will this substantially increase traffic, it will be a loss to our community in terms of open spaces and views. The traffic on 15 & 19 is terrible already. I am a runner and cross at the designated crosswalk on a daily basis. The traffic is terrible and sometimes I feel like I am in danger. The Mtka Country Club development is only going to increase this traffic, as any homeowner that works in Plymouth, Golden Valley, Downtown Mpls, or North Metro suburb will use this route. Additionally, we feel that it would be a big loss to the community to use the land that was developed for the Fresh Water Foundation, an environmentally conscience organization for another condo project. Really, is this necessary. If you pass this project, there's no going back. The community loses a valuable resource, Views and Open Space for condos. Please give this careful consideration and vote NO. We love our community. Its not all about money. Bonnie Bohn Hector & Mark Hector 612.382.7880 Sent from my Galaxy phone This email may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and delete this copy from your system. Nothing in this email creates a contract for a real estate transaction, and the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a contract via written or verbal communication. From: judy.fredrickson@ubs.com To: Denny Walsh; Richard Crosby; Wendy Dankey; Aaron H. Printuo; Victoria Seals Cc: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: ITEM N0: 14; Item Description: #17-3944 Westwood Professional Services o/b/o Ugorets 9098 LLC, 2520 Shadywood Road, Rezoning and Master Plan Date: Monday, July 10, 2017 2:57:09 PM Attachments: disclaim.txt Importance: High July 10, 2017 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Judy and Dave Fredrickson, 2507 Kelly Avenue, Excelsior, MN 55331; 612.916.6084 SUBJECT: #17-3944 Westwood Professioanl Services o/b/o Ugorests 9098 LLC I would like to offer comments summarizing my personal views as well as those of many of my neighbors on Kelly Avenue and Lydiard regarding the proposed 40 unit condo project on Shadywood Road. As you know, the planning commission voted to deny this project 6-0 at their last meeting based on a wide variety of reasons such as the height AND strong, negative feedback of nearby property owners who wish to protect their property and avoid traffic issues. I also have a real concernwith the inadequate notice of this meeting when the City knows how many people have a true interest in their neighborhood. Makes me feel that items are snuck onto the Agenda in hopes that "the neighbors won't show up — especially vocal ones". At the last meeting, we received a postcard alerting us to this project being on the Agneda. We got the postcard the Friday before the Monday meeting and comments were due the same day???? That is not advancwe notice nor transparency from the City. We respectfully ask that you deny this particular project as it stands for the following reasons: 1. Recommendation: I find it disheartening that Jeremy Barnhart is recommending this project after all of the negative feedback it has received. I understand that there is a requirement to bring projects in front of the City Council even if the Planning Commission has voted against it. I also understand that the City Council does not have to abide by their decision. However, to make a recommendation in support of the project is extremely disappointing. If the City does not stand by the people who live in it and who pay the taxes for it ... what are the priorities of the staff? 188 people signed an on-line petition against this project after a well -attended April open house by the Developer. We took the time to ask questions and be informed. We are NOT the neighborhood of NO. There was no big opposition to the Cudd 7 unit townhome project. I personally wrote a letter in support of that project (right across the street from the Freshwater) because it was "consistent with the neighborhood" and I knew the quality of the builder. I would like to know how many neighbors have written you in support of the project? I urge you to take the time to read the concerns of the 188 petitioners. Your decision today will set a precedent for Orono. 2. Character of Orono: please don't change the character of Orono and this neighborhood. Navarre/Spring Lake park is a sleepy lake side town — Orono has cat tails on the logo. This is NOT Wayzata. Orono has a rural feel with beautiful roads weaving through the countryside — the City Conservation Plan calls on you to protect the unique qualities of our lake side City. This condo building is too massive for the location and small lot. It is 4 stories high and close to the street. There is NOT enough parking and it will dramatically change the look and feel of our neighborhood. The condos built in Wayzata tower above the town. It has changed the character of Wayzata. This proposed condo building is very modern, cold, a lot of iron/steel and does not at all