Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
09-11-2017 Council Packet
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, September 11, 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 August 28, 2017 3. Council Work Session Minutes of August 28, 2017 4. Claims/Bills 5. Approval of Garbage Hauler License 6. Approval of Kennel License 7. Public Works Maintenance Worker Recruitment 8. 2017 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Award 9. 2017 Sanitary Sewer Inspection 10. Carman Bay Shoreline Restoration Project — Final Pay Request 11. #17-3949 — Dale Gustafson o/b/o Kevin Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance — Resolution 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 12. 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Presentation 13. 2018 Budget Public Works/City Engineer Report 14. Old Crystal Bay Road Temporary Turn Lanes 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, September 11, 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 Chad Olson) 15. #17-3963 — JHG Properties, LLC, 4035 Dahl Road, Preliminary Plat,Variances, Conservation Design Waiver 16. #17-3962 — Lake West Development, LLC, o/b/o Rick & Barbara Lupient, PIDs 20-117-23- 0001/0002/0003 (Lots 1, 2 & 3 Casco Point Addition) "Ivy Place", Preliminary Plat 17. #17-3932 — YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, Sketch Plan 18. Navarre Area Plan — Initial City Meeting 19. Resident Survey Mayor/Council Report City Attorney's Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2017 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. 10-02-17 — Park Commission Work Session, Monday 1:00 p.m. 10-09-17 — City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 10-16-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Wendy Dankey) 10-23-17 — City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 10-23-17 — City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11-06-17 — Park Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. 11-13-17 — City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11 -20-17 — Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Denny Walsh) 11-27-17 — City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 11-27-17 — 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, August 28, 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 Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were Interim City Administrator Doug Reeder, City Administrator Dustin Rief, Community Service Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:58 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended, with Item No. 10 being removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 14, 2017 3. CLAIMSBILLS 4. ANNUAL GUN CLUB PERMIT 5. GOLF COURSE — PARKS SUPERVISOR 6. SEASONAL EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT Vl�tfflr&] Y;7 D 311106 FR leg Y W115.3041 D[y 7Ta1; MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 28, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 10. CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJUSTMENT Barnhart reviewed his Staff memorandum dated August 28, 2017, regarding a request by a resident to adjust the right-of-way on Crystal Bay Road. Direction from the City Council at the last meeting was to verify the City had the right to vacate the unimproved right-of-way. Staff's recommendation is not to acquire the right-of-way due to the expense. Walsh stated the second issue Staff found out is that Crystal Bay Road is technically a private road owned by 28 different property owners. Given that it is a private road, the City cannot place a right-of-way over something the City does not own. The third issue is whether the current right-of-way is titled correctly. Walsh stated if it is not titled correctly, it will create other issues with the infrastructure in the street, and that the City will need to determine that prior to making a decision. Seals asked whether this situation is common around the lake. Barnhart stated there are a number of situations where the road does not necessarily follow the right-of- way. Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to not move forward on the vacation of the Crystal Bay Road right-of-way at this time and to direct Staff to research the title work to determine who owns the right-of-way. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT 14. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO DOUG REEDER Dankey moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6787, A Resolution of Appreciation to Doug Reeder. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Reeder stated it has been a great pleasure to work for the great city of Orono. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Dankey stated she attended the Tim McGraw concert on the lake yesterday and everything went smoothly given the number of people in attendance. Crosby stated he was excited about the purchase of the new fire truck and that the City received some positive press about it. Printup noted most schools will begin next week and that he would encourage everyone to drive safely. Printup noted the City has erected cones at Old Crystal Bay and Highway 6 to prevent a left turn onto Old Crystal Bay Road for those vehicles going west on Highway 6. Printup stated the City Council will be discussing possible improvements to Old Crystal Bay Road next month. Page 2 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 28, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT, Continued Seals reported she and Council Member Printup attended the ground breaking ceremony for the new recreation center and that work will begin on the new building in the near future. Seals noted the Minnesota State Fair is going on. Walsh welcomed Dustin Rief as Orono's new City Administrator. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 15. CONSIDER WAIVER OF BUILDING PERMIT FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE ICE ARENA Rief stated the purpose of this item is to consider a reduction or waiver of the fees associated with the ice arena improvements. Reeder noted the City Council tabled action on this item at their last meeting. Walsh stated the Orono Ice Arena is a nonprofit organization and that they have raised approximately $1 million to complete the proposed renovations. The permit fees amount to approximately $7,500 and that the ice arena association is requesting those fees be waived in whole or in part. Walsh stated since he is on the board of the organization as the mayor of the City, he will be recusing himself from voting on this item. Walsh noted any motion would require three out of four votes to pass. Crosby stated in his view the City should take these type of cases on a case-by-case basis. Crosby stated since the City Council is not a court of law, their action would not create a total precedent, and that in his opinion the request is reasonable. Crosby stated the ice arena adds a lot to Orono and the organization that runs it is a nonprofit. Crosby indicated he would be in favor of waiving the fee. Seals noted this item was tabled at the last meeting, and since that time she has spoken with a number of people, both for and against the request. Seals stated if the City waives the fees, the City would not be realizing that money as income and they would be required to spend less on other items, such as roads or other city services. Seals indicated she leans on the side of not approving it at this time until the City is able to implement a mechanism to deal with these requests. Dankey stated before the City starts waiving fees, the City should have a process in place to deal with those types of requests. Printup noted years ago some fees were waived but it was stopped because it became a slippery slope. In addition, the City Council has worked hard over the last several months on ways to reduce fees and that in his opinion it is too much of a slippery slope. The City Council took no action on this item. Page 3 of 4 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 28, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT 16. Closed Session Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to enter into closed session pursuant to Section 13D.05, Subdivision 3(a), to evaluate the performance of Public Works employee Ron Rice. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. (The City Council went into closed session from 7:45 p.m. to 8:45 p.m.) Printup moved, Dankey seconded, to terminate Ron Rice's employment with the City of Orono effective immediately. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2. Walsh and Crosby Opposed. Seals moved, Dankey seconded, to approve an amendment to the motion to terminate Ron Rice, by allowing Ron Rice an extension to resign from his position with the City of Orono by 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, August 29, 2017 before termination would take effect. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 2. Walsh and Crosby Opposed. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Dankey seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:10p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 4 of 4 Orono City Council Work Session Monday, August 28, 2017 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Interim City Administrator Doug Reeder, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Finance Director Ron Olson, and Interim Finance Director Danielle Amira. 1. 2018 General Fund Budget Mayor Walsh and City Council Members discussed the proposed 2018 General Fund Budget in great detail, page by page, asking questions of the department heads and directed staff to make some specific changes to the budget. Staff was directed to present the proposed changes to the budget to the City Council again in September. Changes included changes in revenue and expenditures including the elimination of the contingency fund. End 6:30 p.m. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 4 Date: September 11, 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 108070 to 108170, totaling $178,934.97. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #108108 Mansfield Oil $6,709.67 Payment for Fuel for Public Works and Police. Company #108123 Office Depot $ 5,884.56 Payment for New Plotter/Plan Printer and other Misc. Office Supplies. #108162 US Bank National $ 32,721.80 Payment for Ist Half TIF. Association 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: JIVl City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 09/11/2017 108070 338411242 101-41900-413 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 09/11/2017 108070 338429004 101-42110-413 Total 108070: Police Department 635.05 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 09/11/2017 108071 14848621 101-42110-321 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 09/11/2017 108071 14848621 101-41900-321 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 09/11/2017 108071 14848621 601-49400-321 ALLSTREAM/INTEGRA TELECO 09/11/2017 108071 14848621 602-49450-321 Total 108071: AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR 09/11/2017 108072 S095731680 101-42110-402 Total 108072: APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 09/11/2017 108073 1447 101-41900-319 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 09/11/2017 108073 14532 101-41900-319 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 09/11/2017 108073 14822 101-41900-319 Total 108073: ATCC, ALEXANDRIA TECHNICA 09/11/2017 108074 09232017 101-42110-228 Total 108074: Barbara Palmer 09/11/2017 108075 09062017 999-10015 Total 108075: BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPME 09/11/2017 108076 37 101-42110-437 Total 108076: BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647492 101-45200-415 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647493 101-45200-415 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647494 101-45200-415 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647495 101-45200-415 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647496 101-45200-415 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647497 101-45200-415 Description Department Invoice Amount CH Copier Lease -08/20/17-09/20/17 Central Services 1,357.00 Police Copier -07/20-08/20/17 Police Department 340.40 Phone service Police Department 301.64 Phone Service Central Services 422.29 Phone Service Water 70.38 Phone Service Sewer 211.14 ADA, Service, HandSani-Crystal Bay Playground- 2 Parks 1,005.45 #243tires Police Department 635.05 635.05 06/17 -Insurance admin fee Central Services 496.50 7/17 -Insurance enrollment online admin fee Central Services 497.00 09/17 -Insurance admin fee Central Services 497.50 Training. RS Police Department 424.00 424.00 refund overpmt of UB final 156.34 156.34 DMT -G training/J.Sczepanik Police Department 75.00 75.00 Hand soap, ADA Restroom Rental Service Parks 160.00 ADA, Service, HandSani summit beach Parks 160.00 ADA, Service, HandSani Hackberry Park Parks 125.00 ADA, Service, HandSani Orono GC Parks 62.79 ADA, Service, HandSani-Crystal Bay Playground- 2 Parks 92.50 ADA, Service, HandSani-Navarre Playground -2017 Parks 160.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 2 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647498 101-45200-415 ADA, Service, HandSani-French Creek Park Preser Parks 92.50 BIFFS INC 09/11/2017 108077 W647499 101-45200-415 Lurton Park biff Parks 62.50 Total 108077: 915.29 Big Sky Racks Inc. 09/11/2017 108078 70882 101-42110-402 electronic locking mount Police Department 456.89 Total 108078: 456.89 BUDGET PRINTING 09/11/2017 108079 5227 101-41900-352 name plane-oakden planner Central Services 14.64 BUDGET PRINTING 09/11/2017 108079 5230 101-42110-352 engrave plate Police Department 7.40 BUDGET PRINTING 09/11/2017 108079 5292 101-41900-352 name plate-d.rief Central Services 11.62 Total 108079: 33.66 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES, L. 09/11/2017 108080 1964608 101-45210-091 beer for resale-Golf Course Golf Course 225.30 Total 108080: 225.30 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 AE08302017 101-41300-489 staff develpment/chipotle Administration 482.74 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 CF08052017 101-42110-437 lodge for dare cont Police Department 429.09 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 CF08052017 101-42110-437 lodge for dare cont-T.Sonnek Police Department 143.03- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 CF08232017 101-42110-402 Carwash Police Department 10.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 CF08312017 101-42110-560 office chair/pd/HG Police Department 171.63 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 09/11/2017 108081 RO08252017 101-42400-437 septic cert./RP Building & Zoning 240.00 Total 108081: 1,190.43 CARGILL GLOBAL SECURITY 3 09/11/2017 108082 2903594268 601-49400-216 salt Water 4,655.86 Total 108082: 4,655.86 CECE S SIGNS 09/11/2017 108083 7468 101-43000-340 graphics for Truck#427 Public Works Department 110.00 Total 108083: 110.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 09/11/2017 108084 10741575-4A 602-49450-381 LS#2 generator Sewer 43.71 Total 108084: 43.71 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount CENTURY LINK 09/11/2017 108085 08192017 101-45210-321 GC phone 7/26-8/18 2017 Golf Course 196.29 CENTURY LINK 09/11/2017 108085 9524717766 601-49400-321 internet navarre plant Water 163.89 Total 108085: 360.18 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/11/2017 108086 0015001 101-42110-402 #243Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/11/2017 108086 0015004 101-42110-402 #231 perform service Police Department 108.95 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/11/2017 108086 0015026 101-42110-402 #241 Perform service, oil, filter Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/11/2017 108086 0015031 101-42110-402 #249 perform service, oil filter Police Department 42.74 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 09/11/2017 108086 0015040 101-42110-402 #248 perform service, oil filter Police Department 77.21 Total 108086: 314.38 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 09/11/2017 108087 46159 101-41900-404 furnace repairs Central Services 158.00 Total 108087: 158.00 DAVE KLITZKE 09/11/2017 108088 08282017 101-41300-489 Staff development/pop&water Administration 23.77 Total 108088: 23.77 DUSTIN RIEF 09/11/2017 108089 09152017 101-43290-800 REIMBURSE MOVE EXP Special Projects -Contingencies 9,500.00 Total 108089: 9,500.00 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 09/11/2017 108090 0115247 -IN 101-43000-224 signs Public Works Department 505.10 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 09/11/2017 108090 0115249 -IN 101-43000-224 signs Public Works Department 217.85 Total 108090: 722.95 EVERLAST ENTERPRISES INC 09/11/2017 108091 2016-01579 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-01579 2,500.00 Total 108091: 2,500.00 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006615096 101-43000-226 unifomrs Public Works Department 57.26 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006615096 101-43000-221 Shop towels Public Works Department 2.63 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006637115 101-43000-226 unifomrs Public Works Department 57.26 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006637115 101-43000-221 mat Public Works Department 17.03 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006637126 101-45210-223 Golf Course Mats Golf Course 3.85 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006648142 101-43000-226 unifomrs Public Works Department 57.26 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Payee Issue Date Number Number G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 6006648142 101-43000-221 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 606626184 101-43000-226 G & K SERVICES 09/11/2017 108092 606626184 101-43000-221 Total 108092: Parks 22.93 #427 air filter Public Works Department GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-372290 101-45200-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-372325 101-43000-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-372886 101-41900-404 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-372997 602-49450-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-373814 101-43000-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-373818 601-49400-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-373819 101-43000-403 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-373823 601-49400-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270373853 101-43000-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-374932 602-49450-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-375588 602-49450-402 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 09/11/2017 108093 3270-375642 602-49450-402 Total 108093: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 09/11/2017 108094 7080629 601-49400-489 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 09/11/2017 108094 7080629 602-49450-489 Total 108094 HEALTH PARTNERS 09/11/2017 108095 74816037 101-21706 HEALTH PARTNERS 09/11/2017 108095 74816037 101-15998 HEALTH PARTNERS 09/11/2017 108095 74816037 101-42110-135 Total 108095: Henn county Community Correcti 09/11/2017 108096 1000009517 101-45200-404 Henn county Community Correcti 09/11/2017 108096 CCR0000010 101-42110-319 Total 108096: HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 08/31/2017 108026 1000096857 101-43000-414 Description Department Invoice Amount Shop towels Public Works Department 2.63 unifomrs Public Works Department 57.26 Shop towels Public Works Department 2.63 257.81 door handle & filter Parks 22.93 #427 air filter Public Works Department 48.50 shop supplies Central Services 52.14 vactor & shop supplies Sewer 15.37 oil filter Public Works Department 6.60 #710 filter Water 6.37 cleaning supplies Public Works Department 2.49 #710 filter Water 18.09 #708 filter Public Works Department 38.52 fuel/air filters connectors Sewer 104.05 cir breaker Sewer 4.29 #713 shop supplies Sewer 23.95 343.30 locates Water 234.23 locates Sewer 234.22 healthpartners sep 2017 39,587.00 healthpartners sep 2017 5,826.50 healthpartners sep 2017 Police Department 591.50 corrections Parks 356.80 corrections Police Department 336.00 radio Communication -08/2017 Public Works Department 95.30- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 5 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Department Invoice Amount 95.30 - Administration Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number 1,265.00 Central Services 34.86 34.86 Golf Course 216.75 Total 108026: 216.75 170.14 170.14 JACKIE YOUNG 09/11/2017 108097 08022017 101-41300-319 CC meetings, 07/10&7/24 JACKIE YOUNG 09/11/2017 108097 08022017 101-42400-319 PC meeting -07/17 JACKIE YOUNG 09/11/2017 108097 09052017 101-41300-319 CC meeting 8/14/17 JACKIE YOUNG 09/11/2017 108097 09052017 101-41300-319 hra meeting 8/28/17 JACKIE YOUNG 09/11/2017 108097 09052017 101-42400-319 pc meeting 8/21/17 Total 108097: JH LARSON COMPANY 09/11/2017 108098 S101553191. 101-41900-404 ch&PD entrances Total 108098: JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN JJ TAYL 09/11/2017 108099 2698116 101-45210-091 beer for resale -GC Total 108099: Johnson Irrevocable Trust 09/11/2017 108100 09062017 999-10015 3700 Livingston Ave -refund overpmt Total 108100: KAYLIN MCKENSEY HARE 09/11/2017 108101 08162017 101-42110-319 COMPLIANCE CHECK Total 108101: KELLY HERZOG 09/11/2017 108102 08292017 101-41300-489 reimb prize drawing/emp appr Total 108102: KENNETH N POTTS PA 09/11/2017 108103 08292017 231-45650-307 Forfeit 2015 Landrover Total 108103: LADD, MIKE & STAINBROOK, C 09/11/2017 108104 2016-00538 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND- 660 TONKAWA RD Total 108104: LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS 09/11/2017 108105 1297291-201 101-42110-311 Aug/16 Contract fee Page: 5 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Department Invoice Amount 95.30 - Administration 430.00 Building & Zoning 240.00 Administration 190.00 Administration 165.00 Building & Zoning 240.00 1,265.00 Central Services 34.86 34.86 Golf Course 216.75 216.75 170.14 170.14 Police Department 45.00 45.00 Administration 23.78 23.78 1,500.00 1,500.00 10,000.00 10,000.00 Police Department 105.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 6 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Parks 4.79 Parks 10.99 Sewer 11.99 Golf Course 43.01 Total 108105: 13.26 LOGIS 09/11/2017 108106 44051 101-42110-401 network J Stickle Total 108106: LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 8413630 602-49450-406 connectors LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 B414020 101-45200-223 concrete mix -saga hill signs LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 B415167 101-45200-402 riviets LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 B416674 602-49450-402 drain auger LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 B417194 101-45210-223 Supplies LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108107 B417935 101-45210-201 cleaning supplies Total 108107: MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 201416042 101-42110-212 Fuel MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 20399258 101-43000-212 Fuels MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 20399259 101-43000-212 Diesel Fuel MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 20399264 101-42110-212 Fuel MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 20399265 101-43000-212 Fuels MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 09/11/2017 108108 20416043 101-43000-212 Diesel Fuel Total 108108: MATT SILTALA 09/11/2017 108109 07172017 101-42110-226 clothing reimb Total 108109: MEDIACOM 09/11/2017 108110 08212017 101-42110-329 internet-09/2017 MEDIACOM 09/11/2017 108110 08212017 101-41900-329 internet-09/2017 MEDIACOM 09/11/2017 108110 08212017 101-41900-329 internet-09/2017 Total 108110: Menards HSBC Business Solution 09/11/2017 108111 3282219170 101-45210-221 culvert plug Total 108111: MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/11/2017 108112 P44443 101-43000-403 #450 brake line repair Page: 6 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Department Invoice Amount Public Works Department 105.00 Police Department 28.75 Police Department 28.75 Sewer 25.66 Parks 4.79 Parks 10.99 Sewer 11.99 Golf Course 43.01 Golf Course 13.26 Police Department 3,152.73 Public Works Department 468.89 Public Works Department 500.02 Police Department 2,155.02 Public Works Department 216.93 Public Works Department 216.08 Police Department Police Department 296.75 Central Services 296.75 Central Services 593.50 Golf Course 69.72 69.72 Public Works Department 64.57 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 7 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 09/11/2017 108112 P58754 101-43000-403 Replacement chain saw Public Works Department 41.90 Total 108112: 106.47 MINT ROOFING 09/11/2017 108114 546941 101-43000-404 Roof Repairs Public Works Public Works Department 285.42 Total 108114: 285.42 MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 09/11/2017 108115 092017 101-21710 Pera life 09/16 224.00 Total 108115: 224.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108117 146228 101-42110-240 bike for prizes Police Department 259.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 09/11/2017 108117 146526 101-42110-221 wire rope Police Department 2.78 Total 108117: 262.76 MTI DIST CO 09/11/2017 108118 1133897-00 101-45210-223 yardage mark Golf Course 77.56 Total 108118: 77.56 NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/11/2017 108120 304307 602-49450-240 Shovel for vactor Sewer 13.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/11/2017 108120 304511 101-43000-212 Supplies Public Works Department 6.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 09/11/2017 108120 304568 602-49450-406 sewer supplies Sewer 16.98 Total 108120: 37.46 NORLINGS 09/11/2017 108121 32915 101-41900-404 landscape planitngs Central Services 970.00 Total 108121: 970.00 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9480018430 101-42110-201 pd/office supplies Police Department 71.75 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9480020280 101-41900-201 supplies Central Services 12.39 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9512924860 101-42110-201 pd/office supplies Police Department 46.03 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9512927430 101-42110-201 pd/notebooks Police Department 13.74 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9518068380 405-48500-575 designjet printer 5,598.19 OFFICE DEPOT 09/11/2017 108123 9561482620 101-41900-201 supplies Central Services 142.46 Total 108123: 5.884.56 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Payee Issue Date Number Number ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHO 09/11/2017 108125 09062017 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND/685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHO 09/11/2017 108125 09062017 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND/685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHO 09/11/2017 108125 09062017 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND/685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHO 09/11/2017 108125 09062017 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND/685 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N Total 108125: PAINT A LOT 09/11/2017 108126 1429 101-43000-408 Painting Navarre lot, crosswalks at Lyric, school cro Public Works Department Total 108126: PIRTEK 09/11/2017 108128 S2541022.00 101-43000-402 jd450 hose material Public Works Department PIRTEK 09/11/2017 108128 S2556949 101-45210-221 hose -sections Golf Course Total 108128: POS PAPER 09/11/2017 108130 44109 101-42110-201 ticket writer paper Police Department Total 108130: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 09/11/2017 108132 8312 234-45680-404 Lurton Park Vegetation Mgmt Total 108132: PRIORITY COURIER EXPERTS 09/11/2017 108134 1023112 101-42400-319 courier service Building & Zoning Total 108134: QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 09/11/2017 108136 33948 602-49450-406 LS#23 repairs Sewer Total 108136: RANDYS SANITATION INC 09/11/2017 108138 1-241681-3 101-45200-404 Aug/17 trash Svcs Parks RANDYS SANITATION INC 09/11/2017 108138 1-241681-3 101-45200-404 Aug/17 trash Svcs Parks RANDYS SANITATION INC 09/11/2017 108138 1-241681-3 101-41900-404 Aug/17 trash Svcs Central Services Total 108138: REED WHOLESALE/OFFICE CO 09/11/2017 108140 9305 101-45210-093 concessions Resale -GC Golf Course Page: 8 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Invoice Amount 5,500.00 2,000.00 10,700.00 3,827.61 3,827.61 139.06 63.41 174.75 490.00 490.00 51.95 51.95 127.40 127.40 79.60 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 9 Seo 07. 2017 12:OOPM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 108140: 79.60 Ryan Spencer 09/11/2017 108141 08212017 101-42110-437 caliber training meals Police Department 46.42 Total 108141: 46.42 SAFE KIDS WORLDWIDE 09/11/2017 108143 08292017 101-42110-437 2017 CERTIFICATION COURSE/ED RUNDLE Police Department 85.00 Total 108143: 85.00 SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 09/11/2017 108145 1720 602-49450-402 UNIT#713 REPLACEMNT REAR WARNING LIGHT Sewer 600.00 SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 09/11/2017 108145 1722 602-49450-402 REPLACE WARNING LIGHTS #713 Sewer 102.50 Total 108145: 702.50 SANDRA K PETTIT 09/11/2017 108146 05162017 101-41500-331 mileage reimb Finance Department 63.02 Total 108146: 63.02 SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 09/11/2017 108147 5199735 SO 101-45210-095 pro shop items Golf Course 260.40 Total 108147: 260.40 STANTEC CONSULTING SVCS 1 09/11/2017 108148 1209105 651-16500 Stormwater-carman bay project 495.00 Total 108148: 495.00 STONEWOOD LLC 09/11/2017 108150 08312017 101-22205 Escrow refund -17-3951/1020 TONKAWA RD 2,500.00 Total 108150: 2,500.00 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC. 09/11/2017 108151 PR #7 & FIN 651-20600 final pr#7 retainage/carmen bay/shoreline 2,195.15 Total 108151: 2,195.15 SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -ro Public Works Department 75.00 SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -BR Public Works Department 75.00 SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -GP Public Works Department 75.00 SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -DJ Public Works Department 75.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Golf Course 21.11 SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -BC SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -CS SUSA ONE -DAY SCHOOLE 09/11/2017 108152 10252017 101-43000-437 Utility training - Oct 25 for -SO Total 108152: TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 09/11/2017 108153 08232017 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services -8/2017 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 09/11/2017 108153 08252017 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services -8/2017 Total 108153: Team Wendy 09/11/2017 108156 201739962 101-42110-226 helmet cover & assessory Total 108156: TESSMAN COMPANY 09/11/2017 108157 S257347 -IN. 101-45210-223 fertilizer -tax only TESSMAN COMPANY 09/11/2017 108157 S257727 -IN. 101-45210-223 SEED -paying tax Total 108157: THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-43000-240 tools truck #709 THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-43000-240 tools truck #709 THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-45200-223 parks THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 601-49400-226 tools truck #709 THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-43000-224 supplies For Mail Box Replacement THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-45200-223 supplies For Mail Box Replacement THE HOME DEPOT 09/11/2017 108159 08162017 101-45210-223 upright vacuum Total 108159: THE SIGN AGE INC 09/11/2017 108161 37826 101-42110-352 business cards-J.Szczepanik Total 108161: US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIAT 09/11/2017 108162 TIF2017-1ST 235-45690-489 1st Half TIF payment Total 108162: VALLEY RICH CO 09/11/2017 108163 24497 601-49400-405 willow drive- valve repairs Department Invoice Law/Legal Services Amount Public Works Department 75.00 Public Works Department 75.00 Public Works Department 75.00 Law/Legal Services 2,728.70 Law/Legal Services 900.00 Parks 3,628.70 Police Department 407.53 Public Works Department 407.53 Golf Course 21.11 Golf Course 17.84 t1.1*ji Public Works Department 9.98 Public Works Department 18.78 Parks 10.93 Water 135.44 Public Works Department 118.91 Parks 284.37 Golf Course 320.75 899.16 Police Department 135.00 Water 4,208.58 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 8/29/2017 - 9/11/2017 Page: 11 Sep 07, 2017 12:OOPM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 108163: 4,208.58 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 09/11/2017 108164 54296 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 91.67 - VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 09/11/2017 108164 54448 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 09/11/2017 108164 54448 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 108164: 2,383.33 VERIZON WIRELESS 09/11/2017 108165 9790495411 101-42110-321 Cell Phones -08/07/17-09/06/17 Police Department 1,886.74 Total 108165: 1,886.74 VESSCOINC 09/11/2017 108166 69801 601-49400-405 troubleshoot Water 105.00 Total 108166: 105.00 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 09/11/2017 108167 15002 101-42110-402 car washes Police Department 21.26 Total 108167: 21.26 WILLIAMS TOWING 09/11/2017 108168 144729 231-45650-436 forfeitures tow 2005 for explorer 155.00 Total 108168: 155.00 Yamaha Golf & Utility 09/11/2017 108169 01201593 703-49960-379 golf cart damage 3,611.09 Total 108169: 3,611.09 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP. 09/11/2017 108170 MAN170911 101-45210-415 18 Golf Carts -Lease Golf Course 1,647.00 Total 108170: 1,647.00 Grand Totals: 178,934.97 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 5 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Approval of Garbage Hauler License Presenter: Anna Carlson, Agenda Consent Agenda City Clerk Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the below listed garbage & refuse collector license. 2. Background. The garbage & refuse collector license applicant has met the requirements and have all submitted a complete application. 3. Garbage & Refuse Collector License to be Approved a. Republic Services 9813 Flying Cloud Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff is recommending approval of the above listed license based on the applicant meeting the licensing requirements and having a history of compliance with no complaints in recent years. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Garbage Hauler License for Republic Services. Exhibit Exhibit A. Garbage & Refuse Collector License Application Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 5b :AIV ` lqk S 0 June 8, 2017 Republic Services Attn: Katie Lindholm 9813 Flying Cloud Dr Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Dear Garbage Hauler: Sire-:; Adc:ress: ' Mailing Address:( Telephone (952) 249-4600 2�50 N -04y P r' :Af , I P.O. Sox 66 l ..x (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 553x6 ! Crystal Bay, WN 55"323 ww.v.d.orr nn.mn.uz RNEIVE® AUQ 4 8 2017 CITY OF ORONO Enclosed is an application for a garbage hauler's license. All licenses expired on May 31, 2017. The new license year runs from June 1, 2017 to May 31, 2018. Please note, we are now requiring that the applications are complete. Incomplete applications will not be processed. Before this application is processed, the following items will be required: 1. Application Payment: 75.00 2. Truck Payments @ $15.00 / per truck: 15.00 x h7s. 3. Transfer Fee (Only Pay IfApplicable) 30.00 4. Current Surety Bond — Active During - 2017- 2018 5. Current Proof of Insurance - Active During - 2017 — 2018 We currently have on file for new license year: f„ Insurance expiration date as: NONT Bond expiration date as: NONE Please return the attached application and required submittals by May 12, 2017 to allow adequate time to process the application and receive license approval from the City Council. Please contact me at (952) 249-4600 if you have any questions. Respectfully, Rachel Dodge Administrative Assistant Enclosure Form SP -CI LICENSE APPLICANT: Pursuant to Minnesota statute 274.72 Tax Clearance: Issuance of Licenses, the licensing authority is required to provide to the ,Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue your Minnesota business tax identification number and the social security number of each license applicant. Under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act and the Federal Privacy Act of 1974, we are required to advise you of the following regarding the use of this information: I. This information may be used to deny the issuance, renewal or transfer of your license in the event you owe the Minnesota Department of Revenue delinquent taxes, penalties or interest; 2. Upon receiving this information, the licensing authority will supply it only to the Minnesota Department of Revenue. However, under the Federal Exchange of Information Agreement the Department of Revenue may supply this information to the Internal Revenue Service; 3. Failure to supply this information may jeopardize or delay the processing of your licensing issuance or renewal application. Please supply the following information and return along with your application to the agency issuing the license. DO NOT RETURN TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE. LICENSE BEING APPLIED FOR OR RENEWED Garbage Hauler. LICENSING AUTHORITY: City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota LICENSE RENEWAL DATE May 31, 2017 PERSONAL INFORMATION (If applicable): Applicant's Name Applicant's Address City State Zip Social Security Number: BUSINESS INFORMATION OcIr-ok-.1 (Iff applicable)::Business Name 4111 �'C+i Business Address qb i 49 . i V7 U 0 W d �.W City . Mn 55-3� State zip MINNESOTA TAX IDENTIFICATION NO: U ! I r 0� C, FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO: aQ - 13 31 �1 D If a Minnesota Tax Identification number is not required, please explain on the reverse side. s UMOS sition (Officer, Partner, etc.) Date I {q'�FSWU�`W City of Orono Box 66 (2750 Kelley Parkway) Crystal Bay, MN 55323 (952)249-4600 License Year _ 2017-2018 Date Received JS- r 1: Fee Paid Initials Garbage & Refuse Collector's License Application The undersigned wishes to operate the indicated business in the City of Orono and herewith makes applications for a license to do so. 94 vo- Business Phone Number SSet)� S'7, ` (City) (State) (� /`� Check One: ❑ Individual ❑Partnership ❑Corporation Check All That Apply In Orono: Residential PCommercial ❑Roll -Off Applicant's Name Address S C, (Zip code) (Street) (City) (State) (Zip code) Phone Number Email NOTE The City of Orono enforces spring weight restrictions each year. Orono follows the State, typically restrictions run from March V – May 151 each year Fines will be given if vehicles are over axel limits of 7 tons per axel Enclosed is a copy of the Orono Resolution establishing seasonal weight restrictions on Orono public city streets and a copy of our current year fee schedule. Description of Vehicles (attach Iist if more) Number of vehicles to be used in Orono YearMfU. Gross wt. Front Axle Wt. Rear Axle Wt. Size/Yards License Number W law, 112 General area of City served: C 11. t ),I , I 13 .E 5 �G I L L7 [5-4K ,�. Ik.� L�'lrcvr�.e) KcS Schedule of Collection charges/ dates: Approximate number of customers in Orono: % Location of dumping area: C&U, ? i rl C— IN ORDER FOR THIS APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED, YOU MUST ENCLOSE THE FOLLOWING: • Application must be filled out in its entirety • Surety bond in the amount of $1,000 • Proof of insurance in the amount of $100,000 - $300,000 - $50,000 and 10 -day cancellation clause • Annual fee is a7$ 5.00 flat rate fee, plus $15.00 per true lz and a $30.00 transfer fee (if applicable) I am the owner and operator of the above business and I have paid all license fees and taxes required by law. I have verified that the above information is correct. (Iowfa — �Q 0-� kk-X Applica6egiinature Date FOR CITY USE ONLY: After review of application, staff recommends: ❑ Approval ❑Denial ❑Other (specify) Signature of City Official A s.-Rvlcw Vehicles Proposed To Be Used In Orono 2017 License Plate # Company Truck # Front Axel weight Rear Axel weight Gross Weight SizeNards Make Of Truck Year Type Roll -off BoxlTruck 1 ! YBA6194 1019 8105 19120 48,000 25 Mack i 2009 Rear load 2 YBR4862 1365 19860 24200 58,000 33 Peterbllt E 2017 Frontload 3 1 YBN3805 1359 19860 24200 68,000 43 Mack 2016 Frontload 4 E YAL 5747 2115 7840 26000 51000 25 Int! 1 2002 1 Rear load 5 YBK2952 2554 1 13200 22780 37.460 28 Peterbilt 1 2014 i Frontload 6 i YBG7236 3442 12820 18300 63,000 Roll -off Mack 2016 1, Roll off 7 YBJ9809 3427 12400 1850 58,000 Roll -off Peterbilt 2013 1 Roll off I i i I E V l i i I I I � E 1 i AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 6 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Approval of Kennel License Presenter: Anna Carlson Agenda Consent Agenda City Clerk Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the below listed Kennel License. 2. Background. The residential kennel license applicant has met the requirements and submitted a complete application. 3. Kennel License to be Approved a. Paul & Melissa Fogelberg 870 Hunt Farm Road 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the 2017 residential kennel license application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the above listed license. Exhibit Exhibit A. Kennel License Application Exhibit B. Inspection Slip Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: -SbV Owner: Propem City of Orono Rge wr w FOR CITY USE , L'Y P.O. Bax 66 Y� q ,a S Kcnnat ImpgoWd By. 2750 CrystalBl� M SSuo } u ++ 7 Date lwpxgzd (952)249-4600 CITY OF ORONO Itzoomme,ds A". Dmial ORONO KENNEL LICENSE APPLICATION Effective January i, W7 to December 31, Z4_1 (include city and zip) Mailing Address (if different): Phone: (home) �� (work) RESIDENTIAL KENNEL LICENSE FEE: $50.00 (payment must accompany application) DOGS Current # of dogs owned (over 6 months of age): Maximum # of dogs to be kept at one time (over 6 months of age): Breed(s): l iVYi 1y, Purpose for dogs/cats: Dogs normally kept: Cats normally kept: _ CbCl�'ry- _ inside outside -- inside outside ✓i/P CATS Current # of cats owned (over 6 months of age): Maximum # of cats to be kept at one time (over 6 months of age): COMMERCIAL Kennel License Fee: $150.00 (payment must accompany application) Name of Business: Business Activities: Normal Business Hours: (example: boarding, breeding, veterinary care, retail, etc.) After Hours Contact: (name) (phone) Dog runs/exercise areas are: inside outside both The undersigned hereby makes application to the Orono City Council for a Kennel License as specked on this form; the undersigned acknowledges that a kennel license is permissive only and does not grant any authority to violate any provision of any City Ordinance or other law or regulation; the undersigned hereby grants the City permission to inspect the premises prior to license approval and at any other reasonable time during the license duration; and the undersigned agrees to abide by the requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 62, Article III, Division 3; including any special conditions imposed by the City Council as part of any kennel license approval. 8/ 8 (i F7 Applicant Date CRY OF ORONO CALLED IN TIME INSPECTION NOTICE SCHEDULED PERMIT NO. CO,MPLLETED--/� l y� ADDRESS �� OWNER T1 Cil �(s Sd. -TELEPHONE NO.Y ' -Z 5 4 -r CONTRACTOR DESCRIPTION ❑ FOOTING ❑ DEMO -FINAL ❑ SEPTIC FINAL ❑ POURED WALL ❑ PLUMBING RI ❑ EXCAVIGRADINGIFILLING ❑ FOUNDATION WATERPROOF ❑ PLUMBING FINAL ❑ TREE REMOVAL ❑ RADON SLAB ❑ MECHANICAL RI ❑ SITE INSPECTION ❑ FRAMING ❑ MECHANICAL FINAL ❑ RATED WALLS ❑ INSULATION ❑ WOOD BURNERIFIREPLACE ❑ COMPLAINT ❑ FINAL ❑ WATER HOOK-UP ❑ FOLLOW-UP ❑ AS BUILT- SURVEY ❑ SEWER HOOK-UP ❑ FOUNDATION/REMOVAL ❑ DEMO -SITE ❑ SEPTIC INSTALL OWNB4CONTRACTiOR TO MEET VDU: — YES — NO COMMENTS `tel✓ LUOI e.Q .0 ❑ WORK SATISFACTORY: PROCEED ❑ CORRECT WORK 6 PROCEED ❑ CORRECT WORK, CALL FOR REINSPECTION BEFORE COVERING ❑ CORRECT UNSAFE CONDITION WITHIN HOURS. INSPECTOR WILL RETURN ❑ STOP ORDER POSTED. CALL INSPECTOR ❑ INSPECTION REQUIRED. CALL TO ARRANGE ACCESS. ❑ PROJECT COMPLETE ❑ ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TEMPORARY PERMANENT ❑ PHOTO TAKEN ❑ CITATION ISSUED Call ftr" next Inspection 24 lours In aftanm (952) 249-4600 InspeoW. site: White Copyllnspeetor'e Fila Cemry Copy/Site Natke AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 7 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Public Works Maintenance Worker Recruitment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is inform the council of efforts to fill the maintenance worker vacancy within Public Works. 2. Background. The Public Works Department has six full time maintenance worker positions with one vacancy. The maintenance worker positions are critical to meet current service needs and are essential to City operations. 3. Recruitment. The selection process for the vacant position will involve advertising the position, application screening, an interview panel and reference checking. Upon completion of the process a candidate will be presented to the council for consideration for appointment. 4. Timeline. The timeline for the Drocess is as follows: When What 12-22 September 2017 Advertise Position 25-29 September 2017 Review Applications 2-6 October 2017 Interview 9 October 2017 Council Approval/Appointment COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the recruitment of a Maintenance Worker to fill the current Vacancy. Prepared By: Reviewed By: A -- Approved By: -Sb) AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 8 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: 2017 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project Award Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Project. 2. Background. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provide sanitary sewer treatment for the majority of communities (including Orono) in metropolitan area. Since 2005, MCES has identified Orono as one of the communities who contribute excessive Inflow and Infiltration (I & 1) to MCES's system and assessed a surcharge fee ($ 82,564 for 2017) against the city. This charge can be offset by any I & I improvement projects the city undertakes. The City has been executing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation project annually to reduce I&I. Council approved the project and Bolton and Menk project engineering fees in December 2016. Bids were opened on September 5', 2017. 3. Project Scope. The sanitary sewer rehabilitation project will consist of Cured in Place Pipe (CIDP) lining approximately 5026 feet of aged sanitary sewer pipe. (Exhibit A). 4. Cost. The lowest acceptable Bid was for $215,177.90 from Insituform. (Exhibit B) Who Work Cost Remarks Bolton &Menk Engineering and Design NTE $ 15,900.00 Previously Approved Insituform CIDP $ 213,338.40 Bolton &Menk Construction Management NTE $ 18,900.00 TOTAL $ 248,138.40 5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Amount Estimated Fund Balance EOY 2016 Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $ 248,138.40 $265,225 $1,777,524 6. Timing. Project is to be completed by the end of year 2016. 7. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council award the 2017 Sewer improvement project to Insituform for $213,338.40. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to award the sanitary sewer improvements contract to Insituform for $ 213,338.40 and approve the Bolton & Menk Construction Management Proposal for a fee not to exceed $18,900.00. Exhibits Exhibit A. Project Area Map Exhibit B. Bid Tabulation Sheet Exhibit C. Construction Management Proposal, Bolton and Menk Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: -Sb) r r TONKAWA RD M 17 }- . SEE FIGURE 3—DA �,. '>.. � •ter �.`._r. ..Ys. ... 4 SE E FIGURE 3—A 4LOMA LINIDDAA AVE s ... z.� K ` L P m � ll SEE FIGURE 3—C j ' SEE FIGURE 3-13 Q w LL z 4: x Q w w J CYGNET PL CRYSTAL AVE Q Q a_ z QQ y ; ® m✓ �' �,N OQ SEE FIGURE 2—C SEE FIGURE 3—E N._. r Q IVORrNsHO� w — °� L- � QZ L - .. :� RF o „ OR L* SEE FIGURE 4 SEE FIGURE 5 ,r SEE FIGURE 2—A SEE FIGURE 2—B LEGEND CIPP TOGO RD ' SPOT LINER re - XX MH NUMBER EX MH EX SEWER —1 1— EX FORCEMAIN O �O - SEE FIGURE 2—D 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 0 500 1000 BOLTON CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA sHeer 1 HORZ. & M E N K Phone: 448-3 Email: Chaska@b@bolton-memenk.com SCALE FEET (D of O Bolton& Menk, Inc. 2017, All Rights Reserved www.boiton-menk.com H:\ORNO\C13112902\CAD\OD\Sheets\112902_2017 BID PI-AN5.dwg 8/17/20172:03 PM 2017 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS OVERVIEW 5 oBOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. September 6, 2017 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2017 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Dear Mr. Edwards: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: 19521 448-8838 Fax: (9521448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com Enclosed are the bid tabulations for the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Improvements. The scope of the improvement work includes spot repairs, short liners and CIPP lining to repair deficient portions of the sanitary sewer system. An alternate was included in the bid in the event that the prices were favorable and the city is able to complete more work within the financial constraints. Bids were opened on September 5, 2017. The following two bids were received: PartA Part A+B Insituform Technologies $213.338.40 $290,535.70 Lametti & Sons Inc. $273,189.00 $362,439.00 Based on our review of the bids, we recommend awarding the project to Insituform Technologies, including the Part B alternate in the amount of $290,535.70 Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Brian D Simmons, P.E. Project Engineer H:\0RN0\C13112902\1 Corres\C To Others\2017-09-06 Bid Tabulation Letter.doc DESIGNING FOR A BETTER TOMORROW Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer • BO L_TON 8L M F= N K 0 Consulting Engineers & Surveyors 2638 Shadow Lane, Suite 200 • Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Phone (952) 448-8838 • Fax (952) 448-8805 www.bolton-menk.com September 6, 2017 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO BOX 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2017 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project - Construction Phase Services Dear Adam: NC® As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction phase of the 2017 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and accurate information. Construction Observation Construction observation will be provided. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre -construction meeting and all construction -related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction -related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: • Administering a pre -construction meeting • Administering project meetings • Preparation of pay estimates • Contractor communications • Liaison with City Staff and Council Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the City of Orono's contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and electronic format. • 2017 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project September 6, 2017 Page 2 Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not -to -exceed fee of $18,900 to be billed on an hourly basis. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. 'P V�& David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 9 Item Description: 2017 Sanitary Sewer Inspection Date: September 11, 2017 Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve a sanitary sewer televising proposal for the 2017 sanitary sewer inspections. 2. Background. As part of the preventative maintenance program, the City cleans and inspects 20% of the sanitary sewer system. The cleaning was completed this summer with Public Works Employees. The Sewer department solicited proposals. 3. Project Scope. The sanitary sewer inspection project will consist televising approximately 25,000 feet of sanitary sewer pipe. 4. Cost. The City solicited 3 and received 2 quotes. Listed below. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was $16,100 from Ritter and Ritter, Inc. Contractor Quote Ritter & Ritter, Inc $ 16,100 American Environmental $ 17,790 Insituform No quote 5. Funding. This oroiect will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund. Fund Project Total CIP Amount Estimated Fund Balance EOY 2017 Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund $16,100 $45,895.00 $2,011,493.00 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approving the sanitary sewer televising proposal from Ritter and Ritter for $16,100.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from Ritter and Ritter for sanitary sewer televising for $16,100.00. Prepared By: F Reviewed By: Approved By: -Sb) AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 10 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Carman Bay Shoreline Restoration Project — Final Pay Request Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Consent Agenda Public Works Director/City Engineer Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the final payment for the Carman Bay Shoreline Restoration Project. 2. Background. On May 14, 2012 the City Council awarded the contract for the restoration of a portion of the shoreline along Carmen Bay. The Project restored the shoreline closer to the historical location and stabilized the shoreline with native plantings to prevent future erosion. The project provides protection to the sanitary sewer manholes and adequate cover over the top of the sanitary sewer pipe. The project included a 5 year maintenance plan which has now come to its completion. 