have the look and feel of a smaller, lake inspired community that could actually enhance the surroundings rather than look completely out of place. I like modern buildings but they belong in downtown Minneapolis not Orono. When I look at the steel siding of the freshwater business center, I think it too look out of place. Nothing about this condo design speaks to a lakeside community. We are very opposed to changing the zoning to allow a 40 foot height structure. Just like the previous Delaney project, we heard that "unless we can build X number of units, we can't make money". Whether the Developer can make money is NOT a reason to approve a project. The project should be approved if it Adds to the look and feel, the character of the area — not because the plan being proposed is the only way the Developer will move forward. 3. Parking: the current Orono plan speaks to Shadywood NOT being conducive to high density housing. This fact was recognized many years ago when the current plan was written. They saw that the traffic was already too congested. You may have done a traffic study but we live here and at 8 a.m. or 5:30 p.m., cars coming west on 15 are backed up around the corner by Culvers. Think about adding 40 condos, 80 cars plus resident cars to this congestion. And then think about the owners actually living in their homes and having parties and guests over. Alex is proposing 40 underground parking spots and 40 above ground spots. At the open house, I asked him about this number and he said "I need the condo project approved because I don't have enough parking for my current building (the Freshwater Business Center" ...what? If he has parking problems for the business center, a condo building with the bare minimum will not solve his problem. Where will the overflow go when anyone has more than 2 cars, has friends or a party or there is an event at one of the lessors at Freshwater? It is NOT safe to park on Shadywood. Will they park at Lunds and try to walk across the busy road? The lot simply does not have enough space for the parking required. We have a lot of bikers who bike along Shadywood. 4. Traffic: if things are backed up on Shadywood.... the escape route is right down our quiet streets: Kelly Avenue and Lydiard. We already have many trucks and cars who cut through our neighborhood trying to avoid the 4 corner lights at Shadywood/15. Unfortunately these commuters don't follow the speed limit and come racing down Kelly to access Shadywood. Increasing the through traffic on Kelly is not safe or desirable for our residents. 5. Property values: my understanding is that they will price the condos at $750,000. 1 would like to see a market study to see if condos on a busy road, with little parking or green space and a view of a swamp could sell for this price. The interesting thing is that The Mist in Spring Lake Park tried this experiment and could not sell their condos and they are now rental properties. The Mist offered full water, gorgeous views of the lake (vs. a swamp and no lake access). There is no market data to support the attraction to such a place especially at this price point. If the units don't sell, then the price point will have to be lowered or they will turn to rentals — neither scenario is a plus for nearby property values. 6. Impact on the Environment: this project would be entirely built along a wetland. I have talked to many a homeowner who were denied exceptions for hardscape. This project will be nothing but hardscape — there is not room for anything other than the building and asphalt. IF he had 5 acres to develop, something more desirable could be built. Thank you for your consideration. I appreciate you erading this letter. Judy Fredrickson 612.916.6084 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 15 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Review changes to the fee schedule as it pertains to Planning and Zoning Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider changes to the fee schedule as it applies to zoning permits/ applications, and building, mechanical, and plumbing permits. 2. Background. The Development Process Review Committee has reviewed the fee schedule and recommends changes intended to bring costs associated with development review more in line with actual expenses incurred by the city. Currently, fees are based on all costs associated with a project, including a portion of fixed costs associated with hosting staff and planning commission/ city council meetings. These fees are estimated in the Exhibit B. They recommend adjusting the fees to remove these fixed costs (recording fees, time spent in meetings, etc.) Their recommended fee schedule is illustrated on the attached Exhibit A, which upon Council direction, staff intends to adopt as an appendix of the fee schedule, removing the applicable sections from the fee schedule. Staff and the Committee's goal is to present the information in an easier to understand manner. The Committee also proposes reducing the minimum building permit fee from $50.00 to $26.25, which is consistent with the adopted building permit valuation table. This will impact about 10% of the permits issued, primarily small plumbing or mechanical projects. The Development Process Review Committee compared Orono building and development fees with neighboring communities, these comparisons are attached as Exhibits C and D, respectively. Budget Impact. Adjustment to fees will impact the budget. This impact is summarized in the attached Exhibit E. The city averages about 64 variance/ CUP, applications and 10 subdivision per year. Reducing the application fee from $700.00 to $275.00 will show a shortfall of about $13,000 for 2017 (depending on when the fee schedule is implemented), and general fund income will need to increase $29,000.00 for 2018. Reducing the minimum building permit fee from $50 to $26.25 may impact the budget $3,400 in 2018 ($1,500 in 2017), based on the 4 year average. Alternatively, the Council may elect to make changes to the fee schedule, but make them effective January 1, 2018, allowing for the budget to adjust appropriately. The proposed fee schedule does not incorporate costs associated with the online permitting software, CitizenServe, or the surcharges associated with online credit card payments. These costs will continue to be studied and amendments may be suggested as part of the annual review of the fees, in Late Fall. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff seeks direction, a final ordinance will be presented at a later meeting. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED By motion, direct staff as to changes to the fee schedule. Exhibits Exhibit A. Proposed fee schedule Exhibit B. Development Review Costs Exhibit C. Building Permit Fee comparison Exhibit D. Land Use Application comparison Exhibit E. Budget impact Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: D51Z 2017 Fee Schedule Planning, Building, and Zoning All fees, unless otherwise noted, are application fees and are non-refundable after staff work has begun on the application All after the fact applications are double fees. All applications are responsible for actual costs incurred by the city by its' consultants in the review of the application. Application Zoning Administration Variance 1st Extension 2nd and subsequent Conditional Use Permit CUP amendment 1st Extension Site Plan Review Zoning Amendments including map amendments P4D P41B Comprehensive Plan Amendment Subdivision Subdivision: Sketch Subdivision: Class I and II Subdivision: Class III Pre Plat Subdivision: Final Plat Subdivision: Preliminary plat extension Subdivision escrow varies Vacations Vacations: Road Current Proposed Fee Fee Escrow Notes $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Staff approved $ 275.00 $ 275.00 City Council meeting $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 50.00 Staff approved $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 700.00 35 . $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 + Consultant fees 200 peF aeFe AFaeiel $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 + Consultant fees $ 350.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 850+30/lot $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 700.00 $ 500.00 $ 2,500.00 $ 350.00 $ 350.00 $2,500- $10,000 $ 700.00 $ 275.00 Vacation: Easement not associated with subdivisions $ 275.00 $ 275.00 Vacation: Easements associated with a subdivision Easement creation, no other application Appeal of Administrative Decision Zoning Permit Docks Stairway to Lake Structures not requiring a building permit Encroachment Permit/ Agreement Tree removal in shore setback Signs (Alteration of cabinent/ raceway. Copy change excluded) Vehicle Storage Land Alteration Escrow is currently $2,000 City Administrator may require an erosion control escrow for projects disturbing soils. Building Code Administration Building permits Minimum Sign structure Entrance monuments Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $ 200.00 $ - $ 700.00 $ 275.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 150.00 $ 150.00 $ 1,000.00 35.00 plus engineering costs $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 50.00 78-1577 (C) $ 50.