3. Cost. The pay request for $2195.15 has been reviewed by Stantec to confirm the quantities and amount requested. The project contract amount was $76,357.00. The cost of work completed is $68,597.58. 4. Funding. The project is funded through Orono's Sanitary Sewer and Storm Sewer Operating Funds along with a $34,500 Grant from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve the pay request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the final pay request from Surinam Construction for $2195.15. Exhibits Exhibit A. Completion Letter from Stantec Exhibit B. Final Pay Request Prepared By: 7E Reviewed By:y Approved By: -Sb) Stantec June 22, 2017 Mike Gaffron Senior Planner City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 2335 Highway 36 West St. Paul MN 55113 Tel: (651) 636-4600 Fax: (651) 636-1311 Re: Carman Bay Shoreline Reconstruction City of Orono Stantec Project No. 193800277 Dear Mr. Gaffron, Sunram Construction has completed the Carman Bay Shoreline Reconstruction project. Final items in 2017 included weed control and removal of the rodent and waterfowl fencing. The project was completed according to the plans and specifications and we recommend that project can be closed out. Should you have any questions regarding this project or require additional information for watershed project reimbursement, please feel free to call me at 651-604-4894. Sincerely, STANTEC Darren T. Amundsen Enclosure cc: Ron Olson, City of Orono Design with community in mind stantec Owner: City of Orono, P. 0. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Date: June 2, 2017 For Period: 11/6/2015 to 6/2/2017 Request No 7 & FINAL Contractor: Sunram Construction, Inc., 20010 - 75th Ave. N., Corcoran, MN 55340 CONTRACTOR'S REQUEST FOR PAYMENT CARMEN BAY SHORELINE RECONSTRUCTION STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193800277 SUMMARY 1 Original Contract Amount 2 Change Order - Addition 3 Change Order - Deduction 4 Revised Contract Amount 5 Value Completed to Date 6 Material on Hand 7 Amount Earned 8 Less Retainage 0% 9 Subtotal 10 Less Amount Paid Previously 11 Liquidated damages - 12 AMOUNT DUE THIS REQUEST FOR PAYMENT NO. Recommended for Approval by STANTEC Cz� Appr ved by Contractor:. SU M CONT CTION, INC. �.� Specified Contract Completion Date: 193800277RE07- FinalAsm $ 76,357.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 76,357.00 $ 68,597.58 $ 0.00 $ 68,597.58 $ 0.00 $ 68,597.58 $ 66,402.43 $ 0.00 7 & FINAL $ 2,195.15 Approved by Owner: CITY OF ORONO Date: No. Item BASE BID: 1 MOBILIZATION 2 TEMPORARY WOOD/MULCH CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 3 REMOVE EXISTING TREE, DIA. 6 IN. OR GREATER 4 CLEAR AND GRUB, DIA. LESS THAN 6 IN. 5 WOODY INVASIVE SPECIES REMOVAL 6 COMMON EXCAVATION (EV) 7 COMMON BORROW (LV) 8 IMPROVED PIPE FOUNDATION 9 SHORELINE GRARDING/SHAPING 10 GEOTEXTILE STABILIZATION MAT 11 FIELD STONE BOULDERS, 2-3 CF 12 COMPOSTGROUTING 13 DECIDOUS TREE 2" CAL. B&B 14 PLANTINGS 15 HARDWOOD SHREDDED MULCH 16 VEGETATIVE MAINTENANCE, 3 YR 17 RODENT PROTECTION FENCING 18 FIBER LOG 19 FILTER LOG BARRIER 20 SILT FENCE, HEAVY DUTY 21 TREE PROTECTION FENCE 22 WOODLAND EDGE SEED MIX W/STRAW MULCH, TYPE I 23 MNDOT 270 SEED MIXTURE W/ CATEGORY 3 BLANKET AND FERTILIZER 24 FLOTATION SILT CURTAIN, STILL WATER TOTAL BASE BID: TOTAL BASE BID: TOTAL WORK COMPLETED TO DATE 193000277RE07-Finaldsm $68,597.58 $68,597.58 Contract Unit Current Quantity Amount Unit Quantity Price Quantity to Date to Date LS - 1 3650.49 1 $3,650.49 EA 1 700.00 1 $700.00 EA 5 400.00 7 $2,800.00 LS 1 1200.00 1 $1,200.00 LS 1 1500.00 1 $1,500.00 CY 100 25.75 20 $515.00 CY 120 26.20 273 $7,152.60 CY 40 56.40 20 $1,128.00 LS 1 3450.00 1 $3,450.00 SY 625 5.90 403 $2,377.70 CY 100 104.00 100 $10,400.00 CY 150 49.50 100 $4,950.00 -EA 5 410.00 5 $2,050.00 EA 2458 4.52 2458 $11,110.16 CY 140 58.00 85 $4,930.00 EA 3 840.00 1 3 $2,520.00 LF 770 2.63 761 $2,001.43 LF 375 5.50 363 $1,996.50 LF 375 3.15 0 $0.00 LF 50 4.00 0 $0.00 LF 150 2.10 0 $0.00 SY 1110 1.00 860 $860.00 SY 150 2.10 77 $161.70 LF 420 8.00 393 $3,144.00 $68,597.58 $68,597.58 $68,597.58 PROJECT PAYMENT STATUS OWNER CITY OF ORONO STANTEC PROJECT NO. 193800277 CONTRACTOR SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION, INC. CHANGE ORDERS No. Date Description Amount Total Change Orders PAYMENT SUMMARY No. From Tn Pavmanf Rotainnna f mm�fntnd 1 06/01/2012 07/03/2012 Retaina a Pay No. 7 & FINAL 40,172.31 IChanqe Orders 21114.33 $68L597.58 42,286.64 2 07/04/2012 08/02/2012 91752.44 2,627.62 52 552.37 3 08/03/2012 10 03 2012 10 710.54 3,191.33 63 826.62 4 10/04/2012 07/19/2013 1,760.54 3,283.99 65,679.82 5 07/2P12013 09/29/2014 1,175.87 3,345.88 6691758 6 09/30/2014 11/05/2015 2,830.73 1,355.15 67 757.58 7 11/06/2015 .06/02/2017, 2,195.15 68 597.58 Material on Hand Total Pa ment to Date $68,597.58 Ori inal Contract $76,357.00 Retaina a Pay No. 7 & FINAL IChanqe Orders Total Amount Earned $68L597.58 I Revised Contract 76 357.00 193800277REQ7 - FinalAsm https://www.mndor.state.mn.us/tp/eservices/_/Retrieve/0/c-/l3 K4U... i. 11.:. .. .. Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confirmation Number: Submitted Date and Time: Legal Name: Federal Employer ID: User Who Submitted: Type of Request Submitted: Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number: Minnesota ID: Project Owner: Project Number: Project Begin Date: Project End Date: Project Location: Project Amount: Subcontractor Summary 1-012-120-384 9 -Jun -2017 910:08AM SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC 41-1728948 Sunram Contractor Affidavit 2122227712 1870470 CITY OF ORONO 193800277 15 -May -2012 02 -Jun -2017 CARMEN BAY SHORELINE - ORONO $76,357.00 Name ID Affidavit Number NEATON BROTHERS EROSION LLC 4990862 1745788928 Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800-657-3594, or (email) withholding.tax@state.mn.us. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. Monday - Friday. Please print this page for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser. I of 1 6/9/17, 9:10 AM � r i< i aY 1W i E.�aFr..a ��%L�9 i"d�3 €'S`�ax�Hti, b"a x3 ta=nijbY,Yw°4.$ Thank you, your Contractor Affidavit has been approved. Confirmation Summary Confinration Number: 1-022-737-216 Submitted Date and Time: 8 -Jun -2017 2:31:06 PM Legal Name: NEATON BROTHERS EROSION LLC Federal Employer ID: 41-1976698 User Who Submitted: NeatonBro Type of Request Submitted: Contractor Affidavit Affidavit Summary Affidavit Number: Minnesota lD: Project tuner: ProjectNumber. Project Begin Data: Project End Date: Project Location: PmjectAmount: Subcontractors: 1745788928 4990862 CITY OF ORONO CARMEN BAYS SHORELINE 01 -Jul -2012 01-APr-2017 ORONO $23.573.65 No Subcontractors Important Messages A copy of this page must be provided to the contractor or government agency that hired you. Contact Us If you need further assistance, contact our Withholding Tax Division at 651-282-9999, (toll-free) 800.657-3594, or (email) withholding.tax@statemmus. Business hours are 8:00 a.m. - 4:30 p.m, Monday -Friday Please Print this cape for your records using the print or save functionality built into your browser, 06%05/2017 15:46 7634543451 SUNRAM CONSTRUCTI0N RECEIPT AND WAIVER OF MECHANICS' LIEN RIGHTS N.D. - It is important that the following directions be ciose!y follow, d as otherwise the receipt WILL NOT 8E ACCEPTED: 7. This is x LEGA%. INSTRIiMENT rssrd must be executedaccordingly by Officers of corporation and by aartuers in co-parmcrships. 2. it is important that ALL the blanks be completed and the P1vt0UIvT P91D gE SHCWY, 3. if ua}•merit. is rat in full to date, so state, SHOW UNPAID RETAINAGE OF $2,35236 4. A receipt similar to this or legal waiver of lien rights wil! be reouired for all plumbing, heating and plastering materials, etc. 5. NO ERASURES OR ALTERAI IONS MUST HLA` 31ADE. C" E- 02/0x2 6/5/'2017 toll*, The undersigned acknOveledges having received payment of _. T'A FNTY THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX AND 65j 10(, Dollars, $23,573.65 (.A:nOtirll Faidj 1 From SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC in FULL payment o-, (Name of Payor all PLANTINGS, MULCH, FENCING, FILTER LOGS (Kind of `viaterisi or Labor) by the undersigned delivered or furnished to (or performed. at) CARMAN SAY SHORELINE RESTORATION PROJECT - CITY OF ORONO {3t*eel Address of Legal Uesonptiont andfor value received hereby svaives all rights which may have been acquired by the under signed to file mechanics' lien against said premises for labor, skif.. or material furnished to said premises prior to the date hereof but payment has been made by chuck and this lien waiver is not valid anti' said check has cleared all banks. {�JS� / (Company Namei l� t i:dlw t v(.. -- {Printed Marne and T;tte1 �.L J ' �-�9 ` Address! !City/Stare/Zip Codd PLEASE SIGN & RETURN TO: SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC 20010 75TH AVP; N01?TH CORCORAN MN 55340 OFFICE (763)420-2140 FAX (763)494-3951 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 11 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: #17-3949, Dale Gustafson o/b/o Kevin Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance— Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Agenda Consent Agenda Planner Section: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a variance and retaining walls in the lake yard setback. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on June 21, 2017; it was considered as complete on July 19, 2017. Therefore the 60 -Day review period expires on September 19, 2017. Background. The applicants are requesting a variance to add retaining walls within the 0-75 lake yard setback near the shoreline of the property at 3155 Casco Circle. It has a steep slope along the shoreline and down to the lake. There are currently stairs leading down the slope creating access to the lake. The applicant is proposing the replace the stairs in-kind and is asking to install additional retaining walls to strengthen the slope down to the lake. The applicant will be working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to obtain riprap permits. The new riprap will abut the neighboring properties existing riprap. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve with the following conditions: a. Submittal of engineered plans with the Building permit application; b. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; c. Vegetative screening plan to provide a natural looking slope when viewed from the lake; d. Removal of the wall directly above the rip rap, or if necessary to the stability of the slope, the applicant should provide justification and a revised plan which allows for vegetative screening of the bottom wall. Without justification, staff recommends denial of this wall. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received regarding this application. The applicant was present for questions. No comments have been received after the meeting. 6. Update. The applicant has updated their plans to address the conditions of the Planning Commission's approval. The new plans show the removal of the linear retaining wall along the shoreline and shows new added vegetation for screenings of the proposed retaining walls. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval with the condition that the applicant address the following: a. Submittal of engineered plans with the Building permit application; b. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Prepared By: 'Io Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: _1V AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Proposed Landscape Plans Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. PC Staff Report References 1) PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit G. 3D Sketch Plan Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Photos Exhibit J. Applicant Email Exhibit K. MCWD Email Exhibit L. Map and Property Owners List Prepared By: 'Io Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -1V CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. 17-3949 WHEREAS, on June 21, 2017, Kevin Kretsch ("Applicant"), submitted an application and on July 19, 2017 the application was deemed complete for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3155 Casco Circle and legally described as: Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which lies between the southerly extension of the west line of said Lot 39, and of the east line of said Lot 38. Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow retaining walls within the 75 - foot setback; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 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 August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval] of the variance; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 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 #17-3949. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR -1C Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.69 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 130 feet at the OHWL and 123 feet at the 75 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Lake yard setback variance for retaining walls 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and 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. ANALYSIS: "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . ." Granting the lake setback variance to allow the improvements to be constructed within 75 feet of the OHWL is for the purpose of preserving and protecting the existing slope in the lake yard and will likely not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." Granting the requested variance to permit additional structure within the 75 -foot setback resulting from the retaining walls is consistent with the priorities outlined in the comprehensive plan to protect lakeshore. Screening of the walls from the lake will be a mitigating condition of approval of the variances, which is supported by the comprehensive plan. 3. "Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. `Practical difficulties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. The owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The owner has proposed a solution which will protect against failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of actions by the owner; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The variance to permit structure within the 75 -foot setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the locality. 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." This condition is not applicable. 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." This condition is not applicable, as the use for retaining walls accessory to single family dwelling are an allowed use in the LR -1 C District. 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 slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements is a unique condition to the subject property. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The subject property's specific slope is beginning to erode and stairs have become unsafe creating conditions which do not apply to adjacent properties. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." Granting a lake setback variance to allow the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner and supported by the vulnerable lake yard slope on the property. 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." Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties which support granting the lake yard setback variance to permit the construction of the tiered retaining walls and in-kind replacement of the stairs within 75 feet of the OHWL. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of retaining walls in the 75 feet lake yard setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated September 5t", 2017 and landscape plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & 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 Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for retaining walls and commencing construction of said project. An inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date September 11, 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 11 day of September, 2017. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE \ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of �o adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore �� Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which I� lies between the southerly extension of the west line 0 C 1 R c �+ f id Lt 39d f tht liof sa id Lot 38 CAZ)u 105-00 •- osao, anoe easne E N 83007 00 ,/ o : denotes iron marker set (966.0) MH 0 �Pp`�P • denotes iron marker found /� POWER (908.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, BLACKTOP mean sea level datum DRIVEWAY oNc• .� BLACKT Y f' Ag635 - -917- - - • denotes existing contour line, "" , I CONC. 9 3`; ,6.7 mean sea level datum I „EXISTING 930 denotes proposed contour line, I i I mean sea level datum LOT 40 Q ' I GARAGE°' 59 (o) Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 'BLACKTOP I 13.5 This survey intends to show the boundaries of the 15 5 DRIVEWAY I (962.5 MULCH/ s°1C above described property, the location of three '-, (D) i (J) existing buildings, underground easement, spot 10' WIDE UNDERGROUND elevations, topography and major trees on the 1 EASEMENT PER'DOC. lakeside of the house, and the adjacent houses ' ..• NO. 3642678 I & lakeside topography, the location of all visible 564.3 I "hardcover", and the propsoed location of a I (554.3) ' 4.3 GARAGE , FLOOR3 8 proposed stairway, retaining walls and grades '=39 I (964.6) i I ' a. BSTONE . ORDER - -y ..-•s thereon. It does not purport to show any other EXISTING A' i� N I (M) improvements or encroachments. I GARAGE r ' (B) CONCRETE WALKI PATOSTONE I I 11-0 ' 24.3 863.5 (E) o STOOP SS (H) (F) 7i (J�4.5 N 0p0 12.5 M 10.5 M P ASTM (J) ..1g60;3> 34.2 MLLCH ON�95, w EXISTING O I MAW 7.2 4.0 rn O HOUSE FLOOR 0' 0(962.9) 10.0 ;.i4.6 I (964.0 0 ) #3165 I ' r J 0 I A/C (K) - FLOOR aD I O ' I O IEXISTING A/C(K) , n (959.2) FLOOR I Cyr o V • (959-9) LEVEL= O'' I O I o (956.4 Q (960.3) I �'' I o HOUSE I (962.2) ' ' ' (H) O M I STONES STEPPING I t:;, (95 #3155 5' S G) I / J�g5 _9§ WOOD A LEVEL � . STEPS (956.3) (N)SN 7,7 42.9 TWL / / \ '•->- I EXISTING I �----•-t'(-9--5-92.9) �-a-I C. RO 7. HOUSE / #3145 r ' DECK I 4) LEAN-TO (956.7) 9�Jj1 s ' S9 (G) (L) BAS OD w, i v �� I g56 / .,� W 958.) A , (957.7}- g 1(958.4)-- I - _ �,,, � 957 57 ASH ^t"�D I _ ....---•-- "'.'- (954.5) / 26.8 .............. / (957.8) t 5575) I_ --- -- -- - MH �h��, r... ��• ..' s... / //`9�j111 / (955.0) :.. ; • • } s' ••�- � ti , . • 1, , � ' , ... .. • . .. • . .. y^ / / / / 75 W' LY LINE gS5 (955.1) SETBACK \ \ OF LOT 39--...• LINE E' LY LI / \ \ EXTENDED _ ....OF LO 8 / (553.7) \ \ _ _ - I / / E ,XNDED / \ \ \ \ FLAGSTONE PATIO -`0 \ \ TO BE REMOVED (943.6) I / 950 Plants - West Side \ \ VERY r GE OAK I / g49 1/ Sherwood Compact Mugho Pine #5 pot \ ( I / 2/ Alpine #2 pot Spire. / 4/ Dwarl Bush Honeysuckle #2 pot \ ` 54.A)_- ' (953.7 ,..... Perennial Flowers by Owner TING A -•-•-...- 1953 - �-'"_ 4/Sea Green Junipers #5 pot O V ED Rte _ LD �Plants -East Side 11needaaanerconstruction �53 24" COST Seeded LowBrow fescue 3/ Buttedly Bush Honeysuckle #5 pot \ If needed after construction -,...� - < L 47 Man Main Ex stimg Vegetapon 23/ Grow Low Fragrant Sumac • \ If needed after construct on v / SI Blueberry Delight Juniper #5 pat \ I Exis n gmxad plants to be T• 4 T�Maintain and lmprove�� - .wed and renovated 4 bpW 4 / Existing native plants 4/ett raw,,,#t pot (Gelasimsscandensl - 1. ''/ Seeded Low grew fescue OS WALL � � `� �-- ..... --- and -_ - - Maintain Improve ► " Existing native plants � )' ---- __ - ___------ 100 YEAR OUR FLOOD PLAIN W.) 17176A4.SCJ LAKE EAST MINNETONKA UPPER LAKE A DESCRIPTION G R 0 N B E R G AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4141 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me, or under my direct superV944on, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor unser the laws of the State of Minnesota. '� --aLE 1 11=20' 6-21-17 ADDITIONAL TREES LOCATED, SHOWN ON DRAWING 7-5-17 PROPOSED STAIRWAY, WALLS AND GRADES SHOWN 7-17-17 REVISED DATE 5-8-17 9-5-17 JOB NO. 17-176A Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 !47 z A-, 4M4&1- WMINVIE2W 'w' ILI 00 7 i6L 41 AL Ilk T -- 'IT, -b CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR KEVIN KRETSCH OF LOTS 38 AND 39, SPRING PARK AND PART OF ADJACENT VACATED LAKE SHORE AVENUE \ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES Lots 38 and 39, SPRING PARK, and all that part of �o adjacent Vacated Lake Shore Avenue, and of the tract of land lying between said Vacated Lake Shore �� Avenue and the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka, which I� lies between the southerly extension of the west line 0 C 1 R c �+ f id Lt 39d f tht liof sa id Lot 38 CAZ)u 105-00 •- osao, anoe easne E N 83007 00 ,/ o : denotes iron marker set (966.0) MH 0 �Pp`�P • denotes iron marker found /� POWER (908.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, BLACKTOP mean sea level datum DRIVEWAY oNc• .� BLACKT Y f' Ag635 - -917- - - • denotes existing contour line, "" , I CONC. 9 3`; ,6.7 mean sea level datum I „EXISTING 930 denotes proposed contour line, I i I mean sea level datum LOT 40 Q ' I GARAGE°' 59 (o) Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. 'BLACKTOP I 13.5 This survey intends to show the boundaries of the 15 5 DRIVEWAY I (962.5 MULCH/ s°1C above described property, the location of three '-, (D) i (J) existing buildings, underground easement, spot 10' WIDE UNDERGROUND elevations, topography and major trees on the 1 EASEMENT PER'DOC. lakeside of the house, and the adjacent houses ' ..• NO. 3642678 I & lakeside topography, the location of all visible 564.3 I "hardcover", and the propsoed location of a I (554.3) ' 4.3 GARAGE , FLOOR3 8 proposed stairway, retaining walls and grades '=39 I (964.6) i I ' a. BSTONE . ORDER - -y ..-•s thereon. It does not purport to show any other EXISTING A' i� N I (M) improvements or encroachments. I GARAGE r ' (B) CONCRETE WALKI PATOSTONE I I 11-0 ' 24.3 863.5 (E) o STOOP SS (H) (F) 7i (J�4.5 N 0p0 12.5 M 10.5 M P ASTM (J) ..1g60;3> 34.2 MLLCH ON�95, w EXISTING O I MAW 7.2 4.0 rn O HOUSE FLOOR 0' 0(962.9) 10.0 ;.i4.6 I (964.0 0 ) #3165 I ' r J 0 I A/C (K) - FLOOR aD I O ' I O IEXISTING A/C(K) , n (959.2) FLOOR I Cyr o V • (959-9) LEVEL= O'' I O I o (956.4 Q (960.3) I �'' I o HOUSE I (962.2) ' ' ' (H) O M I STONES STEPPING I t:;, (95 #3155 5' S G) I / J�g5 _9§ WOOD A LEVEL � . STEPS (956.3) (N)SN 7,7 42.9 TWL / / \ '•->- I EXISTING I �----•-t'(-9--5-92.9) �-a-I C. RO 7. HOUSE / #3145 r ' DECK I 4) LEAN-TO (956.7) 9�Jj1 s ' S9 (G) (L) BAS OD w, i v �� I g56 / .,� W 958.) A , (957.7}- g 1(958.4)-- I - _ �,,, � 957 57 ASH ^t"�D I _ ....---•-- "'.'- (954.5) / 26.8 .............. / (957.8) t 5575) I_ --- -- -- - MH �h��, r... ��• ..' s... / //`9�j111 / (955.0) :.. ; • • } s' ••�- � ti , . • 1, , � ' , ... .. • . .. • . .. y^ / / / / 75 W' LY LINE gS5 (955.1) SETBACK \ \ OF LOT 39--...• LINE E' LY LI / \ \ EXTENDED _ ....OF LO 8 / (553.7) \ \ _ _ - I / / E ,XNDED / \ \ \ \ FLAGSTONE PATIO -`0 \ \ TO BE REMOVED (943.6) I / 950 Plants - West Side \ \ VERY r GE OAK I / g49 1/ Sherwood Compact Mugho Pine #5 pot \ ( I / 2/ Alpine #2 pot Spire. / 4/ Dwarl Bush Honeysuckle #2 pot \ ` 54.A)_- ' (953.7 ,..... Perennial Flowers by Owner TING A -•-•-...- 1953 - �-'"_ 4/Sea Green Junipers #5 pot O V ED Rte _ LD �Plants -East Side 11needaaanerconstruction �53 24" COST Seeded LowBrow fescue 3/ Buttedly Bush Honeysuckle #5 pot \ If needed after construction -,...� - < L 47 Man Main Ex stimg Vegetapon 23/ Grow Low Fragrant Sumac • \ If needed after construct on v / SI Blueberry Delight Juniper #5 pat \ I Exis n gmxad plants to be T• 4 T�Maintain and lmprove�� - .wed and renovated 4 bpW 4 / Existing native plants 4/ett raw,,,#t pot (Gelasimsscandensl - 1. ''/ Seeded Low grew fescue OS WALL � � `� �-- ..... --- and -_ - - Maintain Improve ► " Existing native plants � )' ---- __ - ___------ 100 YEAR OUR FLOOD PLAIN W.) 17176A4.SCJ LAKE EAST MINNETONKA UPPER LAKE A DESCRIPTION G R 0 N B E R G AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4141 I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me, or under my direct superV944on, and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor unser the laws of the State of Minnesota. '� --aLE 1 11=20' 6-21-17 ADDITIONAL TREES LOCATED, SHOWN ON DRAWING 7-5-17 PROPOSED STAIRWAY, WALLS AND GRADES SHOWN 7-17-17 REVISED DATE 5-8-17 9-5-17 JOB NO. 17-176A Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota License Number 12755 !47 z A-, 4M4&1- WMINVIE2W 'w' ILI 00 7 i6L 41 AL Ilk T -- 'IT, -b MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. 17-3949 DALE GUSTAFSON ON BEHALF OF KEVIN KRETSCH, 3155 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE, 6:32 P.M. — 6:44 P.M. Dale Gustafson, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a setback variance for construction of new retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL in the lake yard. The applicants are adding retaining walls and landscaping along the shoreline. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka and has a slope into the shoreline. There are currently stairs leading down the slope creating an access to the lake. The applicant is proposing to replace the stairs in kind and to strengthen the slope along the lake by installing additional retaining walls. The applicant is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to add rip -rap along the water line and they are also proposing to add boulders above the rip -rap along the base of the slope creating what appears to be a retaining wall to protect the rip -rap and slope. The proposed walls range between one and four feet high and run from property line to property line creating the need for a building permit. The walls are also situated at the ordinary high water line of the lake. The applicant is hoping to proactively prevent further erosion of the slope. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposal and is requesting a building permit be obtained in addition to engineering of the walls. Included in Staff's report is an analysis of the practical difficulties for the variance. The applicant has submitted some photographs of the existing stairs they would like to replace in kind. In addition, Staff has conducted a site visit and took photographs as well to illustrate the current condition of the slope. Oakden displayed a photograph of the existing stairs looking to the east. With regard to the walls protecting the stairs, Staff finds practical difficulties exist with the existing conditions and find a need to stabilize and protect the slope from erosion. Staff has concerns regarding the linear retaining wall that runs along the shoreline that is connected to the rip -rap. A thorough grading review by the City Engineer will occur upon submittal of the building permit MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. for the walls. Staff is suggesting approval of the project with screening of all of the retaining walls being required to preserve the natural look of the shoreline when viewed from the lake. The Planning Commission should discuss the issues outlined in Staff's report. The Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions: Submittal of engineered plans with the building permit application; 2. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; Vegetative screening plan to provide a natural looking slope when viewed from the lake; and 4. Removal of the wall directly above the rip -rap or, if the wall is necessary to the stability of the slope, the applicant should provide justification and a revised plan which allows for vegetative screening of the bottom wall without justification. Staff recommends denial of this wall. Oakden played a short animated video of what is being proposed by the applicant. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Dale Gustafson, Developer, stated he completed the design of the project and that he is fine with the recommendations of Staff. Thiesse asked if there is justification for the sea wall. Gustafson indicated it is commonly called a curve wall, with the curve of the wall being within the range of where the MCWD says the rip -rap should be. Gustafson stated whenever there is a steep bank, the rip - rap is placed at a low angle so it does not get pushed up the hill. Putting boulders on the edge of that will get you to the edge of the bank. Gustafson stated the reason for the wall on the right-hand side that appears in one photograph to be back a few feet is in the area where it is all dirt. The other photograph MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. shows annual weeds, which does not hold the soil. Gustafson indicated that area is already eroded and giving away. Gustafson stated if it is not fixed now, they will probably have to come back and fix it later. Landgraver asked how it will terminate at the property line. Gustafson indicated it will tie back into the bank at the property line by the rocks. Landgraver asked if it will route water over to the neighboring property. Gustafson stated it will not. Gustafson stated they are attempting to keep more of the runoff from this site on the property and that the runoff will come down the bank and not go onto the neighboring property. Schoenzeit asked why the normal detail that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District uses on Lake Minnetonka does not work for the applicant. Gustafson stated the guidelines are set up for a 3:1 slope and this bank is steeper than that. As a result, the rip -rap should come up and meet the grade to avoid making the slope steeper. Schoenzeit noted other property owners with the exact same problem have not constructed a wall that Gustafson stated there are more curve walls being installed on the lake. Gustafson stated with the high water and the wave action, erosion was occurring above the rip -rap and as a result the Watershed District said that the rip -rap needs to go higher in order to hold the slope. Schoenzeit commented rip -rap is more natural and is not a wall. Gustafson stated it will not be a big wall and that the grasses will grow over the edges. Gustafson stated in the end it will not look much different from rip -rap. Gustafson noted the neighbor has the same thing and that this will blend in. Thiesse asked if he is comfortable with Staff s requests. Gustafson indicated he is. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. Lemke commented the proposal makes sense. Thiesse stated his only concern related to the wall and that the applicant has addressed his concerns, with the City Engineer and Watershed District reviewing it. Thiesse asked if there was a letter that indicated the Watershed District did have a detail but have never used it. Oakden stated to her understanding it has been a while since they have used that style of detail. Landgraver stated in his view if the applicant conforms with all of Staff's recommendations, it will be a positive. Landgraver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3949, Dale Gustafson on behalf of Kevin Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, granting of a setback variance subject to the conditions outlined in Staff report. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: June 21, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: July 19, 2017 60 -Day Review Period Expires: September 19, 2017 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner LLO Date: August 21, 2017 Subject: 17-3949, Dale Gustafson/ Keven Kretsch, 3155 Casco Circle, Variance request Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following: 1. A setback variance for construction of new retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as noted on Page 4 Background Mr. Kevin Kretsch and Mr. Dale Gustafson submitted an application to add retaining walls and landscaping to the shoreline of the property at 3155 Casco Circle. The property abuts Lake Minnetonka. It has a slope along the shoreline. There are currently stairs leading down the slope creating access to the Lake. The slope has started to fail in many spots. The applicant is proposing the replace the stairs in-kind and is asking to install some additional retaining walls to strengthen the slope down to the lake and prevent it from falling. They will also be grading and removing soil from the site to level the lake yard. They are proposing to move roughly 388 cubic yards of soil throughout the property and less than 20 cubic yards of fill is being proposed to be moved within the 75 foot lakeshore setback. The amount of earth being moved is allowed within the City Code. The applicant is proposing multiple retaining walls multiple walls running along the stairs and running along the slope. The applicant is also is working with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to add riprap to the shoreline, this would include adding boulders that run above the riprap along the base of the slope which will act as a "curb" and protect the riprap and slope. This project expands a continuous flat yard. The additional tiered retaining walls will preserve the slope from the top of the slope to the lake. They are proposing to replace the stairs in-kind. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section? 78-350 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100 Actual 30,622 s.f. (0.69 acre) 123'@ 75' 130'@ OHWL FILE # 17-3949 Meeting Date August 20, 2017 Page 2 of 5 Section 78-1405 & 78-1279 — Retaining Wall Setbacks: The proposed walls range between 1 and 4 feet in height (tiered walls) and are within 5 feet of the side yard lot line, requiring a building permit per City Code 78-1405 (5.1)b. The walls as proposed are situated at the OHWL of the lake. There is a second 3 foot wall tiered above the lower retaining wall. Additionally, there are multiple retaining walls curving up the slope to stabilize the stairs and the elevated lake yard. Section 78-1684Hardcover Calculations: Retaining walls are not permitted within 75 -feet of the OHWL due to structural setbacks. Retaining walls are listed as an exception to hardcover calculations and are not counted towards the hardcover coverage on a site. Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 189 505s.f. Tier 1 30,622 s.f. 7,463.5 s.f. 6,203s.f. w/in 6,708s.f. w/in (25 %) (20.2%) (21.91%) 75, 75' Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) Retaining walls are not permitted within 75' of the lake, therefore the applicant is requesting a setback variance. The applicant's plan involves replacing the existing stairs in kind, replacing the existing retaining walls, and constructing additional retaining walls. The applicant is hoping to proactively prevent any further erosion and potential failure of the lake yard with tiered retaining walls to stabilize the area. The walls as proposed are 4 feet or less in height but are tiered, thus requiring an engineered design. The City's engineer has reviewed the submitted plans and will require a building permit with engineering prior to installation. The retaining walls are the only new hardcover proposed. The stairs are considered an in-kind replacement. Ariel photos and photos submitted are attached. 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. FILE # 17-3949 Meeting Date August 20, 2017 Page 3 of 5 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. Granting the lake setback variance to allow the improvements to be constructed within 75 feet of the OHWL is for the purpose of preserving and protecting the existing slope in the lake yard and will likely not alter the essential character of the locality. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Granting the requested variance to permit additional structure within the 75 -foot setback resulting from the retaining walls is consistent with the priorities outlined in the comprehensive plan to protect lakeshore. Screening of the walls from the lake will be a mitigating condition of approval of the variances, which is supported by the comprehensive plan. 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 owner proposes to install Improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner has proposed a solution which will protect against failure of the slope. The existing slope of the lake yard was not a result of actions by the owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance to permit structure within the 75 -foot setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the locality. d. 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. This condition is not applicable. 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. This condition is not applicable, as the use for retaining walls accessory to single family dwelling are an allowed use in the LR -1C District. 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 slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements is a unique condition to the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The subject property's specific slope is beginning to erode and stairs have become unsafe creating conditions which do not apply to adjacent properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a lake setback variance to allow the retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback is reasonable and necessary to FILE # 17-3949 Meeting Date August 20, 2017 Page 4 of 5 preserve the property rights of the owner and supported by the vulnerable lake yard slope on the property. 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. Granting the lakeyard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has demonstrated practical difficulties which support granting the lakeyard setback variance to permit the construction of the tiered retaining walls and in-kind replacement of the stairs within 75 feet of the OHWL. 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 The property is served by City sewer. Practical Difficulties Statement 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 Regarding the addition of retaining walls supporting the lake access stair and at the top of the slope, staff finds practical difficulties exist in the existing condition, and the need to stabilize and protect the slope from erosion. The portions of wall and the stairs are an in-kind replacement; two additional retaining walls near the top of the slope are meant to better stabilize the slope; the applicant also is proposing to construct one linear wall placed along the shoreline above the riprap. Staff conducted a site visit and based on the observed of the site conditions and the submitting information in the applicant. Staff is suggesting approval of the project with screening of all of the retaining walls be required to preserve the natural look of the shoreline when viewed from the lake. Staff has concerns regarding the linear retaining wall that runs along the shoreline that is connected to the rip rap. Planning Commission is asked to discuss the necessity, plantings, and screening of the proposed retaining wall. See Exhibit J from the applicant when discussing the bottom retaining wall and Exhibit K from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Engineer Comments The City's engineer has reviewed the proposed plan and requires engineered plans be submitted with the building permit. A thorough grading review by the City's engineer will occur upon submittal of the building permit for the walls. FILE # 17-3949 Meeting Date August 20, 2017 Page 5 of 5 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(s), 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? Planning Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommends approval of the variance conditioned upon the following: 1. Submittal of engineered plans with the Building permit application; 2. Approval applicable permits from the MCWD; 3. Vegetative screening plan to provide a natural looking slope when viewed from the lake; and 4. Removal of the wall directly above the rip rap, or if necessary to the stability of the slope, the applicant should provide justification and a revised plan which allows for vegetative screening of the bottom wall. Without justification, staff recommends denial of this wall. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Survey Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Proposed Site/Landscape Plan Exhibit G. 3D Sketch Plan Drawings Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit 1. Applicant and Staff Site Photos Exhibit J. Email from applicant discussing proposed base splash wall Exhibit K. Email from MCWD Exhibit L. Map and Property Owners List AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 12 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Presentation Presenter: Michelle Hoffinan, Clifton Larson Agenda Presentation Allen Section: 1. Purpose. Michelle Hoffman from Clifton Larson Allen will present the results of 2016 annual audit and the 2016 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No Action is required. Prepared By: Oaa Reviewed By: Oaa Approved By: DR AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 13 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: 2018 Budget Presentation Presenter: Danielle Amira Agenda Presentation Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agenda item is for the Finance Department to present the 2018 Budget to the Council. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED This item is for informational purposes only. It represents an opportunity for the public to see the preliminary tax levy and General Fund budget prior to its adoption. The decision to set the preliminary tax levy and General Fund budget will be made on September 25, 2017. Exhibits Exhibit A. 2018 Budget Expenditures Exhibit B. 2018 Revenue Exhibit C. Draft Resolutions Prepared By: Daa Reviewed By: Oaa Approved By: -1`6J City of Orono 2018 General Fund Budget Departmental Budgets 2018 Dollar % 2016 2016 2017 Draft Increase Increase Budget Actual Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Mayor & Council 83,240 83,440 85,150 85,165 15 0.02% Administration 291,120 268,802 297,150 323,641 26,491 8.92% Elections 18,130 18,725 3,160 25,552 22,392 708.61% Assessing 180,000 86,000 180,000 182,000 2,000 1.11% Finance 322,320 315,955 323,670 327,445 3,775 1.17% Law/Legal Services 102,500 112,918 104,000 112,000 8,000 7.69% Central Services 244,470 268,437 265,900 258,800 (7,100) -2.67% Human Services 12,400 12,426 12,400 12,400 - 0.00% Police 4,076,850 3,837,514 4,236,760 4,368,613 131,853 3.11% Fire Protection Services 395,150 393,476 397,000 390,000 (7,000) -1.76% Building & Zoning 707,050 693,366 762,470 739,711 (22,759) -2.98% Engineering 20,000 9,893 20,000 15,000 (5,000) -25.00% Street Maintenance 493,830 475,551 499,825 525,857 26,032 5.21% Parks 108,120 109,840 116,469 173,136 56,667 48.65% Golf Course 152,640 170,346 172,670 172,831 161 0.09% Special Services 95,750 123,018 95,750 95,750 - 0.00% Special Projects -Contingencies 40,000 8,004 40,990 - (40,990) -100.00% Transfers to Other Funds 365,000 - 375,000 380,000 5,000 1.33% Total General Fund Expenditures 7,708,570 6,987,711 7,988,364 8,187,901 199,537 2.50% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Mayor & Council 41110 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Personal Services 101-41110-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 17,033 18,200 18,200 18,200 11,842 18,200 0 0.00% 101-41110-122 122 FICA 1,303 1,392 1,392 1,390 906 1,392 2 0.14% 101-41110-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 90 90 50 70 53 73 3 4.29% Total Personal Services 18,426 19,682 19,642 19,660 12,800 19,665 5 0.03% Other Expenses 101-41110-433 433 Memberships 70,070 70,387 62,198 63,990 41,459 64,000 10 0.02% 101-41110-437 437 Training & Development 0 540 267 500 325 500 0 0.00% 101-41110-439 439 Meeting Expenses 1,258 836 1,332 1,000 724 1,000 0 0.00% 101-41110-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 0 0 469 0 0 N/A Total Other Expenses 71,328 71,763 63,797 65,490 42,977 65,500 10 0.02% City Council Total 89,755 91,446 83,440 85,150 55,777 85,165 15 0.02% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Administration 41300 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Professional Services 101-41300-319 319 Professional Services 6,385 5,485 5,245 6,000 3,460 6,000 0 0.00% Total Professional Serivices 6,385 5,485 5,245 6,000 3,460 6,000 0 0.00% Personal Services 101-41300-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 169,692 189,820 178,244 197,790 97,578 219,918 22,128 11.19% 101-41300-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime (70) 0 1,098 1,300 149 1,300 0 0.00% 101-41300-103 103 Part -Time Employees 12,153 0 0 0 53,680 0 0 N/A 101-41300-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 3,153 7,653 9,171 10,500 5,479 10,500 0 0.00% 101-41300-121 121 PERA 12,965 13,545 13,305 14,930 6,437 16,591 1,661 11.13% 101-41300-122 122 FICA 14,105 14,083 13,536 16,030 11,114 17,727 1,697 10.59% 101-41300-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 19,206 24,960 34,733 37,020 18,955 37,911 891 2.41% 101-41300-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 6,792 0 0 N/A 101-41300-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 1,127 1,150 1,210 1,280 960 1,394 114 8.91% Total Personal Services 232,329 251,211 251,296 278,850 201,144 305,341 26,491 9.50% Supplies & Maintenance 101-41300-208 208 Books & Periodicals 286 286 44 300 136 300 0 0.00% Total Supplies & Maintenance 286 286 44 300 136 300 0 0.00% Professional Services 101-41300-319 319 Professional Services 6,385 5,485 5,245 6,000 3,460 6,000 0 0.00% Total Professional Serivices 6,385 5,485 5,245 6,000 3,460 6,000 0 0.00% Total Other Expenses 2014 Actual 4,850 420 1,350 2,866 679 3,044 13,209 City of Orono Other Expenses 101-41300-331 331 Travel Expenses 101-41300-340 340 General Advertising 101-41300-433 433 Memberships 101-41300-437 437 Training & Development 101-41300-439 439 Meeting Expenses 101-41300-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total Other Expenses 2014 Actual 4,850 420 1,350 2,866 679 3,044 13,209 City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Administration cont. % 41300 Y -T -D 2015 2016 Actual Actual 4,623 3,600 0 0 1,396 1,338 2,162 4,338 1,246 553 2,860 2,394 0 12,286 12,223 12,000 4,085 12,000 0 0.00% Administration Total 252,208 269,268 268,808 297,150 208,825 323,641 26,491 8.92% Dollar % 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 4,000 1,422 4,000 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 N/A 1,000 40 1,000 0 0.00% 3,500 2,030 3,500 0 0.00% 500 421 500 0 0.00% 3,000 172 3,000 0 0.00% 12,000 4,085 12,000 0 0.00% Administration Total 252,208 269,268 268,808 297,150 208,825 323,641 26,491 8.92% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Elections 41410 Total Other Expenses 2,735 316 2,266 0 0 5,600 5,600 N/A Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase 316 18,725 Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Personal Services 101-41410-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 2,834 0 0 1,000 0 1,000 0 0.00% 101-41410-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 10,011 0 12,330 0 0 16,000 16,000 N/A 101-41410-121 121 PERA 200 0 0 80 0 75 (5) -6.25% 101-41410-122 122 FICA 194 0 84 80 0 77 3 -3.75% Total Personal Services 13,239 0 12,414 1,160 0 17,152 15,992 1378.62% Supplies & Maintenance 101-41410-208 208 Books & Periodicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41410-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 2,192 0 3,763 2,000 0 2,500 500 25.00% 101-41410-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 0 0 281 0 0 300 300 N/A Total Supplies & Maintenance 2,192 0 4,044 2,000 0 2,800 800 40.00% Other Expenses 101-41410-319 319 Professional Services 1,050 0 0 0 0 1,100 1,100 N/A 101-41410-322 322 Postage 533 316 1,328 0 0 1,500 1,500 N/A 101-41410-331 331 Travel Expenses 87 0 89 0 0 100 100 N/A 101-41410-340 340 General Advertising 214 0 325 0 0 400 400 N/A 101-41410-412 412 Building Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41410-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41410-437 437 Training & Development 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 N/A 101-41410-439 439 Meeting Expenses 523 0 36 0 0 1,000 1,000 N/A 101-41410-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 327 0 488 0 0 500 500 N/A Total Other Expenses 2,735 316 2,266 0 0 5,600 5,600 N/A Elections Total 18,165 316 18,725 3,160 0 25,552 22,392 708.61% 101-41550-302 City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Assessing 41550 2014 2015 2016 Actual Actual Actual Assessing Services 302 Assessing Services 153,107 166,074 Total Assessing Service 153,107 166,074 Assessing Total 86,000 Dollar % 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 180,000 0 182,000 2,000 1.11% 86,000 180,000 0 182,000 2,000 1.11% 153,107 166,074 86,000 180,000 0 182,000 2,000 1.11% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Finance Department 41500 Supplies & Maintenance 1,347 3,448 1,540 767 5,400 3,860 250.65% Dollar % 0 0 0 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase 0 0 0 Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Personal Services 101-41500-301 301 Auditing and Acct'g Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 101-41500-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 218,786 208,801 219,329 210,430 136,894 207,386 (3,044) -1.45% 101-41500-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 0 0 0 200 515 200 0 0.00% 101-41500-103 103 Part -Time Employees 21,397 21,368 19,497 22,520 14,057 23,953 1,433 6.36% 101-41500-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41500-121 121 PERA 17,114 17,271 17,225 17,470 11,278 17,350 (120) -0.69% 101-41500-122 122 FICA 17,278 16,647 16,790 17,820 11,194 17,697 (123) -0.69% 101-41500-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 34,166 41,207 38,337 52,080 28,788 53,862 1,782 3.42% 101-41500-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 1,460 1,250 1,330 1,610 1,208 1,597 (13) -0.81% Total Personal Services 310,201 306,544 312,508 322,130 203,935 322,045 (85) -0.03% Supplies & Maintenance 1,347 3,448 1,540 767 5,400 3,860 250.65% 101-41500-208 208 Books & Periodicals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Supplies & Maintenance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Professional Services 3,775 1.17% 101-41500-301 301 Auditing and Acct'g Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Other Expenses 101-41500-331 331 Travel Expenses 39 190 0 200 112 1,500 1,300 650.00% 101-41500-433 433 Memberships 325 325 325 340 330 400 60 17.65% 101-41500-437 437 Training & Development 490 833 3,123 1,000 325 3,500 2,500 250.00% Total Other Expenses 854 1,347 3,448 1,540 767 5,400 3,860 250.65% Finance Total 311,056 307,892 315,955 323,670 204,702 327,445 3,775 1.17% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Law/Legal Services 41600 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Total Professional Services 98,493 96,581 112,918 104,000 76,469 112,000 8,000 7.69% Law/Legal Services Total 98,493 96,581 112,918 104,000 76,469 112,000 8,000 7.69% Professional Services 101-41600-305 305 Legal -Retainer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41600-306 306 Legal -Prosecution 37,549 38,500 42,478 40,000 20,278 40,000 0 0.00% 101-41600-307 307 Legal -Consulting 47,869 46,988 51,793 50,000 50,442 60,000 10,000 20.00% 101-41600-308 308 Code Enforcement 4,789 2,054 1,999 4,000 1,487 2,000 (2,000) -50.00% 101-41600-309 309 Jail Charges 8,285 9,040 16,648 10,000 4,262 10,000 0 0.00% Total Professional Services 98,493 96,581 112,918 104,000 76,469 112,000 8,000 7.69% Law/Legal Services Total 98,493 96,581 112,918 104,000 76,469 112,000 8,000 7.69% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Central Services 41900 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Supplies & Maintenance 101-41900-201 201 Office supplies 13,889 13,130 11,685 14,000 5,490 12,000 (2,000) -14.29% 101-41900-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 483 3,838 970 3,000 3,758 3,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies 4,311 3,357 2,520 3,500 2,873 3,500 0 0.00% 101-41900-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 18,870 15,249 9,949 16,000 4,120 10,000 (6,000) -37.50% 101-41900-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 469 570 3,302 700 5,164 3,000 2,300 328.57% 101-41900-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 15,978 23,870 20,699 20,000 37,016 20,500 500 2.50% 101-41900-407 407 Janitorial Services 18,584 18,557 17,171 19,000 11,484 19,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-416 416 Software Licensing 4,015 10,941 24,385 20,000 20,885 22,000 2,000 10.00% Total Supplies & Maintenance 76,599 89,511 90,681 96,200 90,791 93,000 (3,200) -3.33% Professional Services 101-41900-301 301 Auditing and Acct'g Services 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 19,160 20,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-311 311 Data Processing Communication 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41900-319 319 Professional Services 10,628 11,690 26,501 18,000 11,500 18,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-370 370 Insurance Agent of Record 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 30,628 31,690 46,501 38,000 30,659 38,000 0 0.00% Insurances 101-41900-361 361 General Liability Ins 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 7,500 10,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,750 5,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-363 363 Bonds Insurance 800 200 200 200 150 200 0 0.00% 101-41900-365 365 Boiler & Machinery Ins 2,000 1,300 1,300 1,300 975 1,300 0 0.00% 101-41900-366 366 Property Insurance 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,750 5,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 2,400 1,300 1,300 1,300 975 1,300 0 0.00% 101-41900-368 368 Automotive Insurance 5,000 7,400 7,400 7,400 5,550 7,400 0 0.00% Total Insurances 30,200 30,200 30,200 30,200 22,650 30,200 0 0.