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 Value Value $ 50.00 $ 26.25 Value Value 3% of project value, not to exceed $10,000 Council Exhibit A Fee Schedule City Administrator may require an erosion control escrow for projects disturbing soils. $ 1,000.00 Valuation based on ICC 2012 Building Valuation tables Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500 $26.25 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $26.25 for the first $500.00 plus $3.41 for each additional $100.00, $ or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $77.40 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.49 for each additional Retaining walls $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $433.67 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.29 for each additional Plumbing $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $715.92 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.88 for each additional Fire Sprinkler Systsmes - Commercial $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $1109.92 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.30 for each additional $ 10.00 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,629.92 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.25 for each additional 50.00 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up $6,254.92 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $4.20 for each additional 1.25% $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Demolition: Principal structure $ 100.00 $ 100.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 Demolition: Accessory structure $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Fire Plan review fee Retaining walls Value Value $ 1,000.00 65% of Plumbing 1.25% of pi 1.25% of project Fire Sprinkler Systsmes - Commercial Backflow registration $ 10.00 $ 10.00 Plumbing minimum $ 50.00 $ 26.25 $ 20.00 Mechanical 1.25% of pi 1.25% of project Mechanical Minimum $ 50.00 $ 26.25 Tent/ Canopy $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Municipal Connection permit Sewer $ 50.00 $ 50.00 SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) (MCES) ######## ######## Water $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Meter Quote Basi Quote Basis Septic Subdivision site evaluation review $ 60.00 $ 60.00 Per lot Inspection surcharge for RS zones (Big and Deering $ 30.00 $ 30.00 island plus cost of boat rental if transportation not provided. plus 30/ hour after 1st Reinspection fee $ 30.00 $ 30.00 hour Site inspection without permit $ 30.00 $ 30.00 Fire Protection inspection $ - $ - Fire Code Permit $ 50.00 $ 50.00 Commercial Fire Alarm Value Value Fire Plan review fee 65% of 65% of permit fee permit fee Fire Sprinkler Systsmes - Commercial 1.25 of contract Burning permits $ - $ - Reinspection $ 20.00 $ 20.00 Variances, CUP, Amendments Preapplication meeting Application intake (Create file, prepare envelopes for public notice, data entry) Legal notice publication cost Initial group review Correspondence (Comments, completeness) Site inspection and photos Commission report PC meeting attendance City Recorder Council memo and Resolution Council meeting attendance City Recorder Recording fees Prep file for closure Total Costs Bolded Costs Subdivisions Preapplication meeting Application intake (Create file, prepare envelopes for public notice, data entry) Legal notice publication cost Initial group review Review Correspondence (Comments, completeness) Site inspection, review, and photos Commission report PC meeting attendance City Recorder Council memo and Resolution Council meeting attendance City Recorder 0.3 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.25 1 2 0.25 0.5 Clerical Actual Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Clerical Professional Professional Clerical $ 9.00 $ 13.20 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 125.00 $ 12.50 $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 12.50 $ 25.00 Follow up paperwork (Easements, agreements, etc.) 2 Professional $ 100.00 Recording fees Actual $ 50.00 Prep file for closure 0.25 Professional $ 12.50 Total Costs $ 734.70 Bolded Costs $ 571.50 Clerical Staff $30.00 assumes $12.00 per column inch, 1.1 inches Council Exhibit B Fee Schedule Development costs summary Hours Staff Assumptions 1 Professional $ 50.00 Professional staff $50.00 0.3 Clerical $ 9.00 Clerical Staff $30.00 Actual $ 13.20 Assumes $12.00 per column inch, 1.1 inches. A single notice may include several applications, and ususally runs around 0.5 Professional $ 25.00 0.5 Professional $ 25.00 1 Professional $ 50.00 2 Professional $ 100.00 0.25 Professional $ 12.50 1 Clerical $ 50.00 1 Professional $ 50.00 0.25 Professional $ 12.50 0.5 Clerical $ 25.00 Actual $ 50.00 0.25 Professional $ 12.50 $ 484.70 $ 321.50 1 Professional $ 50.00 Professional staff $50.00 0.3 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 2.5 0.25 1 2 0.25 0.5 Clerical Actual Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Professional Clerical Professional Professional Clerical $ 9.00 $ 13.20 $ 25.00 $ 75.00 $ 25.00 $ 50.00 $ 125.00 $ 12.50 $ 50.00 $ 100.00 $ 12.50 $ 25.00 Follow up paperwork (Easements, agreements, etc.) 2 Professional $ 100.00 Recording fees Actual $ 50.00 Prep file for closure 0.25 Professional $ 12.50 Total Costs $ 734.70 Bolded Costs $ 571.50 Clerical Staff $30.00 assumes $12.00 per column inch, 1.1 inches Council Exhibit B Fee Schedule Council Exhibit C Fee schedule Project $ 25,000.00 $ Building permit - Comparison $ 413.00 Valuation Orono Plymouth Wayzata, Exclesior Tonka Bay (1997) Medina (1994) $1.00 to $500 $26.25 $ 40.00 $ 25.00 $ 23.00 $ 21.00 1,206.75 $ 1,133.75 $ $23.50 for the first $500.00 $ 350,000.00 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $26.25 for the first $500.00 plus $3.41 for $ 2,556.75 plus $3.41 for each 2,556.75 $ each additional $ 2,137.25 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 8,354.92 $ $40.00/ $2.25 each $100 25/ 3.25 each 100 additional $21/ $2.75 each $100 7,183.75 $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including 6,387.25 $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $77.40 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.49 for each additional $73.75/$14.75 each $1,000 $73.75/$14.75 each $1,000 $69.25/$14.00 each $1,000 $62.25/$12.50 each $1,000 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $433.67 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.29 $413.00/ $10.75 each $413.00/ $10.75 each $391.25/ $10.10 each $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 for each additional $1000 $1000 $1,000 $349.75/ $9.00 each $1000 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $715.92 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.88 for each additional $681.75/ $7.50 each $1,000 $681.75/ $7.50 each $1,000 $643.75/ $7.00 each $1,000 $574.75/ $6.25 each $1,000 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $1109.92 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.30 $1056.75/$6.00 each $1056.75/$6.00 each $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 for each additional $1,000 $1,000 $993.75/ $5.60 each $1,000 $887.25/$5.00 each $1,000 $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $3,629.92 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3456.75/ $5.00 each $3456.75/ $5.00 each $3,233.75/ $4.75 each $2,887.25/ $4.25 each $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $5.25 for each $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000 $6,254.92 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $5,608.75/ $3.15 each $5,012.25/ $2.75 each $1,000,001.00 and up $4.20 for each $5956.75/ $4.00 each 1,000 $5956.75/ $4.00 each 1,000 $1,000 1,000 additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof Project $ 25,000.00 $ 433.67 $ 413.00 $ 413.00 $ 391.25 $ 349.75 $ 125,000.00 $ 1,267.42 $ 1,206.75 $ 1,206.75 $ 1,133.75 $ 1,012.25 $ 350,000.00 $ 2,684.92 $ 2,556.75 $ 2,556.75 $ 2,393.75 $ 2,137.25 $ 1,500,000.00 $ 8,354.92 $ 7,965.75 $ 7,956.75 $ 7,183.75 $ 6,387.25 Council Exhibit D Fee Schedule Land Use application fees -Comparison Orono Plymouth Wayzata Tonka Bay Medina Billed, $80/ hour Variance $ 700.00 $ 200.00 $ 289.00 $ 150.00 professional staff Escrow $ 2,500.00 $ 3,060.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 1,000.00 Billed, $80/ hour CUP $ 700.00 $ 400.00 $ 289.34 $ 150.00 professional staff Escrow $ 700.00 $ 3,060.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 1,000.00 Billed, $80/ hour Preliminary 850 +30/ lot $ 300.00 $289.00-$572.00 $ 150.00 professional staff Escrow 2500-10000 2000-3500 $ 7,140.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 5,000.00 Billed, $80/ hour Final Plat $ 700.00 $ 200.00 $289.00-$572.00 $ 150.00 professional staff Escrow $ 700.00 2000-3500 $ 2,040.00 $ 1,150.00 $ 5,000.00 $7,140 for plats Council Exhibit E Fee schedule Land Use Budget impact 64 applications at current rate ($700.00) $ 44,800.00 64 applications at proposed rate ($275.00) $ 17,600.00 $ (27,200.00) 9 subdivisions at ($700.00) $ 6,300.00 9 Subdivisions at $200 less $ 4,500.00 $ (1,800.00) Average anticipated budget impact - Land Use $ (29,000.00) Building permit Budget Impact Budget Impact New Homes Total Permits $50 permits Total 1416 Others: CUP/ 2015 63 applications Subdivision City Text Var, etc. 2014 58 10 2 48 2015 92 11 20 81 2016 88 14 12 74 2017 through May 57 3 11 43 2017 (proj) 90 10 15 75 4 year average 77 9.6 12 64.2 Land Use Budget impact 64 applications at current rate ($700.00) $ 44,800.00 64 applications at proposed rate ($275.00) $ 17,600.00 $ (27,200.00) 9 subdivisions at ($700.00) $ 6,300.00 9 Subdivisions at $200 less $ 4,500.00 $ (1,800.00) Average anticipated budget impact - Land Use $ (29,000.00) Building permit Budget Impact New Homes Total Permits $50 permits 2014 43 1416 141.6 2015 63 1574 157.4 2016 38 1463 146.3 2017 through May 21 557 55.7 2017 (proj) 55 1400 140 4 year average 49.75 1463.25 146.325 $50.00 permits $ 7,316.25 $26.25 permits $ 3,841.03 Average anticipated budget impact - Building $ (3,475.22) AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 16 Date: July 10, 2017 Item Description: Navarre Area Plan — Approve Scope and Authorize Advertisement Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to advertise for proposals to complete the Navarre Small Area Plan. 2. Background. Included in the budget for 2017, and as part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan, is the development of a small area plan for the Navarre Area, to be completed by an outside consultant. Staff has prepared a scope, illustrating the work desired to be completed. 