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Central Services cont. 41900 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Other Expenses 101-41900-312 312 Bank Fees 3,856 4,408 6,181 4,500 2,109 4,000 (500) -11.11% 101-41900-321 321 Telephone 7,378 8,331 11,343 10,000 6,589 10,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-322 322 Postage 10,697 10,739 10,412 11,000 8,782 11,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-329 329 Internet/Other Communications 5,315 3,863 6,873 8,000 4,947 6,000 (2,000) -25.00% 101-41900-352 352 Printing & Publishing 13,246 15,182 15,373 15,000 18,407 15,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-381 381 Gas & Electric 31,747 25,621 29,757 29,000 17,742 29,100 100 0.34% 101-41900-382 382 Water Utilities 2,134 3,046 4,111 3,000 2,363 2,000 (1,000) -33.33% 101-41900-413 413 Office Equipment Rental 17,645 17,045 16,685 20,000 14,360 20,000 0 0.00% 101-41900-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41900-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 2,248 919 307 1,000 346 500 (500) -50.00% Total Other Expenses 94,267 89,154 101,054 101,500 75,644 97,600 (3,900) -3.84% Capital Outlay 101-41900-512 512 Spec Assmts on Land & Int 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-41900-750 750 Interest on Special Assmnts 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Capital Outlay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Central Services Total 231,693 240,555 268,437 265,900 219,745 258,800 (7,100) -2.67% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Human Services 41800 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Other Expenses 101-41800-490 490 Contributions to Civic Org's 9,500 11,997 12,426 12,400 0 12,400 0 0.00% Total Other Expenses 9,500 11,997 12,426 12,400 0 12,400 0 0.00% Human Services Total 9.500 11.997 12.426 12.400 0 12,400 0 0.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Police Department 42110 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Total Personal Services 3,090,121 3,120,780 3,203,183 3,446,070 2,120,868 3,580,792 134,722 3.91% Personal Services 101-42110-201 201 Office supplies 101-42110-208 208 Books & Periodicals 101-42110-212 212 101-42110-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 2,247,403 2,226,744 2,291,675 2,408,910 1,496,553 2,520,908 111,998 4.65% 101-42110-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 22,192 18,608 21,890 50,000 11,679 50,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-103 103 Part -Time Employees 84,937 98,356 71,090 54,330 36,936 54,333 3 0.01% 101-42110-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 423 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-121 121 PERA 332,179 351,635 362,096 374,280 232,216 391,520 17,240 4.61% 101-42110-122 122 FICA 44,098 44,327 44,316 47,820 29,308 50,086 2,266 4.74% 101-42110-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 290,986 315,013 338,372 401,580 232,314 399,945 (1,635) -0.41% 101-42110-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 404 2,914 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 68,325 65,270 70,830 109,150 81,863 114,000 4,850 4.44% Total Personal Services 3,090,121 3,120,780 3,203,183 3,446,070 2,120,868 3,580,792 134,722 3.91% 12,544 Supplies & Maintenance 101-42110-201 201 Office supplies 101-42110-208 208 Books & Periodicals 101-42110-212 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 101-42110-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 101-42110-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies 101-42110-226 226 Clothing & personal equipment 101-42110-228 228 Training Supplies 101-42110-229 229 Explorers Program expenses 101-42110-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 101-42110-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 101-42110-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 101-42110-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 101-42110-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 101-42110-407 407 Janitorial Services 101-42110-416 416 Software Licensing 12,544 6,835 7,351 12,000 1,700 8,000 (4,000) -33.33% 0 0 0 1,000 324 1,000 0 0.00% 91,933 48,008 44,913 115,000 51,916 100,000 (15,000) -13.04% 4,581 6,690 4,657 6,000 4,228 6,000 0 0.00% 230 911 393 1,300 166 1,300 0 0.00% 25,112 27,738 31,783 25,000 17,349 27,000 2,000 8.00% 8,916 18,512 15,951 16,000 1,822 16,000 0 0.00% 981 3,456 412 4,000 2,390 4,000 0 0.00% 1,435 2,642 1,839 6,000 2,082 5,000 (1,000) -16.67% 15,206 7,601 6,228 5,000 3,832 5,000 0 0.00% 50,009 35,045 35,529 50,000 21,825 45,000 (5,000) -10.00% 6,437 4,840 4,597 8,000 4,571 8,000 0 0.00% 3,120 7,678 7,219 6,500 2,262 6,500 0 0.00% 13,457 12,918 12,434 15,000 8,316 15,000 0 0.00% 1,338 9,987 13,651 11,500 8,782 13,500 2,000 17.39% Total Supplies & Maintenance 235,300 192,860 186,955 282,300 131,564 261,300 (21,000) -7.44% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Police Department cont 42110 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Professional Services 101-42110-304 304 Engineering -Consulting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-307 307 Legal -Consulting 6,372 3,736 7,301 8,000 4,417 8,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-310 310 LOGIS-Applications 61,104 64,164 73,184 90,310 52,754 106,641 16,331 18.08% 101-42110-311 311 Data Processing Communication 3,909 4,115 4,947 6,000 3,848 6,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-317 317 Animal Care 85 85 424 1,000 110 500 (500) -50.00% 101-42110-319 319 Professional Services 12,479 12,091 12,596 14,500 10,318 14,500 0 0.00% 101-42110-370 370 Insurance Agent of Record 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 83,949 84,190 98,451 119,810 71,446 135,641 15,831 13.21% Insurances 101-42110-361 361 General Liability Ins 25,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 26,250 35,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 9,100 10,000 10,000 10,000 7,500 10,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-366 366 Property Insurance 3,300 1,000 1,000 1,000 750 1,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 500 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-368 368 Automotive Insurance 6,600 9,000 9,000 9,000 6,750 9,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-379 379 Insurance Deductibles 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Insurances 44,500 55,000 55,000 55,000 41,250 55,000 0 0.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Police Department cont 42110 Total Other Expenses 110,517 110,434 122,635 129,580 67,813 135,880 6,300 4.86% Capital Outlay Dollar % 550 Automotive Equipment 141,988 149,338 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase 0 0 0 Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 6,176 Other Expenses 7,000 210 3,000 (4,000) -57.14% 101-42110-575 575 IT Hardware & Applications 11,430 101-42110-321 321 Telephone 23,147 19,166 21,229 23,230 10,569 23,230 0 0.00% 101-42110-322 322 Postage 223 114 99 1,200 114 1,200 0 0.00% 101-42110-329 329 Internet/Other Communications 5,612 3,598 5,893 6,300 3,760 6,800 500 7.94% 101-42110-331 331 Travel Expenses 89 28 580 250 0 250 0 0.00% 101-42110-340 340 General Advertising 132 55 290 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-352 352 Printing & Publishing 1,692 1,972 2,220 1,800 494 1,800 0 0.00% 101-42110-381 381 Gas & Electric 14,125 24,965 18,100 20,000 10,918 20,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-382 382 Water Utilities 781 1,634 1,405 1,200 0 1,200 0 0.00% 101-42110-413 413 Office Equipment Rental 2,578 4,106 4,133 3,300 2,967 3,600 300 9.09% 101-42110-414 414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent 23,782 23,443 23,211 20,000 13,199 23,000 3,000 15.00% 101-42110-433 433 Memberships 2,110 2,770 3,000 5,500 2,680 5,000 (500) -9.09% 101-42110-436 436 Towing Charges 53 147 157 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-437 437 Training & Development 32,676 20,356 30,254 35,000 21,020 38,000 3,000 8.57% 101-42110-439 439 Meeting Expenses 1,890 2,142 2,395 2,500 1,326 2,500 0 0.00% 101-42110-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 228 3,668 5,164 5,000 0 5,000 0 0.00% 101-42110-441 441 Licenses & Taxes 1,172 2,040 3,282 1,300 199 1,300 0 0.00% 101-42110-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 226 232 1,222 3,000 567 3,000 0 0.00% Total Other Expenses 110,517 110,434 122,635 129,580 67,813 135,880 6,300 4.86% Capital Outlay 101-42110-550 550 Automotive Equipment 141,988 149,338 135,874 153,000 131,648 156,000 3,000 1.96% 101-42110-560 560 Furniture and Fixtures 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42110-570 570 Office Equip and Furnishings 7,500 6,176 0 7,000 210 3,000 (4,000) -57.14% 101-42110-575 575 IT Hardware & Applications 11,430 8,951 5,378 23,000 390 20,000 (3,000) -13.04% 101-42110-580 580 Other Equipment 0 9,583 30,038 21,000 18,253 21,000 0 0.00% Total Capital Outlay 160,919 174,048 171,290 204,000 150,501 200,000 (4,000) -1.96% Police Total 3,725,306 3,737,312 3,837,514 4,236,760 2,583,442 4,368,613 131,853 3.11% Professional Services 101-42260-318 318 Fire Services 101-42260-319 319 Professional Services Total Professional Services City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Fire Protection Services 42260 2014 2015 Actual Actual 2016 2017 Actual Budget Dollar % Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 379,581 383,856 393,476 397,000 400,547 390,000 (7,000) -1.76% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 379,581 383,856 393,476 397,000 400,547 390,000 (7,000) -1.76% Fire Protection Services Total 379,581 383,856 393,476 397,000 400,547 390,000 (7,000) -1.76% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Building & Zoning 42400 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Total Personal Services 506,287 548,032 576,521 581,420 391,685 571,821 (9,599) -1.65% Personal Services 101-42400-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 385,500 428,200 452,306 438,290 310,465 428,441 (9,849) -2.25% 101-42400-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 65 115 379 200 35 200 0 0.00% 101-42400-103 103 Part -Time Employees 12,153 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42400-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42400-121 121 PERA 28,255 31,784 33,690 32,890 20,970 32,148 (742) -2.26% 101-42400-122 122 FICA 30,509 33,318 34,579 33,540 21,649 32,791 (749) -2.23% 101-42400-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 47,170 52,105 52,947 74,040 36,720 75,822 1,782 2.41% 101-42400-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42400-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 2,636 2,510 2,620 2,460 1,845 2,419 (41) -1.67% Total Personal Services 506,287 548,032 576,521 581,420 391,685 571,821 (9,599) -1.65% Total Supplies & Maintenance 593 2,587 214 6,200 2,669 2,000 (4,200) -67.74% Supplies & Maintenance 101-42400-208 208 Books & Periodicals 0 262 142 500 0 500 0 0.00% 101-42400-212 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 500 1,876 0 1,500 0 1,500 0 0.00% 101-42400-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 50 449 22 0 2,656 0 0 N/A 101-42400-226 226 Clothing & personal equipment 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42400-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 0 0 0 3,200 13 0 (3,200) -100.00% 101-42400-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 43 0 0 1,000 0 0 (1,000) -100.00% 101-42400-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Supplies & Maintenance 593 2,587 214 6,200 2,669 2,000 (4,200) -67.74% Total Professional Services 109,765 116,315 113,104 161,000 65,565 138,500 (22,500) -13.98% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Building & Zoning cont. 42400 Professional Services 101-42400-304 304 Engineering -Consulting 4,339 104 0 12,500 1,606 7,500 (5,000) -40.00% 101-42400-307 307 Legal -Consulting 23,600 23,886 24,864 16,000 12,214 16,000 0 0.00% 101-42400-310 310 Inspection Services 71,620 89,226 85,065 100,000 44,825 90,000 (10,000) -10.00% 10142400-312 12 Bank Fees 0 0 0 0 0 5,000 5,000 N/A 101-42400-319 319 Professional Services 10,206 3,100 3,175 32,500 6,920 20,000 (12,500) -38.46% Total Professional Services 109,765 116,315 113,104 161,000 65,565 138,500 (22,500) -13.98% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Building & Zoning cont. 42400 Total Other Expenses 4,802 4,000 3,526 13,850 1,693 27,390 13,540 97.76% Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase 670,933 693,366 Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Other Expenses 101-42400-331 331 Travel Expenses 1,900 402 468 1,500 154 2,250 750 50.00% 101-42400-340 340 General Advertising 25 0 0 0 378 1,000 1,000 N/A 101-42400-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-42400-416 416 Software Licensing 0 0 0 0 300 15,600 15,600 N/A 101-42400-433 433 Memberships 475 1,330 875 800 675 1,200 400 50.00% 101-42400-437 437 Training & Development 1,744 1,386 2,013 2,000 0 2,740 740 37.00% 101-42400-439 439 Meeting Expenses 626 881 139 9,450 185 4,500 (4,950) -52.38% 101-42400-441 441 Licenses & Taxes 32 0 32 100 0 100 0 0.00% Total Other Expenses 4,802 4,000 3,526 13,850 1,693 27,390 13,540 97.76% Building & Zoning Total 621,447 670,933 693,366 762,470 461,612 739,711 (22,759) -2.98% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Engineering 43170 Engineering Total 14,178 17,080 9,893 20,000 33,335 15,000 (5,000) -25.00% Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Professional Services 101-43170-303 303 Engineering -Retainer 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-43170-304 304 Engineering -Consulting 14,178 17,080 9,893 20,000 33,335 15,000 (5,000) -25.00% Total Professional Services 14,178 17,080 9,893 20,000 33,335 15,000 (5,000) -25.00% Engineering Total 14,178 17,080 9,893 20,000 33,335 15,000 (5,000) -25.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Public Works Department 43000 Supplies & Maintenance Dollar % 208 Books & Periodicals 159 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 39,954 Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 221 Personal Services 15,606 16,882 10,644 16,000 10,488 16,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 214,657 200,530 192,098 215,250 132,889 220,971 5,721 2.66% 101-43000-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 11,067 6,008 11,228 11,000 6,319 11,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-121 121 PERA 14,446 15,135 14,496 16,970 10,403 17,398 428 2.52% 101-43000-122 122 FICA 15,439 15,143 14,195 17,310 10,418 17,746 436 2.52% 101-43000-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 29,378 39,633 37,622 52,170 32,010 55,731 3,561 6.83% 101-43000-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-43000-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 14,926 13,730 12,680 18,800 14,100 19,296 496 2.64% 101-43000-408 408 Total Personal Services 299,913 290,179 282,319 331,500 206,140 342,142 10,642 3.21% Supplies & Maintenance 101-43000-208 208 Books & Periodicals 159 169 169 170 0 170 0 0.00% 101-43000-212 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 39,954 14,504 31,663 40,000 2,058 35,000 (5,000) -12.50% 101-43000-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 15,606 16,882 10,644 16,000 10,488 16,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-222 222 Vehicle Equipment & Parts 7,828 5,286 4,433 8,000 4,217 8,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-224 224 Street Maint. Materials/Supply 33,496 47,419 53,524 44,525 22,740 48,000 3,475 7.80% 101-43000-226 226 Clothing & personal equipment 2,527 4,109 3,915 3,500 3,284 4,000 500 14.29% 101-43000-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 978 1,377 2,708 1,000 2,611 2,000 1,000 100.00% 101-43000-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 7,059 11,185 11,350 10,000 11,410 10,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 2,594 5,855 14,780 3,000 12,268 10,000 7,000 233.33% 101-43000-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 708 1,982 10,635 0 490 4,500 4,500 N/A 101-43000-408 408 Contracted Street Maint. 14,280 63,927 10,779 7,500 14,496 8,000 500 6.67% Total Supplies & Maintenance 125,190 172,695 154,600 133,695 84,060 145,670 11,975 8.96% Professional Services 101-43000-304 304 PW Engineering -Consulting 0 641 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-43000-319 319 Professional Services 0 0 2,220 0 2,237 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 0 641 2,220 0 2,237 0 0 N/A City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Public Works Department cont 43000 Public Works Total 454,966 496,239 475,551 499,825 315,622 525,857 26,032 5.21% Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Other Expenses 101-43000-331 331 Travel Expenses 63 352 0 0 169 175 175 N/A 101-43000-381 381 Gas & Electric 3,397 3,027 4,686 4,880 1,068 4,880 0 0.00% 101-43000-386 386 Street Lighting 22,790 24,612 26,064 25,000 15,591 25,000 0 0.00% 101-43000-414 414 EDP/Communications Equip Rent 0 0 775 0 2,431 750 750 N/A 101-43000-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 409 254 1,309 960 2,789 960 0 0.00% 101-43000-416 416 Software Licensing 0 0 0 0 0 2,000 2,000 N/A 101-43000-433 433 Memberships 618 284 180 0 0 250 250 N/A 101-43000-437 437 Training & Development 1,798 3,498 2,867 3,500 455 3,500 0 0.00% 101-43000-441 441 Licenses & Taxes 747 50 280 250 44 250 0 0.00% 101-43000-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 40 647 252 40 639 280 240 600.00% Total Other Expenses 29,863 32,724 36,413 34,630 23,186 38,045 3,415 9.86% Public Works Total 454,966 496,239 475,551 499,825 315,622 525,857 26,032 5.21% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Parks 45200 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Total Personal Services 21,933 36,530 36,067 39,600 25,464 84,346 44,746 112.99% Personal Services 101-45200-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 16,589 21,368 19,220 20,270 13,019 49,860 29,590 145.98% 101-45200-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 202 0 231 0 211 0 0 N/A 101-45200-103 103 Part -Time Employees 0 0 10,023 0 6,408 0 0 N/A 101-45200-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 0 8,713 0 10,000 0 10,000 0 0.00% 101-45200-121 121 PERA 1,233 1,420 1,419 1,520 992 3,739 2,219 145.99% 101-45200-122 122 FICA 1,275 1,589 1,593 2,320 1,123 4,579 2,259 97.37% 101-45200-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 1,825 2,701 2,091 3,600 2,294 11,574 7,974 221.50% 101-45200-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem 809 740 1,490 1,890 1,418 4,594 2,704 143.07% Total Personal Services 21,933 36,530 36,067 39,600 25,464 84,346 44,746 112.99% Total Professional Services 405 9,645 8,699 1,140 6,312 1,140 0 0.00% Supplies & Maintenance 101-45200-212 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 0 0 19 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-45200-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 2,247 1,629 908 0 959 500 500 N/A 101-45200-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies 3,222 3,163 9,875 7,600 8,771 7,600 0 0.00% 101-45200-225 225 Misc Park Supplies 0 6,573 7,309 10,000 1,411 15,000 5,000 50.00% 101-45200-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 0 0 20 0 570 200 200 N/A 101-45200-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 176 0 3,744 0 779 1,000 1,000 N/A 101-45200-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 36,043 46,088 37,472 53,779 24,140 58,000 4,221 7.85% Total Supplies & Maintenance 41,688 57,453 59,349 71,379 36,629 82,300 10,921 15.30% Professional Services 101-45200-319 319 Professional Services 405 9,645 8,699 1,140 6,312 1,140 0 0.00% Total Professional Services 405 9,645 8,699 1,140 6,312 1,140 0 0.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Parks cont. 45200 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Other Expenses 101-45200-331 331 Travel Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-45200-381 381 Gas & Electric 406 416 290 550 47 550 0 0.00% 101-45200-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 3,242 4,750 5,249 3,500 3,076 3,500 0 0.00% 101-45200-416 416 Software Licensing 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 1,000 N/A 101-45200-439 439 Meeting Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-45200-441 441 Licenses & Taxes 290 580 0 300 290 300 0 0.00% 101-45200-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 186 0 30 0 0 N/A 101-45200-490 490 Contributions to Civic Org's 2,478 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Other Expenses 6,416 5,746 5,725 4,350 3,443 5,350 1,000 22.99% Parks Total 70,442 109,375 109,840 116,469 71,849 173,136 56,667 48.65% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Golf Course 45210 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 34,219 Personal Services 101-45210-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 101-45210-103 103 Part -Time Employees 101-45210-104 104 Temporary Employees Regular 101-45210-121 121 PERA 101-45210-122 122 FICA 101-45210-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 101-45210-142 142 Unemployment Benefit Payments 101-45210-143 143 OPEB Expense 101-45210-151 151 Worker's Comp Insurance Prem City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Golf Course 45210 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 34,219 31,809 31,811 32,450 21,628 29,337 (3,113) -9.59% 35,323 41,073 49,914 53,340 34,340 19,262 (34,078) -63.89% 2,095 960 880 0 660 15,000 15,000 N/A 408 0 0 0 821 2,200 2,200 N/A 3,156 3,042 3,171 6,560 2,843 4,865 (1,695) -25.84% 5,297 0 0 0 0 7,976 7,976 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1,548 1,330 1,790 1,620 1,215 5,893 4,273 263.77% Total Personal Services 82,047 78,214 87,566 93,970 61,507 84,533 (9,437) -10.04% Total Supplies & Maintenance 30,643 29,006 30,372 26,730 29,291 31,160 4,430 16.57% Supplies & Maintenance 101-45210-201 201 Office supplies 215 416 239 300 191 330 30 10.00% 101-45210-212 212 Motor Fuels & Lubricants 4,763 2,745 2,716 5,000 0 3,500 (1,500) -30.00% 101-45210-221 221 Equipment Parts & Accessories 2,309 659 4,336 1,500 1,224 2,500 1,000 66.67% 101-45210-223 223 Bldg/Grounds Maint. Supplies 4,958 6,044 7,411 4,500 5,990 6,800 2,300 51.11% 101-45210-226 226 Clothing & personal equipment 0 0 152 180 150 180 0 0.00% 101-45210-240 240 Small Tools and Minor Equip 0 195 59 500 110 500 0 0.00% 101-45210-401 401 Repairs/Maint-Office Equip 0 53 165 0 0 100 100 N/A 101-45210-402 402 Repairs/Maint-Auto Equip 0 267 185 250 37 250 0 0.00% 101-45210-403 403 Repairs/Maint-Misc. Equip 1,365 2,170 4,352 2,500 10,931 3,000 500 20.00% 101-45210-404 404 Repairs/Maint-Bldgs/Grounds 17,033 16,458 10,758 12,000 10,658 14,000 2,000 16.67% Total Supplies & Maintenance 30,643 29,006 30,372 26,730 29,291 31,160 4,430 16.57% Total Insurances 13,393 13,393 12,883 14,020 10,515 13,070 (950) -6.78% City of Orono Insurances 101-45210-361 361 General Liability Ins 101-45210-362 362 Umbrella Liability Ins 101-45210-365 365 Boiler & Machinery Ins 101-45210-366 366 Property Insurance 101-45210-367 367 Equipment Floaters Ins 101-45210-368 368 Automotive Insurance 101-45210-369 369 Dram Shop Insurance Total Insurances 13,393 13,393 12,883 14,020 10,515 13,070 (950) -6.78% City of Orono 101-45210-312 Dollar 2018 Line Item Budget 2017 Y -T -D Golf Course cont. Increase Increase 45210 Sep 30, 2017 2014 2015 2016 Actual Actual Actual 7,500 7,500 7,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 300 300 300 2,300 2,300 2,300 300 300 300 370 370 370 1,123 1,123 613 Total Insurances 13,393 13,393 12,883 14,020 10,515 13,070 (950) -6.78% Other Expenses 101-45210-312 Dollar % 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 8,000 6,000 7,500 (500) -6.25% 1,500 1,125 1,500 0 0.00% 350 263 300 (50) -14.29% 2,650 1,988 2,300 (350) -13.21% 350 263 300 (50) -14.29% 370 278 370 0 0.00% 800 600 800 0 0.00% Total Insurances 13,393 13,393 12,883 14,020 10,515 13,070 (950) -6.78% Total Other Expenses 2,315 Other Expenses 101-45210-312 312 Bank Fees 101-45210-319 319 Professional Services 101-45210-321 321 Telephone 101-45210-331 331 Travel Expenses 101-45210-340 340 General Advertising 101-45210-352 352 Printing & Publishing 101-45210-381 381 Gas & Electric 101-45210-415 415 Other Equipment Rentals 101-45210-433 433 Memberships 101-45210-437 437 Training & Development 101-45210-440 440 Special Equipment Replacement 101-45210-441 441 Licenses & Taxes 101-45210-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges Total Other Expenses 2,315 4,365 4,962 4,000 1,501 5,000 1,000 25.00% 0 500 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 2,188 2,952 3,485 2,500 1,758 3,300 800 32.00% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 715 1,519 500 1,750 500 1,750 0 0.00% 58 0 379 0 793 736 736 N/A 7,874 8,025 8,152 8,500 4,633 8,500 0 0.00% 8,399 7,529 10,012 9,500 10,028 9,882 382 4.02% 0 150 270 300 120 300 0 0.00% 0 19 0 150 0 150 0 0.00% 0 0 0 0 250 0 0 N/A 522 675 535 550 294 550 0 0.00% 56 0 119 0 17 0 0 N/A 22,127 25,733 28,414 27,250 19,893 30,168 2,918 10.71% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Golf Course cont. 45210 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Purchases for Resale 101-45210-090 090 PURCHASES FOR RESALE 0 (696) 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-45210-091 091 Beer For Resale 3,675 4,440 3,285 3,000 3,045 3,800 800 26.67% 101-45210-092 092 Soft Drinks For Resale 3,355 3,355 3,867 3,200 3,138 3,600 400 12.50% 101-45210-093 093 Concessions For Resale-Txbl 1,205 0 29 1,500 980 1,500 0 0.00% 101-45210-094 094 Concessions For Resale-NonTax 1,020 2,821 2,085 1,000 1,132 2,500 1,500 150.00% 101-45210-095 095 Pro Shop Items For Resale 3,450 3,187 1,846 2,000 1,340 2,500 500 25.00% 101-45210-099 099 Other For Resale 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Purchases for Resale 12,705 13,107 11,111 10,700 9,634 13,900 3,200 29.91% Golf Course Total 160,915 159,454 170,346 172,670 130,840 172,831 161 0.09% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Special Services -Consulting & Police 43280 Total Professional Services 129,262 69,971 96,234 55,000 85,294 55,000 0 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease 113,402 Personal Services 0 0.00% 101-43280-102 102 Full -Time Employees Overtime 42,265 29,115 24,210 35,000 25,085 35,000 0 0.00% 101-43280-121 121 PERA 5,986 3,989 2,252 5,250 2,704 5,250 0 0.00% 101-43280-122 122 FICA 544 376 319 500 319 500 0 0.00% 101-43280-135 135 City Benefit Contribution 17 4 4 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Personal Services 48,813 33,485 26,784 40,750 28,108 40,750 0 0.00% Professional Services 101-43280-304 304 Engineering -Consulting 62,254 48,859 73,173 45,000 78,969 45,000 0 0.00% 101-43280-307 307 Legal -Consulting 25,959 21,112 23,061 10,000 6,326 10,000 0 0.00% 101-43280-319 319 Professional Services 41,049 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-43280-800 800 Special Projects, Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 129,262 69,971 96,234 55,000 85,294 55,000 0 0.00% Special Services -Consulting & Police Total 178,075 103,456 123,018 95,750 113,402 95,750 0 0.00% City of Orono 2018 Line Item Budget Special Projects -Contingencies 43290 Dollar % 2014 2015 2016 2017 Y -T -D 2018 Increase Increase Actual Actual Actual