3. Project Scope. Attached as Exhibit A, the Council should identify any components they feel should be added. The map of the area to be included in the study area is shown on Exhibit B. 4. Cost. There is minimal cost to advertise. The Council may accept or reject the proposals once submitted. 5. Funding. The 2017 budget includes up -to $25,000 to complete this project. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends accepting the project scope as drafted, authorizing the advertisement and review of proposals. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to authorize the advertisement of scope for the Navarre Area Plan. Exhibits Exhibit A. Project Scope Exhibit B. Area Map Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: W Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR NAVARRE AREA PLAN SECTION I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR LAND USE PLANNING SERVICES The City of Orono is requesting proposals from planning firms to work with local stakeholders to develop a long range plan for the commercial and residential neighborhood known as Navarre, within the City of Orono. SECTION II. GENERAL INFORMATION The City of Orono is a managed growth community of 7,500 people located 20 minutes west of Minneapolis on Lake Minnetonka. Orono encompasses an area of 24 square miles, 30% of which is Lake Minnetonka. The Navarre area is generally located at the intersection of County Roads 19 (Shoreline Drive) and 15 (Shadywood Road). The study area will focus on the residential area north of Shoreline Drive, south of Crystal Place, west of Bayview Place, east of the Corporate Limits, and the commercial areas along Shoreline and Shadywood Road. The Navarre area represents Orono's historic town center and could be reimagined as a central gathering spot for community activities and festivals. Previous planning studies have been completed for the area, but due to a number of factors have not fully been acted on. It is the city's hope that the Plan to be developed will include measurable, visible aspects that once completed, will build on the momentum created by the recent reinvestment of private property. The Plan will be incorporated into the City's Comprehensive Plan Update, scheduled for submittal in September, 2018. SECTION III. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TIMETABLE All proposals should be sent and all questions and correspondence should be directed to the City of Orono, Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director (952-249-4626), jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 (mailing address: P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323). A. All proposals must be received at the City offices no later than 11:00 a.m., Friday, August 4, 2017. Four (4) copies of the proposal must be presented. The copies shall be sealed and clearly identified with "Navarre Area RFP" by the submittal deadline. Proposal Format The submittal should follow the Table of Contents listed below: 1. General Information 2. Project Understanding 3. Project Approach 4. Proposed Project Team and Experience 5. Schedule 6. Any Additional Information as Needed 7. Total Consultant Cost A brief description of each section is as follows: 1. General Information Provide general information and a brief history of the Consultant's firm. Include similar information on key sub -consultants, if any, proposed for the project. 2. Project Understanding Include a summary of the Consultant's understanding of this project. 3. Project Approach Provide specific approaches, methods, and assumptions that will be utilized to accomplish each work item as listed in Section IV. 4. Proposed Project Team and Experience ■ Identify key team members and describe their specific roles on the project. Include key team members from sub -consultant firms, if any. ■ Describe relevant experience and provide information on at least three (3) reference projects completed in the last six (6) years. Provide references and contact information. ■ Include specific descriptions of proposed team members' roles on referenced projects. 5. Schedule Provide a proposed schedule from project initiation to final completion. The schedule should include a listing of key tasks within each phase, key milestones and approximate dates, and deliverables. 6. Additional Information Include any other information that is believed to be pertinent, but not specifically requested elsewhere in this RFP. Total Consultant Cost The consultant shall break out the cost as follows: a. Proposed costs for each scope of work as listed in Section IV. b. Hourly rates for all consultant employees who are expected to work on this project. These rates shall be the agreed upon costs for any additional services requested by the City of Orono, above what is detailed in the RFP. c. Reimbursable costs including detail of service or item and applicable charge per unit. d. Not to Exceed cost for the project. Proposals that do not include a `Not to Exceed' cost will be disregarded with no further consideration. It is the responsibility of the proposing firm to accurately predict the amount of time that they will need to spend on the project. SECTION IV. REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS The final scope of services will be developed in collaboration with the selected firm. Components of the Plan, at a minimum, will include: 1. Participatory Process — Develop, coordinate and conduct a public process to encourage meaningful citizen input. The interaction and participation of residents, business leaders, elected officials, and administration is critical for the development and success of the plan. A participation program will need to be developed to incorporate local knowledge and experience. 2. Assumptions — Analyze the assumed effects of external forces (physical, social, economic, and political) on the future of the local community. Issues and forecasts of local and regional growth will be included. 3. Vision/Overview of the Plan — Provide a vision or alternative visions of the long-term future design and character of the area. The vision will represent interests of a broad range of citizens rather than a few special-interest groups. Costibenefit implications of each alternative will be included. 4. Planning Elements — To include discussion on such elements as land use, transportation, community facilities, utilities, natural resources, parks and open space, urban design policies, urban design, image and opportunities, housing, and redevelopment, etc., 5. Short and Long Term goals - Discuss and illustrate the potential short and long-term impacts of the plan on the community. 6. Implementation/Action Steps — Develop a list of strategies and implementation measures to accomplish momentum building goals and objectives of the plan. SECTION V. CONSULTANT SELECTION Process City staff will evaluate and rank all submitted proposals. After conclusion of this review, staff will recommend the most qualified consulting teams or firms to the City Council. The decision will be based on a combination including, but not limited to: ranking, presentation of materials, and other qualifications. The Council may review the recommendations and invite the top candidates to conduct a presentation before the Council, members of City staff and representatives of the Planning Commission. Presentations are expected to occur in August. The City Council will make the final selection of the consultant firm with input from staff. Once authorized to proceed, the "most qualified" consulting firm will be expected to immediately assist in developing a final scope of services and contractual agreement. 3 The city will select a Consultant to negotiate a contract as follows: 1. If, for any reason, a firm is not able to commence the services in their Proposal within 30 days of the award, the City reserves the right to contract with another qualified firm. 2. The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by the Consultant prior to the signing of a contract including, but not limited to, the Proposal preparation, attendance at interviews, or final contract negotiations. 3. The Proposal must be signed in ink by an official authorized to bind the Consultant to its provisions that will be included as part of an eventual contract. The Proposal must include a statement as to the period during which the Proposal remains valid. This period must be at least 90 days from the date of the submittal. 4. The City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals submitted or to request additional information from any or all of the proposing firms. The City of Orono reserves the right to waive any irregularity in any submittal or reject any or all proposals. Ranking Criteria 1. Project Approach and Organization — a maximum of 50 points • Description of approach to prepare the plan? • How will services be performed? • What do they propose as a scope of services? • How do they plan to facilitate, encourage and implement public participation? • How much time will be budgeted for interaction with community stakeholders? 2. Related Experience — a maximum of 25 points • Demonstration of personal and leadership skills necessary to navigate the project through the social and political issues that surround a project of this nature? • Description of a proven track record in successfully completing similar projects on time and within budget? Successful experience of both the firm itself and the individual team members will be considered. • What experience do the consultants assigned to the project have with community/public planning process? • What direct experience do the consultants assigned to the project have involving research and assessment and developing strategies and action plans, as it relates to communities of similar size and nature? • What direct experience do the consultants assigned to the project have working with diverse stakeholders in the development of community/neighborhood plans or initiatives? 3. Schedule - a maximum of 10 points 4 • What will be the proposed consultant project schedule and the staffing plan that will facilitate completion of the Plan in a timely manner? How many on-site visits/meetings are planned? • An estimated time schedule for this proposal, which shows the amount of time per category and the total amount of time necessary to complete this project. The time schedule should demonstrate the firm's ability to proceed immediately and without delay. 4. Cost- a maximum of 15 points • Demonstration of successful previous budget performance and experience in meeting project budgets. • Description of approach to budgeting and bidding. • Presentation of firm's best offer; firm "not to exceed" SECTION VI: CONTRACT TERMS AND CONDITIONS Upon selection of a Consultant, an Agreement or Contract for Services shall be entered into by the City and the Consultant. It is expected that the contract will provide for compensation for actual work completed on a not to exceed basis with the following conditions. The contract will be amended as appropriate for each successive phase. 1. Deletion of specific components, such as individual project meetings, will be at the discretion of the City. Payment or reimbursement shall be made based on actual hours worked on the various tasks required for the project plus necessary subcontractor work (as applicable) and out of pocket expenses. Billing in excess of `not to exceed' amount will not be compensated unless a contract extension has been approved in advance by the City Council. 2. The City shall retain ownership of all documents, plans, maps, reports and data prepared under this proposal. In addition to being provided hard copy and digital documents throughout the project, the consultant shall supply the City of Orono with a fully scanned (.PDF) file upon project completion. 3. If, for any reason, the Consultant is unable to fulfill the obligations under the contract in a timely and proper manner, the City reserves the right to terminate the contract by written notice. In this event, the firm shall be entitled to just and equitable compensation for any satisfactory work completed to that point at the discretion of the City Administrator. 4. The Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in the contract without prior written consent of the City. 5. The Consultant contract shall be governed by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 6. Project summaries shall be submitted with each invoice during the course of the project. Each summary shall detail the amount billed to date, work items that need to be completed, the estimated costs to complete these tasks and the projected timeline for the completion of the project. Invoices submitted to the City shall include a detailed breakdown of times, personnel, mileage, etc. chargeable for that period. SECTION VII. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND SELECTION SCHEDULE 5 City Council Approval of RFP: Advertise and Distribute RFP: RFP Submittal Deadline: City Council Review of recommendation: Start Date: July 10, 2017 July 14, 2017 August 4, 2017 August 14, 2017 September 15, 2017 6 1 4 ~ r' �Of , ti.• e_ Legend Railroad s— tti City Limits iii+ F }}� r : r _ • d•� 1� ` � r i ,yy S r � / � r 1 i�tli15 y, N . Parcels (3-1-2017) Lakes & Ponds MIFF r y RIT i jlv �. .. M•. er .�- ;Al °jYZT IL Mom M_ `A'°'' ,i ..' x I r ON& Jy r i, r s AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 17 Date: July 10 , 2017 Item Description: Appointment of Interim Finance Director Presenter: Doug Reeder Agenda City Administrator's Interim City Administrator Section: Report 1. Purpose To appoint Danielle Amira to the position of Interim Finance Director 2. Background. Finance Director Ron Olson has been on medical leave since mid-May and it is uncertain when he will be able to return to his position. The finance department handles many important financial transactions including the banking activities and the investments which require the signature of the Finance Director. In order to allow the city to continue to handle all financial matters on a timely basis it is important that we have and active Interim Finance Director appointed who can execute the necessary documents. Therefore it is requested that the City Council consider the appointment of Danielle Amira to the position of Interim Finance Director effective immediately and continuing until the Finance Director is able to return to work. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve the appointment of Danielle Amira to the position of Interim Finance Director. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the appointment of Danielle Amira to the position of Interim Finance Director effective July 10, 2017 and continuing until the return of the Finance Director. Prepared By: Nz Reviewed By: 14Z Approved By: NZ