Budget Sep 30, 2017 Draft Budget Decrease Decrease Personal Services 101-43290-101 101 Full -Time Employees Regular 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Personal Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Professional Services 101-43290-304 304 Engineering -Consulting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 101-43290-319 319 Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Professional Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Other Expenses 101-43290-489 489 Other Miscellaneous Charges 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Total Other Expenses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A Capital & Transfers 101-43290-510 510 Land 0 0 0 0 639 0 0 N/A 101-43290-720 720 Operating Transfers 506,548 679,000 0 375,000 0 380,000 5,000 1.33% Total Capital & Transfers 506,548 679,000 0 375,000 639 380,000 5,000 1.33% Contingency Items 101-43290-800 800 Special Projects, Contingency 45,001 24,500 8,004 40,990 23,297 0 (40,990) -100.00% Total Contingency Items 45,001 24,500 8,004 40,990 23,297 0 (40,990) -100.00% Special Projects -Contingencies Total 551,549 703,500 8,004 415,990 23,937 380,000 (35,990) -8.65% GENERAL FUND TOTAL 7,320,435 7,565,334 6,987,717 7,988,364 4,900,103 8,187,901 199,537 2.50% City of Orono 2018 Revenue Budget Summary Percentage 2016 Y -T -D 2017 2018 Increase Increase Revenue Source Actual Sep 30,2017 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) Current Ad Valorem Taxes 3,977,693 - 4,197,240 4,345,051 Delinquent Ad Valorem Taxes 18,184 - 10,000 Fiscal Disparities 34,805 - Personal Property Tax 14,899 Forfieted Tax Sale Apportionmt - Rent Credit - Penalties and Interest -Taxes 2,002 - - Property Taxes 4,047,583 4,197,244 4,355,051 157,807 3.8% Beer & Liquor Licenses 6,670 - 7,000 7,000 - 0.0% Cigarette Licenses 125 750 400 400 0.0% Garbage Haulers Licenses 1,080 1,110 1,100 1,100 0.0% Other Business License/Permit 8,357 4,877 5,400 5,400 0.0% Dog Licenses 1,268 995 - - N/A Total Licenses 17,500 7,732 13,900 13,900 0.0% Building Permits 362,045 258,144 375,000 371,000 (4,000) -1.1% Zoning Permit 4,929 750 1,750 1,750 - 0.0% Mechanical/Septic/Other 67,909 43,842 50,000 55,000 5,000 10.0% Plumbing Permit 32,098 19,249 25,000 25,000 - 0.0% Total Permits 466,981 321,985 451,750 452,750 1,000 0.2% Federal Grant -other - - - - - N/A Market Value Credit - - - N/A Police State Aid 217,056 - 200,000 200,000 - 0.0% Police Training Reimbursement 8,442 9,220 10,000 23,000 13,000 130.0% PERA State Aid 7,219 3,610 7,220 7,220 - 0.0% State Grant -other 15,553 7,381 10,000 10,000 - 0.0% Total Intergovernmental 248,270 20,210 227,220 240,220 13,000 5.7% Administrative Charges for Svc 85,300 51,750 80,000 80,000 - 0.0% General Taxable Sales/Service (4,526) 402 1,000 1,000 0.0% Assessments searches 380 150 300 300 0.0% Plan Check/Site Exam Fees 215,943 195,753 190,000 190,000 0.0% Cond Use-Variance-Dev Fees 47,775 36,960 40,000 10,000 (30,000) -75.0% Engineering & Legal Fees 89,805 52,478 40,000 40,000 0.0% Bldg Permits -mail in fees 1,535 575 700 700 0.0% On-site Septic Program fees 44,550 44,783 44,500 44,500 0.0% Coop Agreement -public works 5,108 385 3,000 3,000 0.0% InterDepartmental Services -PW - - - - N/A Off Leash Annual Pass 130 12,835 - 10,000 N/A Total Gen Govt Service Charges 485,871 383,235 399,500 379,500 (20,000) -5.0% Coop Agreement -inspection 27,128 11,546 15,000 20,000 5,000 33.3% Coop Agreement -police 2,234,099 2,004,122 2,283,500 2,308,830 25,330 1.1% Police Special Services 84,156 46,741 75,000 80,000 5,000 6.7% False Alarm Fees 1,425 250 4,500 2,000 (2,500) -55.6% Police Reports 1,115 621 850 850 - 0.0% Police Reserve Receipts 350 - 500 300 (200) -40.0% Total Public Safety Service Charges 2,348,274 2,063,279 2,379,350 2,411,980 32,630 1.4% Other Fines - - - - - N/A Court Fines 78,705 44,956 80,000 80,000 0.0% Drug Task Force - - - - - N/A Dog Impound Fees 60 - 500 100 (400) -80.0% Total Fines and Forfeits 78,765 44,956 80,500 80,100 (400) -0.5% Interest on investments 59,810 - 54,000 54,000 - 0.0% Interest -NOW account 396 331 500 500 0.0% Total Investment Revenue 60,207 331 54,500 54,500 - 0.0% Utility Penalties 1,540 1,800 1,500 1,000 (500) -33.3% Green Fees 108,275 109,210 90,000 110,000 Rental -Golf carts & Club 52,760 41,859 44,000 46,000 Beer Sales 7,616 8,469 7,000 8,000 Pop Sales 4,132 - - - Concessions -taxable 2,554 5,316 5,300 5,000 Golf Ball Sales 1,427 (11) - - Pro Shop -taxable 513 2,361 3,700 1,000 Pro Shop -nontaxable 1,093 168 - - Other Golf Course Receipts 9,864 - Cash Over/Short (51) Revenue Source Total Golf Course Receipts Miscellaneous Revenue Rent Income Contributions & donations Refunds & Reimbursements Sale of Equipment Filing fees-elections/plats Total Miscellaneous Revenue Total Revenue City of Orono 2018 Revenue Budget Summary Percentage 2016 Y -T -D 2017 2018 Increase Increase Actual Sep 30,2017 Budget Budget (Decrease) (Decrease) 188,181 167,371 150,000 170,000 20,000 13.3% 24,332 2,262 3,000 3,000 - 0.0% 5,850 3,600 5,400 5,400 0.0% 1,470 - - - N/A 6,699 655 - 500 500 N/A 43,584 20,738 20,000 26,000 6,000 30.0% 12,510 2,100 4,000 4,000 - 0.0% 284,166 198,526 183,900 209,900 26,000 14.1% Exhibit C. Draft Resolutions A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2017 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2018 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota, that the following sums be levied for the current year, collectible in 2015 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General Fund - Operating $4,345,051 Pavement Management Levy 500,000 G.O Improvement Bond 2010 130,470 G.O. Improvement Bond 2014 174,000 G.O. Improvement Bond 2016 406,530 TOTAL ALL LEVIES5 556 051 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 25, 2017. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 1 Exhibit C. Draft Resolutions A RESOLUTION TO ADOPT THE PRELIMINARY 2017 GENERAL FUND BUDGET BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota that the preliminary 2017 General Fund budget is determined to be as follows: ESTIMATED REVENUES Taxes - General $4,355,051 Licenses and Permits 466,650 Intergovernmental 240,220 Charges for Services 2,791,480 Fines and Forfeits 80,100 Interest Income 54,500 Recreation Fees 170,000 Miscellaneous 39,000 TOTAL 8 197 001 APPROPRIATED EXPENDITURES General Government $1,327,003 Public Safety 5,347,823 Street Maintenance 525,857 Parks and Recreation 345,967 Engineering - Unallocated 15,000 Reimbursable Expenditures 95,750 Special Projects and Contingency 0 Capital Outlay 150,501 Transfers to Other Funds 380,000 TOTAL 7 987 860 4L Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 25, 2017. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk P Dermis Walsch, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 14 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Old Crystal Bay Temporary Turn Lanes 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 gain Council approval for the Construction of temporary turn lanes into the high school and middle school on Old Crystal Bay (OCB) Road. 2. Background. Traffic backups on OCB, CSAH 6 and CSAH 112 at peak periods on school days has resulted in both inconvenience for residents and school patrons as well as increased safety concerns. To that end the Orono School District conducted a traffic management study this year. One of the recommendations from that study was for a turn lane in the south bound lane of OCB at the northern most high school entrance. It is possible for the city to install turn lanes on Old Crystal Bay road by the middle school and High school to reduce school traffic congestion this school year this year. The turn lanes would be temporary and need to be replaced/ improved with next year's improvement project. 3. Project Scope. The project will create a 120ft turn lane with 180ft taper in the southbound lane of Old Crystal Bay Road into the northern most high school entrance and a 120ft turn lane with 180ft taper northbound into the southern entrance of the middle school (See Exhibit A). 4. Cost. The City received 4 quotes. Listed below. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was $48,192.00 from Barber Construction. Contractor Total Quote Barber Construction $48,192.00 Valley Paving Inc. $52,505.00 Bituminous Roadways $70,810.00 GMH Asphalt $82,561.00 5. Funding. This project could be funded through the Pavement Management Fund. 6. Timing. The project would be completed on a weekend this fall. 7. Staff Recommendation. In consideration of the cost, I recommend that the project not proceed and that the funding be used for permanent construction efforts. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve/disapprove of the construction of a turn lanes on Old Crystal Bay Road by Barber Construction for $48,192. Exhibits Exhibit A. Turn Lane Figure Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: -Sb) TYPE SP 9.5 WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B) (SPWEA340B) (2360) TYPE SP 12.5 NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B) (SPNWB330B) (2360) TYPE SP 12.5 NON -WEARING COURSE MIXTURE (3,B) (SPNWB330B) (2360) 3GREGATE BASE, CL 5 (2211) _....3RADE PREPARATION (2112) (INCIDENTAL) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PROPOSED BITUMINOUS SHOULDER SECTION NOT TO SCALE ONCRETE PAVEMENT (2531) GGREGATE BASE, CL 5 (2211) (INCIDENTAL) ......GRADE PREPARATION (2112) (INCIDENTAL) 6" CONCRETE PAVEMENT NOT TO SCALE -- _/ EXTEND EXISTING STOP - - BAR AND CROSSWALK 180' 120' iGREGATE BASE CL 5 (2211) iADE PREPARATION (2112) (INCIDENTAL) OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PROPOSED AGGREGATE SHOULDER SECTION NOT TO SCALE LEGEND CONCRETE SECTION 120' BITUMINOUS SECTION AGGREGATE SECTION 4" SW TURF ESTABLISHMENT r Id ] r ,pool ORONO HIGH SCHOOL wawkl�ig I* 1 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD T -v v GRADE TO DRAIN & /—RESTORE ALL 30'R DISTURBED AREA 9„ A ONLY R3 -5R 30"X36" .. STALL SIGN //_15:1TAPER 120' 180' — — 4" SW /77 ADE TO DRAIN& RESTORE ALLDISTURBED AREA '~ -� OCULVERT,GRADE OUND FLARED END 'W'1 I'. ADING INCIDENTAL) INSTALL SIDEWALK EDGE -- -- _ - FLUSH WITH BIT EDGE .. . 6' CONCRETE WALK ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL 44 A 4E 0 r 0 50 100 BOLTON 26385HADOW LANE, SUITE 200 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 'EVHEREBY oro DArE CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECr I PERVISION AND THAT I AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER a ws of rHE srATE OE MINNE A. De3DS CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA SHEET 3 HORZ. Phone: 19521448-8838 & M E N K Email: Chaska @bolton-menk com ��� TED 2017 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD TURN LANE ADDITIONS of SCALE FEET ©Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2017, All Rights Reserved www.boton-menk.com BRIAN MONS CONSTRUCTION PLAN 3 H:\ORNO\C13111227\OLDCRVSTAL BAY ROAD TURN LAN E\CAD\111227GOO1. dwg 8/14/20172:55 PM 48 6 IITE 8/14/2017 BIDS AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 15 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: #17-3963, JHG Properties Inc., 4035 Dahl Road, Preliminary Plat, Variances, Conservation Design Waiver Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Planning Department Planner Section: Report 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a variance and a preliminary plat for a subdivision resulting in one nonconforming lot. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on July 19; and was considered as complete on July 31, 2017. Therefore, the 60 -Day review period expires on September 29, 2017. Background. The subject property is a 1.83 acre lot within the LR -113 zoning district. The application is requesting a variance from the minimum lot area standards in order to create an additional buildable lot. The LR -1B one family lakeshore residential zoning district requires one contiguous dry/upland acre for each buildable lot created. Once the right-of-way dedication and wetland areas are removed, this development would create one conforming 1.0 acre lot, and one 0.67 acre lot. The applicant also requests the City Council consider waiving the requirement for a Conservation Design Master Plan, see Exhibit C. The staff report to the Planning Commission, attached as Exhibit E, provides additional background information. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On August 21, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of a motion to deny the variance. Public Comment. No additional comments from the public were received regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the variance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to prepare a resolution either approving the variance request or denying it. Direction to deny should include reasons. Exhibits Exhibit A. Proposed Plans Exhibit B. Applicant Letter dated 09/05/17 Exhibit C. Conservation Design Master Plan — Request for Waiver Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. PC Staff Report Prepared By: MOO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: JIV AGENDA ITEM References PC Exhibits 08/21/17 Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Proposed Landscape Plan Exhibit E. CMP Map 3B-6 Exhibit F. Request for Waiver Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Subdivision Fees (2017) Exhibit I. Wetland Delineation & NOA Exhibit J. Owners List & Plat Map Prepared By: MOO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: �� SANITARY MANHOLE 6-6 RIM=985.1 INV=969.4 PER CITY PLANS O \ 210.9', ' 9', PVC EXISTING SANITARY SEWER \ \� EDGE OF BLACKTOP ROAD- --------- -� /M \ 43.87 BLACKTOP ROAD M 1 0 M4 W-11 I 1 03 1 lie Al ZYd:J WAIN ff� n T 'I L 13 11111111:4 R I i i I I L I— A � I - 1111 v n iii a 17�_Vl 9� �L11111111 .... I .... 11�11111 I mr9a I IN! Nh&L JHG PROPERTIES, LLC IN THE SE 1/4, NE 1/4, SEC. 7-1 17-23 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SANITARY MANHOLE 5-5 RIM=987.8 INV=975.8 E INV=970.1 W PER CITY PLANS / DAHL 88°27'14" E 56.11 / 230'9" PVC EXISTING RY SEWER ROAD SANITARY MANHOLE 5-6 RIM=997.2 INV=976.5 PER CITY PLANS —EXI TING 4_DIP FORc EMAINCN o / _ �}9-A- -- MH 482 / Qc / \ / �T / STUB EINV=976. \ \ I � / / �c �� N 1 N V=976.58 Qc� 2 \ / / L O o, FROM CITY PLANS o \ — — — — — I / / / O�'�� // I to J0, 10 % 24.5 f 3 \ / WESTPARCEL o �ZGn\1+/- AC EXCLUDING ROAD/ J N A � \ 1.00+/- AC ALSO EXCLU CNG WETLAND �°/� / 10.0 � \ O EXISTINGm � Q I r_ d D N G ZN U \ I N 'HOUSE 130 C) \ / / #4035 W o V.5 \ - \ - - l EA T PAR E L 2 \ BUILD SETBACK /LINE //� 0.67+/- AC / 17-203 -_ - - _� 4i--� - f FCONCRETE 0�I/ / /�I 4.14 I 7.39 \ 270+/- ^ ,V LINE PARALLEL WITH NORTH LINE OF SE 1/4, -- NE 1/4, SEC 7-117-23 195+/- j LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES SURVEYED: That part of Section 7, Township 117, Range 23, described as follows; Commencing on the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of said Section at a point distant 275 feet West from the Northeast corner thereof; thence South 150 feet; thence West paral- lel with the North line of said section to the center line of the road; thence Northwesterly along the center line of said road to the North line of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter;' thence East to the beginning. This survey shows the boundaries and topography of the above described property, and the location of an existing house and driveway. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. • Iron marker found Iron marker set Existing contour line J >J Y U 0 J m I� O IM 1 O N 88°27'14" W 275.00 � - �- ---- NORTH LINE OF SE 1/4, � NE 1/4, SEC 7-117-23 - � i �IEAST LINE OF SE,. -..---- NE 1/4, SEC 7-117-23 � I ADDRESS = 4035 DAHL ROAD AREA = 1.83+- ACRES AREA = 0.01+- ACRES IN WETLAND AREA = 1.82+- ACRES DRY ZONING = LR -113 0 30 60 120 tq to LQ ZZLID I " Z � WaZ� Q LLJ Q J V Ood 1z, C2,: me C) R: M J a ZLL TWO WWo� in SCALE IN FEET w r U M m N � 0 u.� w T O O a) a •- -a a� .N c 0 Q`o � =CU CL 0 CL CU E CU co CZ 3 T O N N � U � U � (n L '(f U) �- 04- 0 U J Z Z O W. Y Q W W � Q� o� w M Z W z L Z J � ZW�z O J z O �v� aLIJ w r U M m N � 0 u.� w T O O a) a •- -a a� .N c 0 Q`o � =CU CL 0 CL CU E CU co CZ 3 T O N N � U � U � (n L '(f U) �- 04- 0 U J Z Z O W. Y Q W W � Q� o� w M Z W z L JAMES H. GILBERT LAw GROUP P.L.L.C. I2700 ANDERSON LAKES PARKWAY EDEN PRAIRIE, MINNESOTA 55344-7652 TELEPHONE (952) 767-0167 FACSIMILE (952) 767-0171 WWW.JGILBERTLAWGROUP. COM asienkowski@lawgilbert.com September 5, 2017 VIA EMAIL City of Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 4035 Dahl Road Variance and Lot Subdivision Dear Mayor Dennis Walsh and City Council Members Richard Crosby II, Wendy Dankey, Aaron H. Printup, and Victoria Seals: JHG Properties is seeking to revitalize the rundown property at 4035 Dahl Road (the "Property") by creating two lots that will use the Property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The proposed subdivision will not alter the essential character of the locality and will vastly improve the appearance, livability, property values, and overall long term health of the neighborhood. The applicant lives in the neighborhood wherein the Property is located and is trying to do what is best for the Property and all those that live around it. Contrary to conclusions by the City Staff, it must first be noted that pursuant to Minnesota statutes, economics can be a reason for granting a variance. The only limitation is that a variance cannot be granted based on "economic considerations alone." Prior to its purchase by JHG Properties, the Property contained a home in disrepair and an empty, football - sized field on the corner of Dahl Road and North Arm Drive that was rarely maintained and often times contained debris. The 1.83 acre lot size was established before Orono's one acre requirement and this unique lot size was not created by the landowner. The proposed use will turn a rundown corner into something that will be aesthetically appealing and beneficial to property values in the area. This variance is supported by citizens of this City, some who attended the Planning Commission meeting in support, and will have a positive impact on the community in which the applicant lives. Further making this lot subdivision unique is that building a second home will have minimal environmental impact. The area where the second home will go, on the west portion of the Property, is a very large grass field, and building a new home will require minimal disruption of any trees or vegetation. There is no other lot in the neighborhood that could be subdivided Letter to City Council September 5, 2017 Page 2 of 3 with such minimal impact on trees, vegetation and wildlife, while still meeting all other setback and hardcover requirements. The dilapidated home has already been removed. The City Staff made numerous findings that are without basis in fact, contrary to law and contrary to decisions made by this Council in the past. The City Staff found that this variance is not consistent with the comprehensive plan, but the Resolution of the Council approving the Birkland variance (File No. 17-3912) found, "Single family lots with a residential use is consistent with the comprehensive plan." These proposed single family lots for residential use are also consistent with the comprehensive plan. The City Staff also erroneously found that this variance will alter the essential character of the locality, but the law in Minnesota does not allow such a conclusion. The Minnesota Supreme Court held, "We have noted that unlike use variances, area variances `do not change the character of the zoned district."' In re Stadsvold, 754 N.W.2d 323, 329 (Minn. 2008). This area variance as a matter of law does not change the character of this district. The City Staff also distorted the number of lots in the neighborhood that are under one acre by arbitrarily excluding smaller lots from its analysis (see Staff Recommendation, p. 3, ' 3(c)). The City Staff's analysis ignores, among others, five lots across North Arm Drive that range from 0.51 acres to 0.82 acres, and the two smallest lots on Dahl Road at 0.4 and 0.52 acres. A review of properties in the immediate area shows there are numerous properties under one acre (See Exhibit A). The City Staff refers to preservation of the lake and natural environment and overcrowding on the lake to justify denial of the variance. The Property is approximately 150 yards from the lake, and allowing one more home to be built on the almost 2 -acre Property will have no impact on the lake. In approving the Birkland variance, the Council permitted an additional 1.28 acre lake -shore lot despite there being insufficient width at the ordinary high water level and the 75 -foot setback as required by the Code to support a new lake lot. A variance that creates an additional lake lot where none existed will certainly affect the lake, natural environment and overcrowding more than one slightly substandard lot 150 yards from the lake. There are some factual differences between the Birkland variance and this requested variance, but there are no legal differences in these applications. The only difference seems to be that the Birkland variance was granted for mainly economic reasons, whereas here, the applicant is seeking to improve the neighborhood in which he lives by eliminating a home in disrepair and hopes to prevent the maintenance issues that have plagued this Property for years, while also dealing with the issues outlined in the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form and Supplement. Further, this variance will have no negative impact on the health, safety or traffic conditions. Despite the City Staff's opposition to this request, JHG Properties is seeking to do something entirely reasonable with the Property. Both homes on the proposed parcels will be compliant with all setbacks and hardcover requirements and one lot will conform to area requirements, while the other lot will still be a substantial 0.67 dry, buildable acres. Based on the reasonableness of this request and prior decisions of this Council, we believe a court would find that denial of this variance is arbitrary and capricious. Letter to City Council September S, 2017 Page 3 of 3 JHG Properties respectfully requests that the City Council approve its variance request and lot subdivision and waive the Conservation Plan requirements as set forth in JHG Properties' letter dated July 31, 2017. Sincerely, F Adam L. Sienkowski Cc: Melanie Curtis 160 *Lot size in acres according t0 Hennepin County GIS EN N EPI 0.0 5 0.93 0. 0.94 0.4 f 0099/ 1.83 per updated survey 0,881 i ImS3 0.82 EXHIBIT A x.07 0rono JHG PROPERTIES, LLC 12700 Anderson Lakes Parkway Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7652 July 31, 2017 City of Orono City Council 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 E-mail address: JHGilbert@lawgilbert.com Re: Waiver of Conservation Design Requirements for 4035 Dahl Road Lot Subdivision Dear City Council Let this letter serve as JHG Properties' official request for a waiver from the Conservation Design requirements set forth in Chapter 78, Article XII of the Orono City Code. In light of the size and nature of this subdivision application, we request a waiver of the conservation design plan which appears to be suited for larger sub -division projects involving major earthmoving, new streets, sewer, etc. None of these major disruptive activities will take place on either of the two proposed lots if the variance and subdivision are approved. All necessary roads and sewer are already connected to the property and the proposed driveways will simply be connected to existing Dahl Road and become part of the existing neighborhood. We plan on leaving undisturbed all of the trees and brush growth on the perimeter of the property and the major pine trees that are on the property. Two of the pine trees were damaged in the recent storm and broke off and will be removed when the existing home is removed, along with the scrub trees and bushes that have grown around the home. We requested a quote for a conservation design and the estimate was between $5,000 and $7,000 for this simple lot split. We have already spent considerable sums on the wetland delineation process, and the wetland area will of course always be protected from any development or alteration both now and into the future. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information and thank you for your consideration. Letter to City Council Page 2 Sincerely, HIx G t J mes . Gilbert C . ief anager, JHG Properties, LLC MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. 17-3963 JHG PROPERTIES, LLC, 4035 DAHL ROAD, PRELIMINARY PLAT AND VARIANCE, 6:44 P.M. — 7:16 P.M. James Gilbert, JHG Properties, LLC, was present. Curtis stated this property is located within the LR -113, lakeshore residential district requiring a minimum of one acre and 140 feet in width per lot. The applicants are requesting approval of a lot area variance with a Class III subdivision in order to subdivide the 1.82 acre property into two buildable lots. The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot standards in order to create one additional lot. The development would create one conforming 1 -acre lot and one .67 acre lot. The remaining two- tenths of an acre would be dedicated right-of-way. The property is currently within the Tier 2 hardcover zone limiting hardcover to 30 percent. Proposed Lot 2 would remain in Tier 2. Based on the building footprint location of proposed Lot 1, after analysis it appears that Tier 3 or 35 percent hardcover limitations would likely apply. Curtis noted the Comprehensive Plan provides guidance to the City in adopting ordinances and policies to achieve the goals and vision of the City. Based on the guidance from the Comprehensive Plan, the City adopted zoning regulations establishing minimum lot sizes, including those for the subject parcel. The low to medium density category was not intended to suggest that the City would change the zoning to allow creation of new lots that are substandard. Since 1975 the City has only twice allowed the creation of new lots with substandard area. Both were in 2 -acre zones and both were for what can only be considered political reasons. In every other instances when substandard lots are created they have been created via the PRD process and the City has required the underlying density still be met by the overall creation of open space outlots. The Conservation Master Planning requirements apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi- unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density. The property meets the urban density guidance trigger and a conservation design pan is required. The applicant is requesting a waiver of this requirement. The Planning Commission should provide direction on this issue; however, the City Council will make the final decision. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff provided a practical difficulty analysis within the Staff report. Tonight the applicant should be asked to discuss the practical difficulties supporting their variance request. Staff's analysis found that the applicant failed to satisfy all of the practical difficulties necessary to grant the variance, which is also necessary in order to approve the subdivision. The City has historically not created substandard lots without a rezoning or PRD process. Staff did speak with one neighbor who was not in support of the variance and/or subdivision of the property. This neighbor further stated their concern was the lack of regulation preventing the type of construction the applicant has identified on 940 North Arm Drive. A comment letter from another neighbor was received today and has been distributed to the Planning Commission. Curtis noted the home on 940 North Arm Drive was constructed in accordance with the minimum building code standards. The City does not and may not have a prohibition on any of the different home or construction types which meet the building code. Staff suggests the City Council may want to explore the regulations which govern construction types or minimum construction standards relating to minimum size and/or width of homes. Specifically if the placement of mobile homes on properties within the City is a concern. The Planning Commission should consider one of the following motions: 1. Approval of the lot area variance in order to create a new substandard buildable lot and approval of the Class III subdivision to create a total of two buildable lots where one lot currently exists. If the Planning Commission finds variance approval appropriate, the applicant should be directed regarding the waiver of the conservation design requirements. 2. The alternative motion to be considered by the Planning Commission tonight is denial of the variance; thereby denying the subdivision request. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. James Gilbert, 4030 Dahl Road, stated he is the chief manager of JHG Properties and that he has resided in Orono for over 30 years. Gilbert stated he tries to do what is right and be a positive influence and that he is attempting to be proactive in this situation but that he takes issue with the recommendations of Staff. Gilbert stated he purchased this blighted, rundown property off of the Internet after it was foreclosed upon. Gilbert indicated they found out when they started demolition on it that there were three subbasements. The house was built up from 1926 and onward but not taken care of. The house has been vacant for almost 15 months before purchase and over the years the City has had maintenance issues relating to grass cutting and other problems with the prior owner. Gilbert indicated he bought the property in an as -is condition and that they eventually decided to demo the home. Gilbert noted the owner of 940 North Arm put a trailer home on the property and that all he needs is a building permit to put a trailer home on this property. Gilbert stated it is not his plan to do that but that he does have a concern that it would be allowed in Orono. Gilbert stated they did perform the demolition and it ended up being a lot more work than what was anticipated. Gilbert stated after they filed the application, a letter was distributed to the 18 homes in the neighborhood asking for their input. A written response was received from the McGlynns and the only call received was one from Mr. Wallner on Loma Linda, who expressed two concerns. The first concern related to the size of the home. Gilbert stated he informed him that they do not know how big the house would be but that it would not be any bigger than 3,500 square feet. Gilbert stated he has a footprint about the same size as the current home with a second story being added. The second concern expressed by Mr. Wallner was about an accessory structure that was being proposed that he felt was too close to the property line. Gilbert noted they have removed the existing structure. Gilbert indicated JHG Properties has constructed approximately 10-12 homes in the past as well as the U.S. Bank building in downtown Wayzata. Gilbert displayed a picture of a house in Minnetonka that JHG Properties is constructing right now as well as another home in Minnetonka that they constructed consisting of a 5,000 square footprint. Gilbert stated he does not know the design of this home yet but that it will be a high-quality home. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Gilbert noted this lot is 1.82 acres, which is equivalent to a football field and a half. The proposal is that one of the lots would be fully conforming even without the wetland being taken into consideration. The idea was to have the larger lot near North Arm Drive. Gilbert noted there would be some separation between the two homes because of the slope and that they are also proposing to do some landscaping to create more of a buffer from North Arm Drive. Gilbert noted Section 3C of the report says that less than three of the surrounding lots are one acre or less. Gilbert indicated he went on the Hennepin County website for real estate taxes and that he tried to figure out the size of the lots. Of the 18 lots that are either facing this lot or adjacent to it, nine of the lots are less than one acre and nine of the lots consist of one acre. Gilbert stated in his view creating the two lots would be in conformity with the neighborhood and that everything that will be built will be in compliance with the requirements of the City. The only variance being requested is the lot area variance for the smaller lot. Gilbert stated the other issue he has with Staff's report is that there is a finding that the variance alters the character of the neighborhood, which in his view is an erroneous conclusion. The Minnesota Supreme Court held in 2008 as well as in the mid-1970s that unlike use variances, area variances do not alter the character of the zoning district. Gilbert stated what they are doing here is not altering the use but rather asking for a variance to the size of the lot. Gilbert stated as a matter of law the neighborhood will not be altered. In addition, the City Council just approved another variance. In the Bjerkland variance, the City Council found that single-family use is consistent with Orono's Comprehensive Plan. Single-family use for both of these properties is consistent and in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. Gilbert noted state law controls the ultimate issue here as it relates to practical difficulties. The statute contains three elements,. The first provision states the use of the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by zoning ordinance. Gilbert stated in his view the proposed use of the property is reasonable and that it will improve the neighborhood. It will also create a sense of community. The second element of the statute says if granted, the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Gilbert stated their proposal will not alter the character of the locality since it is not a change in the use. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. The third element states there are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Gilbert indicated they purchased the property to preserve and improve the neighborhood and that they would not have purchased the home if they had known there would be a trailer home on the lot right around the corner. Gilbert stated this is a long, narrow lot which has created problems with the City over the years in terms of maintenance of the property. Gilbert noted he has hired a grass cutter to mow the grass. Gilbert stated in his view their request is in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan and that they are in full compliance with all of the other regulations. Gilbert requested the Planning Commission approve the request and grant the variance. Leskinen asked if there is a reason why they would not just build a house on the existing lot. Leskinen stated she is struggling with the practical difficulty since they can make use of the full lot without subdividing it. Gilbert stated it would require a house over a $1 million and that in his view the neighborhood would not support that since it does not have lakeshore. Gilbert noted the property is approximately 200 yards from the lake. In the Bjerkland proposal, that was a lot line change and the City Council approved that because it would create another lot on the lake and create a view for the second lot. Gilbert noted they are not asking for that and that state law requires that Lake Minnetonka be a public domain for all the public and not just for Orono. Gilbert stated in his opinion their findings are almost identical with Bjerkland's findings. Curtis stated Mr. Bjerkland had two lots, one lakeshore and one non-lakeshore. In that situation, the City Council approved a lot line adjustment to create two lakeshore lots out of those two building sites. Thiesse stated to his recollection the City required the lots be conforming. Lemke noted they were also two existing lots. Gilbert commented they created a new lakeshore lot. Gilbert noted the findings state the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment and is a substantial property right of the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. applicant. The Planning Commission voted against that and the City Council reversed that. In addition, the granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort or morals in any respect and would be contrary to the intent of this Chapter. Gilbert stated they meet that requirement as well. The third finding was that the size, shape and orientation of the properties raise practical difficulties. Gilbert stated he believes his situation is no different when considering the rationale in the Bjerkland application. Thiesse pointed out Bjerkland had two lots to begin with and ended up with two conforming lots, and in this case there is only one lot and he will end up with one conforming and one nonconforming lot. Lemke asked if there is city sewer available. Curtis stated there is. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:09 p.m. Schoenzeit asked if the Metropolitan Council has approved a second connection. Curtis stated they have not. Leskinen stated historically the City does not create nonconforming lots and that she does not see a compelling reason to change that in this case. Leskinen stated the applicant has reasonable use of the one lot and that it does not meet that section of the practical difficulties since reasonable use can be made without subdividing. Landgraver indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Leskinen. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke stated it does not parallel the other decision since there were two lots initially and both ended up being conforming. Schoenzeit stated in his view the standard of practical difficulty has not been met and that there is one lot so there should be one house. Olson stated his biggest concern is that it will set a precedent. Schwingler stated in his mind it is pretty straight forward and that it would be creating a nonconforming lot. Landgraver stated it should be acknowledged that the applicant is taking a less than desirable property and improving it, which should be encouraged, but that this Planning Commission has never approved a nonconforming lot. Thiesse stated he would agree with that Jackie Neve, 4060 Dahl Road, stated she has lived on Dahl Road for 40 years and that she lives across from this property. Neve stated her biggest fear is that because it is 1.8 acres and if the Gilberts decide that it is not economically feasible to build a big enough house, that the neighborhood would end up with a mobile home on there when they sell the lot. Neve noted there are lots in the area that consist of .4 and .5 acres and that it was that way when she moved in 40 years ago. Neve stated the idea of having the smaller lot on the hill closer to those smaller lots would not detrimentally impact the neighborhood and that she is okay with what they are proposing and that it would be preferable to it being left vacant or having a mobile home on it. Thiesse commented he understands what she is saying and that the Council could decide to approve the request. Lemke moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3963, JHG Properties, LLC, 4035 Dahl Road, Preliminary Plat and Variance. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 07/19/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/31/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 09/29/17 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner WGG Date: 21 August 2017 Subject: #17-3963, JHG Properties, LLC, 4035 Dahl Road, Class III Subdivision / Preliminary Plat with a Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a lot area variance with a Class III subdivision in order to subdivide the 1.82 acre property into two buildable lots. The LR -113 zoning district requires a minimum of 1.0 acres in area and 140 -feet in width per buildable lot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance. Background The applicant lives in the neighborhood and purchased the property in order to remove an existing vacant home which is in disrepair and redevelop the property. The property is 1.82 acres in area and is situated on the corner of North Arm Drive and Dahl Road. See the applicant's Project Narrative attached as part of Exhibit A for their reasons for purchasing the property and the basis for their request. They have identified the manufactured/mobile home on property at 940 North Arm Drive as one of their reasons for purchasing the property and the need to split it. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 — LR -1B Setbacks: Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Side Yard 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Existing 79,714 s.f. (1.83 acre) 158' on North Arm Dr Proposed Lot 1 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) excluding road dedication & wetland Side Yard Lot Lot Front Adjacent Rear Adjacent Area Width Yard to Another Yard (acre) (feet) (feet) Lot (feet) to Street (feet) (feet) 1 1 140 1 35 10 20 30 Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Existing 79,714 s.f. (1.83 acre) 158' on North Arm Dr Proposed Lot 1 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acre) excluding road dedication & wetland 158' Proposed Lot 2 29,185 s.f. (0.65 acre) variance needed 195' Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: The property is currently in Tier 2, Lot 2 will remain in Tier 2 (30%). Based on the building footprint FILE # 17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 2 of 5 location of Lot 1, the Tier 3 (35%) hardcover limitations will likely apply. Applicable Regulations: Lot Area Variance (Section 78-330) The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum lot area standards in order to create an additional buildable lot. The LR -113 one family lakeshore residential zoning district requires one contiguous dry/upland acre for each buildable lot created. This development would create one conforming 1.0 acre lot, and one 0.67 acre lot. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Guidi The property is within the LR -113 one family lakeshore residential district which requires a minimum size of one acre and 140 feet in width per lot. There are lots in this district which are substandard in size although many meet or exceed the 1.0 acre requirement. According to the Comprehensive Plan (CMP) Map 36-13, attached as Exhibit E, the Low -Medium Density category includes virtually all single- family properties in the 1/2 -acre and 1 -acre zones (LR -1C and LR -113). The "Low -Medium Density" category was incorporated into the CMP for two reasons: 1) to reflect that a majority of the Low - Medium Density area was historically subdivided into smaller lots than the zoning minimums, in a majority of cases many decades before the current zoning came into effect in 1975; and 2) to satisfy the Met Council's demand that Orono establish density categories rather than merely zoning districts (but then they only credit us with the lowest density in the range when determining whether we meet their density goals). The CMP provides guidance to the city in adopting ordinances and policies to achieve the goals and vision of the City. Based on the guidance of the CMP, the city adopted zoning regulations establishing minimum lot sizes, including for the subject parcel. The "Low -Medium Density" category was not intended to suggest that City would change the zoning to allow creation of new lots that are substandard based on their respective existing zoning. Only twice since 1975 has the City allowed the creation of new lots with substandard lot area; both in the 2 -acre zones and both for what can only be considered political reasons - elimination of the Stubbs Bay Marina in 1980 which allowed creation of three small lakeshore lots as a concession to the marina owner; and creation of one 1 - acre lot at the east end of Fox Street (1985-ish) in relation to expediting the Minnetonka Bluffs sewer project. In every other instance where we have developed lots smaller than the zoning, they have either been via a rezoning or via the PRD process. Via PRD we have always required that the underlying density still be met overall by the creation of open space outlots. Conservation Design (Section 78-1632) According to the Code, the Conservation Design Master Planning requirements apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi -unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density (greater than one unit per two acres). The property meets the urban density guidance trigger, therefore a conservation design plan is required. The applicant has requested a waiver of this requirement (see Exhibit F). 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 FILE # 17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 3 of 5 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. The intent for the acreage minimums set forth in the ordinance for each district is to maintain and control density to the desired levels. This project creates a lot which is nonconforming with respect to area and is not in harmony with the ordinance. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The CMP's primary goal has been, and continues to be, the preservation of the lake and natural environment. The Comprehensive Plan finds that high density in the Shoreland serves to harm the lake water quality. The minimum lot sizes are intended to address overcrowding of the lake, thus preservation of the lake quality, and the City's flexible side yard setback regulations are intended to preserve a property owners right to improve their own property. The addition of a second lot is inconsistent with the preservation goals of the CMP. 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 official controls require a minimum acreage and width for each newly created building lot. This development does not meet the minimum standards for acreage. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the existing property was not created by the landowner however it is not unique. There are many properties which exceed the minimum acreage requirement yet are not twice the minimum thus supporting a subdivision to create a new building lot as required by the Code. The purchase price of the property was created by landowner. This criterion is not met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is primarily made up of 1.0 acre and greater lots. There are three properties less than one acre but the majority are conforming with respect to area. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood. This criterion is not met. 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 been identified as a primary factor in the variance request by the applicant. In the applicant's statement (their Practical Difficulties exhibit), they indicated that the property was purchased "at a premium at public auction" and identified this as "a factor" in their practical difficulty determination. The purchase price of the property is not a valid practical difficulty. This criterion is not met. 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. This condition is not applicable. FILE # 17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 4 of 5 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. This condition is not applicable, as a residential use is an allowed use in the LR -1B District. 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 property contains more land than the minimum LR -1B acreage requirement. This is not a practical difficulty. This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property contains more land than the minimum LR -1B acreage requirement. This is not unique in the district nor is it a practical difficulty. This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting a variance from the minimum lot area requirement of the LR -1B district to create a new buildable lot is contrary to the goals of the ordinance and is not necessary to protect the property rights of the owner. The property can be developed with a single family home. This criterion is not met. 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. Granting the requested variance to create a substandard building site in the neighborhood impairs the comfort of the immediate neighborhood and is contrary to the chapter. This criterion is not met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance serves solely as a convenience to the applicant. This criterion is not met. 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. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided a Practical Difficulties analysis attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Staff finds that that applicant fails to satisfy all of the practical difficulties necessary to grant a variance, which is necessary to approve a subdivision to create a new, substandard buildable lot in the LR -1B zone. As detailed above, the City has historically not created substandard lots without a rezoning or a PRD process. Public Comments Staff spoke with one neighbor, who asked not to be identified, who was not in support of the variance and/or subdivision of the property. This neighbor further stated their concern with the fact that the City did not have regulations in place which prevent/prohibit the type of construction which was done on 940 North Arm Drive. FILE # 17-3963 21 Aug 2017 Page 5 of 5 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(s), 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? Planning Commission Action Requested The home on 940 North Arm Drive was constructed in accordance with the minimum Building Code standards. The City does not (and may not) have a prohibition on any of the different home or construction types which meet the Building Code. Staff suggests that the City Council may want to explore the regulations which govern construction types or minimum construction standards (size, width) specifically if the placement of mobile homes on properties within the City is a concern. The Planning Commission should consider the following: 1. Approval of the lot area variance in order to create a new substandard (0.67 acre) buildable lot; and approval of the Class III subdivision to create a total of two buildable lots where one lot currently exists (including one new substandard lot). If the Planning Commission finds variance approval appropriate, the applicant should be directed regarding the waiver of the conservation design requirements. INN 2. Denial of the variance; thereby a denial of the subdivision request as well. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing Exhibit D. Proposed Landscape Plan —Concept Exhibit E. CMP Map 313-6 Exhibit F. Request for Waiver of Conservation Design Requirements Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Subdivision Fees (2017) Exhibit I. Wetland Delineation & MCWD NOA Exhibit J. Property Owners List & Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 16 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: #17-3962, Lake West Development, LLC o/b/o Rick & Barbara Lupient, PIDs 20-117-23-42-0001/0002/0003 (Lots 1, 2 & 3 Casco Point Addition) "Ivy Place", Preliminary Plat Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a preliminary plat request that would replat an existing 3 lot parcel into 2 buildable lots and one outlot for access. 2. 15.99 Deadline. The application was deemed complete on July 19, 2017 and a decision must be made by November 16, 2017. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of a proposed two -lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The property consists of 3 existing tax parcels, which the applicants propose to reconfigure to result in two residential building lots, each exceeding the 1/2 -acre minimum lot size of the LR - 1 C district. The lots meet requirements to size, area, provide adequate building areas within setbacks including average lake shore and lake yard on three sides. A conservation design study has been completed. Ancillary actions are necessary to support this proposed development including, vacating a utility easement that does not correspond with the actual location of the pipe, variance from the wetland setback in the SW corner of the site to allow the extension of the access drive, issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to allow filling to elevate the houses above the flood elevation, vacation of a driveway easement that terminates in a cul de sac that will not be utilized and clouds the title. It is expected that these actions and Fire, Engineering, and Watershed District comments be addressed prior to Final Plat approval. The attached staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D) provides greater detail on the proposal. 4. Planning Commission vote and comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on August 21, 2017. The Commission recommended approval 7-0. The Commission requested additional information regarding the amount of fill, (they anticipated 1,300 cy of fill being brought to the site) and wanted to verify the condition of Ivy Place prior to construction. 5. Public Comment. At the public hearing, there was substantial comment received, generally in opposition to the development due to potential negative impacts of the development. Concerns include additional stormwater entering the lake from Ivy Place and impacting adjacent parcels, the location of the driveway being too close to the lake, lack of turn around for the traffic within the existing right of way for Ivy Place, safety of traffic on Ivy Place due to its narrow width, and wetland impacts. Written public comment has been received regarding the view easement, attached is attached as Exhibit E. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: _Sb AGENDA ITEM There has also been written correspondence between the applicant and the attorney representing the owners (Jay and Tera White) of 3560 Ivy Place regarding access and encroachments. The back and forth between the two parties is attached as Exhibit F. The City is not in the position to determine the lawfulness of the access, as the applicant has represented they have legal access. To the extent that the access is modified through court order or other means, the plat would be voided. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject to several conditions, listed below and in the draft resolution. 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. Regardless of timing of construction on lots 1 or 2, the Average Lake Shore Setback shall be 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water line on all sides. 3. The property line between lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring 15 feet setback (150% of 10 feet side yard setback for LR -1C). 4. All comments of MCWD, outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017. 5. Declaration and documentation of wetland buffer as required by MCWD. 6. All comments of the city engineer, outlined in a memo dated August 14, 2017 shall be addressed. 7. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed, including the principal structures within the Plat shall include fire suppression systems subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. 8. Ivy Place shall be inspected and its condition noted prior to construction. All damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the city prior to release of financial security. 9. Additional approvals a. Variance from the wetland setback b. Variance of wetland buffer impact (Watershed District) c. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain d. Successful vacation of the existing Driveway easement (Doc. 1023891) e. Successful realignment of a underground utility easement (Document Nos. 855727 and 862192) 10. The applicant had represented they have legal access. To the extent that the access rights are modified through court order or other means, the plat would be voided. 11. The following estimated fees are due at the time of final plat unless otherwise noted Stormwater and Drainage Trunk: The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) on a per -lot basis at the rate of $3,025 per lot for this half -acre zoning district ($6,050 total) per the 2017 Fee Schedule. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: _1 AGENDA ITEM Water and Sewer: The property was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1965, only the Metropolitan Council SAC charge which is currently $2,485 per dwelling unit. City water was installed in 1970 and the property was assessed for one unit; if more than one home is built, a water connection charge of $4,240 for the second unit would be due at the time a building permit is issued. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council may adopt or modify the resolution as drafted, may table action pending additional information to be requested of staff or the applicant, or direct staff to draft a resolution denying the project. If denial is suggested, reasons must be provided. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report Exhibit E. Public comment related to view Exhibit F. Applicant and neighbor correspondence References A. Planning Commission Exhibits: Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Specifications Exhibit D. Conservation Design Report Exhibit E. Wetland NOD (signed) Exhibit F. City Council minutes May 8, 2017 Exhibit G. Map and Property Owners List Exhibit K City Engineer Memo dated August 14, 2017 Exhibit I. Watershed District Comments dated August 10, 2017 Exhibit J. Comments from resident RE access Exhibit K. Comment from resident RE view easement Exhibit L. Applicant access response Exhibit M. 82-256 Front Lot/ Back Lot Exhibit N. Setback designation exhibit Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -Sb CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLATFOR IVY PLACE FILE NO. 17-3962 WHEREAS, on September 11, 2011, Lake West Development on behalf of Rick (Barbara) Lupient ("Applicant[s]"), applied for a preliminary plat for the property legally described as: Lots 1, 2, and 3, Block 1, Casco Point Addition (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, on August 21, 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 August 21, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 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 preliminary plat as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: This application was reviewed as Zoning File #17-3962. 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 LR -1 C Zoning District. 3. The property is guided for Low -Medium Density Residential in the 2030 Community Management Plan. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 4. The Property contains 2.16 acres in area and has a defined lot width of over 200 feet. 5. The property will be served by municipal water and sanitary sewer. 6. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 7. The 3 parcels will be subdivided into 2 buildable lots and 1 outlot. The oudot will be used for access, consistent with the requirements of Section 82-256 regarding front/back lot divisions. The two buildable lots will conform to the requirements of the zoning district related to lot area and width, and both lots provide adequate building sites within the required front, side, rear, lake yard, and average lake yard setbacks. 8. The Developer has prepared grading plans to manage stormwater on site without negatively impacted adjacent parcels 9. Access to the property is via the northern extension of Ivy Place, a public road, and via a private easement through 3560 Ivy Place, a private occupied residence. 10. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed subdivision 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. 11. The Parks, Trails and Open Space element of the Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) has no current plans for parks that specifically require dedication of park land from this property. The City will confirm the park dedication required at the time of final plat. 12. The developer has submitted a Conservation Design Report and Master Plan prepared by Anderson Engineering dated July 17, 2017 that inventories and describes in detail the environmental features of the site, defining what natural values of the site should be preserved or enhanced and how that should occur. In general, the site is a point into Lake Minnetonka, and a number of low quality volunteer trees have emerged. The site is very flat, and not much higher than Lake Minnetonka, requiring special care in building construction. A preliminary landscape plan has been developed to introduce high quality planting to the site. 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 13. The site is surrounded by a lineal wetland adjacent to the waterfront. A small wetland (approximately 168 sq ft) also exists inland. The inland wetland is proposed to be mitigated with the approval of the Watershed District, and the lineal one is proposed to remain, though minor encroachment of the wetland buffer is proposed, subsequent to Watershed District approval for access. 14. A number of easements impact the property, including a. Utility Easement, Document Nos. 855727 and 862192. This is the sanitary sewer easement granted to the City when the sewer lines serving this area were installed in 1966. The easement as described does not appear to match the actual location of the sewer lines. Applicants indicate these easements will be vacated and new ones over the actual pipe location will be granted. b. Drainage and Shore Stabilization Easement, Document No.T5010662. This is an easement granted to the City in 2012 to allow the restoration of shoreline over the existing sewer lines where the shore had eroded over time. This easement will remain in place. c. Private Driveway Easement, Document No. 1023891. This easement was created in 1972 as part of the platting of the three lots to provide access to all three. The easement includes a private cul-de-sac. The easement will be vacated. d. Perpetual Roadway Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 922012. This is an easement granted in 1968 over the adjacent lot owned by the White's at 3560 Ivy Place. This easement will remain in place. e. Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 855726. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City over 3560 Ivy Place in August 1966. Unknown at this time whether this easement remains in effect given the easement granted in 862191. £ Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 862191. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City in October 1966, believed to be a replacement or correction of the easement granted in August 1966. g. View Easement, Document No. 1160211. In addition to the defined easements within or adjacent to the property, there is a view easement of record in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, which limits the number, location and height of the homes allowed within Lots 1-2-3 (no more than two homes total; no home may extend northwest of a line 25' NW of the line between Lots 2 & 3; dwelling closest to the NW end of the three lots cannot be more than one story in height). h. Possible Sewer Connection Encroachment. The City has been advised that the existing sewer connection for the residence at 3560 Ivy Place crosses the 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL applicants' property. This needs to be confirmed and if it exists, the encroachment should be eliminated (relocate sewer connection) or applicants must grant an easement for the encroachment. i. Deck and Driveway Encroachments. The survey work provided indicates that a sliver of the deck for the house at 3560 Ivy Place may encroach into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include a lot line rearrangement or possibly an easement. Also, a portion of the driveway serving 3560 Ivy encroaches into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include lot line rearrangement, easement, or removal of encroachment. Applicants' proposed driveway parallels this encroachment. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants preliminary plat approval to allow the replatting of the 3 lots into 2 buildable parcels and one outlot, as depicted on the plans dated July 19, 2017 prepared by Civil Site Group, attached as Exhibit A, subject to the following conditions: 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. Regardless of timing of construction on lots 1 or 2, the Average Lake Shore Setback shall be 75 feet from the Ordinary High Water line on all sides. 3. The property line between lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring 15 feet setback (150% of 10 feet side yard setback for LR -1C). 4. All comments of MCWD, outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017. 5. Declaration and documentation of wetland buffer as required by MCWD. 6. All comments of the city engineer, outlined in a memo dated August 14, 2017 shall be addressed. 7. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed, including the principal structures within the Plat shall include fire suppression systems subject to the approval of the Fire Chief. 8. Ivy Place shall be inspected and its condition noted prior to construction. All damage shall be repaired to the satisfaction of the city prior to release of financial security. 4 9. Additional approvals a. Variance from the wetland setback CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL b. Variance of wetland buffer impact (Watershed District) c. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain d. Successful vacation of the existing Driveway easement (Doc. 1023891) e. Successful realignment of a underground utility easement (Document Nos. 855727 and 862192) 10. The applicant had represented they have legal access. To the extend that the access rights are modified through court order or other means, the plat would be voided. 11. The following estimated fees are due at the time of final plat unless otherwise noted Stormwater and Drainage Trunk: The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) on a per -lot basis at the rate of $3,025 per lot for this half -acre zoning district ($6,050 total) per the 2017 Fee Schedule. Water and Sewer: The property was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1965, only the Metropolitan Council SAC charge which is currently $2,485 per dwelling unit. City water was installed in 1970 and the property was assessed for one unit; if more than one home is built, a water connection charge of $4,240 for the second unit would be due at the time a building permit is issued. 12. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 13. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 14. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by filing a final Plat application within one year of the date of Council approval, or the preliminary plat will expire on that date (September 11, 2018). 15. 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. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 11th day of September, 2017. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor ORONO, MINNESOTA ISSUED FOR0 : PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW J Lyrrc.Ave . - Spring Park G1 Sl7"JFe 7fB ❑f R #I' S r_ I.akewonds'Aacht Spon Condos ea 4• Q Manchester Rd 3 cumbedandRd r - 3 Donalp� Fla :pion Rd D v4 m stn x a b• t-' P Tuxedo 91 sd Gorse Island '6edo Blvd Aberdeen Rd tea" Hanover Rd JP Island Vlev417a Spray lslarrd SITE LOCATION MAP N SITE LOCATION DEVELOPER / PROPERTY OWNER: MASTER LEGEND: C0.0 TITLE SHEET LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC -- 1125-- EX. V CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL PRELIMINARY PLAT 14525 HIGHWAY 7, SUITE 265 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 X 1 137.12 EXISTING SPOT GRADE ELEVATION ,%- r 952-653-1359 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ROADWAY EASE C2.3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - UNDGRND UTIL EASE C3.0 H C3.1 41.26 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINE PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - WETLAND ALTERATION C4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) PRELIMINARY DETAILS ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN L1.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SW1.0 891.00 G SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB (GUTTER TOP) PRELIMINARY SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONS CIVIL SITE GROUP PRELIMINARY SWPPP - DETAILS SW1.3 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - NARRATIVE 4931 W 35TH STREET 891.00 TC SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF WALL PRELIMINARY SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS SUITE 200 891.00 BS/TS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF WALL ST LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 612-615-0060 DRAINAGE ARROW %i SURVEYOR: EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=1135.52 REHDER AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ■mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm■ SILT FENCE/BIOROLL- GRADING LIMIT 3440 FEDERAL DRIVE, SUITE 110 EAGAN, MN 55122 0 �� 0 INLET PROTECTION 651-452-5051 % E ■ O GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER: K��= STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 6160 CARMEN AVE EB -1 SOIL BORING LOCATION INVER GROVE HEIGHTS, MN 55076 763-433-9175 CURB AND GUTTER (T.0 = TIP OUT) EXISTING MANHOLE EXISTING CATCH BASIN EXISTING HYDRANT PROPOSED MANHOLE STORM PROPOSED CATCH BASIN OR CATCH BASIN MANHOLE STORM PROPOSED GATE VALVE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT PROPOSED MANHOLE SANITARY PROPOSED SIGN PROPOSED LIGHT PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED WATER MAIN EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING WATER MAIN EXISTING GAS MAIN EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING UNDERGROUND CABLE EXISTING STOPBOX H EXISTING GATE VALVE T EXISTING ELECTRIC BOX EXISTING LIGHT EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING GAS VALVE iPHER STATE ONE CALL VWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL Council Exhibit B 17-3962 SHEET INDEX SHEET NUMBER SHEET TITLE C0.0 TITLE SHEET CO.1 SITE SURVEY C0.2 PRELIMINARY PLAT C1.0 PRELIMINARY REMOVALS C2.0 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C2.1 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - DRNG & SHORE STBL EASE C2.2 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ROADWAY EASE C2.3 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - UNDGRND UTIL EASE C3.0 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C3.1 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION C3.2 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - WETLAND ALTERATION C4.0 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN C5.0 PRELIMINARY DETAILS C6.0 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN L1.0 PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN SW1.0 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONS SW1.1 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - PROPOSED CONDITIONS SW1.2 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - DETAILS SW1.3 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - NARRATIVE SW1.4 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS SW1.5 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS (CR07HO sqo�e (75:1 m O M [�D 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC 07 00 LO z O 0V O LUU L.L C) O Q0 m u J J � J LO .. z z Y Lu z 0 a W z O Z J 2 WLo cN N LLI Lu vJ C W a r_rnn V W = L0 QN d' J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 TITLE SHEET Como COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. ztf -r-__929.4 con our _9 Found Spike --- ----.--j Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION - l 6 MH OF SPRING PARK LOTS �l ^� y \/ w .o°a 1 cs Most southerlycorner � q 185, TAYLOR'S,SUBDIVISION O ^ OF SPRING PARK LOTS 1 4� 1 � 1 PAF 2 4 T� / r1 4 Tree Inventory Survey for: WEST DEVELOPMENT r0�1_ LEGEND • Iron Monument Found —S—Sanitary Sewer —w— Watermain Hyd.-6 Hydrant GV • Gate Valve MHO Manhole Coo Cleanout Inv. Invert Elevation PP -C} Power Pole =Concrete Surface O Bituminous Surface Boulder Wall —G—Buried Gas a 3a 90 cafe in e REVISION SUMMARY SITE SURVEY --- 40'-0" 11 1 401-01f coo NOTES * Bearings shown are based on the Hennepin County Coordinate System. * Contact Gopher State 1 for utility locations before any construction shall begin. Phone 651-454-0002. * Areas: Total = 94,080± square feet (2.161 acres). Lot 1 = 33,170± square feet (0.76± acre). Lot 2 = 29,960± square feet (0.69± acre). Lot 3 = 30,950± square feet (0.71± acre). PROPERTY DESCRIPT10N Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Casco Point Addition. Tag # DBH Species 961 7" Boxelder 1005 a Boxelder 962 9" Boxelder 1006 6" Boxelder 919 8" Boxefder 963 10" Boxelder 1007 8"118" Boxelder 920 6" Boxelder 964 6" Boxelder 1008 6"/8" Boxelder 921 8' Boxelder 965 7" Boxelder 1009 6" Boxelder 922 7" Boxefder 966 9" Boxelder 1010 3-9" Boxelder 923 8" Boxefder 967 2-8"Boxelder 1011 9" Boxelder 924 7" Boxefder 968 2-8'Boxelder 1012 9'/10" Boxelder 925 6" Boxeider 969 7" Elm 1013 5" Boxelder 926 9" Boxefder 970 6"/8"Boxelder 1014 8" Boxelder 927 10" Boxelder 971 6" Boxelder 1015 8" Boxelder 928 8" Boxelder 972 7' Boxelder 1016 9" Boxelder 929 7" Boxefder 973 6"18" Boxelder 1017 6" Boxelder 930 7" Boxefder 974 6"/7" Boxelder 1018 7" Boxelder 931 11" Boxelder 975 i Boxelder 1019 12" Boxelder 932 14" Boxelder 976 6" Elm 1020 7" Boxelder 933 9 ' Boxefder 977 10' Boxelder 1021 6" Boxelder 934 10' Boxelder 978 8" Boxelder 1022 7" Boxelder 935 10" Baxelder 979 6"18" Boxelder 1023 9" Boxelder 936 10" Boxelder 980 6"18" Elm 1024 7" Boxelder 937 21" Boxelder 981 6" Boxelder 1025 22" Boxelder 938 19" Boxelder 982 6' Boxelder 1026 9" Boxelder 939 19" Boxelder 983 7" Boxelder 1027 7'18" Boxelder 940 15" Boxelder 984 6" Boxelder 1028 7"18" Boxelder 941 8' Boxefder 985 11"/11" Boxelder 1029 3-9" Boxelder 942 18' Boxelder 986 6" Boxelder 1030 6"18' Boxelder 943 18" Boxelder 987 6"17" Boxelder 1031 6" Boxelder 944 16" Boxelder 988 7'/8" Boxelder 1032 6" Elm 945 12" Boxelder 989 8" Boxelder 1033 9" Elm 946 9" Boxefder 990 12" Boxelder 1034 10" Basswood 947 11" Boxelder 991 10' Boxelder 1035 11" Boxelder 948 15' Boxelder 992 8" Boxelder 1036 11" Elm 949 16' Boxelder 993 16" Boxelder 1037 10" Elm 950 11" Boxelder 994 7" Boxelder 1038 9" Boxelder 951 16" Boxelder 995 10' Boxelder 1039 a Boxelder 952 12" Boxelder 996 10" Boxefder 1040 r Boxelder 953 15" Boxelder 997 9" Boxelder 1041 7" Elm 954 14" Boxelder 998 8"/10" Boxelder 1042 6" Boxelder 955 21' Boxelder 999 9" Boxelder 1043 7" Maple 956 8" Boxefder 1000 8" Boxelder 1044 13" Elm 957 6" Boxefder 1001 7' Boxelder 1045 7" Boxelder 958 6" Boxefder 1002 8" Boxelder 1046 7 "Boxelder 959 7" Boxefder 10013 8" Boxelder 1047 8 "Boxelder 960 9" Boxefder 1004 6"/6" Boxefder I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direction and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Dated this 1st day of December, 2016 REHDER & ASSOCIATES, INC. Gary C. Huber, Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 22036 Rehder and Associates, Inc. CIVIL ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS 3440 Federal Drive * Suite 110 • Eagan, Minnesota • Phone (651) 452-5051 JOB: 164-2956.010 DRAINAGE AND SHORE STABILIZATION EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. T5010662 929.4 contour • • `% /1011 � P REALIGNE UNDERGRO D UTILITY �\ EASEMENT .`4` 90 S � �XN Top 932.10 Inv. 927.20 - r Found Spike --------- ROADWAY EASEMENT TO REMAIN Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS Most southerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION - OF SPRING PARK LOTS a� 4 \\ C \\ O 1� /C �L O� v�9 \ \ 0,6, y v�'�D' sound 1/ " Iron Pipe - -�;�/ 33.3 / G Floor 00 / 0:1- Stiff; Sii6 S ZONING NOTES: EXISTING ZONING: AG PROPOSED ZONING: P.U.D. / R2 SITE PLAN LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE (C�OVHO SRO�e Crz m © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC I— U w O Il M L0 L0 O O LdU Q 0 O M V J M J L0 ., z z W z m a. Lu z O Z J :E W N W Lu C~ W< WU*) 2 QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY SETBACK LINE 1 REVISION SUMMARY EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1W (651) 454-0002 LOCAL Alpok 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY PLAT C0.2 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC GRADING .Irlo Ir_.. -929.4 cor /y/ \% aeag ?Q&f 7 6 2 a3 � \ 2 � a Top Inv. 9�-# g \ �\ Inv. 91_ # a_ 7 5 6* \ Z \ 4 \� /C< / FILL EXISTING WETLAND B, COORDINATE WITH MINNEHAHA 9� CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT O� \\ AND CITY OF ORONO v 04,\ � J— \v 02 \ / X0 q \ 937, ♦\ � �y � \\ 7�rRt 9 3�O A ♦ ♦ REMOVE EXISTING TREE, TYP. 9� J 0 7 �e \ ♦`�\ 3 ��9 28 7 \ C 009 29 \\ 2 ?X]7112 \`\ \,� �1 `♦ \` EXISTING DOCK TO BE REMOVED `\ 3 xu--- �� & RELOCATED @ ADJACENT \ 1 , �, `�� 31 �/ \ � PROPERTY OWNER'S DIRECTION. 46 o / i/ ` PROTECT FROM DAMAGE 13 47 � � 4 `000, / r GRADING LIMITS ` \\ 14 11 / �` \ \ 9 44 `♦ ` \ 6 47 \\ \ ® 43 17 ` �\ 1819♦♦ v \ \ \ o 2%..033 �['� -7-4' 0 % 034 { Xj,p35 %�/ \ \ 0 2324 L,l / 40 ` ' /8 REMOVE EXISTING TREE, TYP. . \ 'MH REMOVE MISCELLANEOUS •,1 \ Tqp 931.06 'SHRUBS AND UNDERGROWTH 04 044 �\ \`�\. In\ 926.36 , THROUGHOUT SITE, TYP. 26 \ g25 \ 9 43 i Found 1/2" Iron Pipe---- 41 046 0 7 ' rkA2 `♦ • / '/ \ ' / 036 O G 11 ' 4 5 EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED 8 �o BTU 3 / \ ` 2 30 pruce,�\ pruceo'y 00 l� �4" lJ / r31 \ EXISTING DOCK & BOATLIFT TO BE � 1 � � oplar �P lar / J REMOVED & RELOCATED @ I I In 92/1 6" J ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S 5 Poplar / DIRECTION. PROTECT FROM DAMAGE \ I 1 / \ ■ 14 9 3 / / O =-------- --- =Q_=c_---------------- 1 -, t D� __ a�MPORA � __-_ . BOA TLIF R 7 7(2:-Z 33.3 G Floor / ' \ Top 932.10 �� Gj�pG� / \ 1�0 S� O Inv. 927.20 /n / /' / / / Found Spike------.... ♦; 4 \ I IN Most westerly corner ofLot \ MH \ 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION------���"``. /6,,_ OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ \� `` / o 'P0°'ay Most southerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS 1� REMOVAL NOTES: 1. SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. 2. REMOVAL OF MATERIALS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. 3. REMOVAL OF PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 4. EXISTING PAVEMENTS SHALL BE SAWCUT IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR THE NEAREST JOINT FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS. 5. REMOVED MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO A LEGAL OFF-SITE LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. 6. ABANDON, REMOVAL, CONNECTION, AND PROTECTION NOTES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. COORDINATE WITH PROPOSED PLANS. 7. EXISTING ON-SITE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. 8. PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. WORK WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL INCLUDE STAGING, DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 9. MINOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. DAMAGE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LIMITS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE REPAIRED IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. 11. PROPOSED WORK (BUILDING AND CIVIL) SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 12. SITE SECURITY MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROVIDED IN A MANNER TO PROHIBIT VANDALISM, AND THEFT, DURING AND AFTER NORMAL WORK HOURS, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. SECURITY MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. 13. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR DELIVERY AND INSPECTION ACCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATING HOURS. AT NO POINT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALL CIRCULATION OF ADJACENT STREETS BE BLOCKED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 14. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 15. SHORING FOR BUILDING EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND AS APPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 16. STAGING, DEMOLITION, AND CLEAN-UP AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. CITY OF ORONO REMOVAL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES. EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5 REMOVALS LEGEND: GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO�e Crz 03 © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC EX. V CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL REMOVAL F PVEMET AND ALL BSE IL/1�/1� NCLUUD NGOBITACONC.,AND GRAVEL PVMASERIAL, J REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALL FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS. J L0 TREE PROTECTION ., � zzC G � rn Z TREE REMOVAL - INCLUDING ROOTS AND STUMPS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO�e Crz 03 © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC U J W 0 Il I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY REMOVALS PLAN C1 00 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. Lo J M J L0 ., � zzC G � rn Z L0 W z W z a Lu V o O z Q OJ J 0� W li LU LU QLLI 112- CO C CD O co UU < M = C� WU-) = QN U J W 0 Il I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY REMOVALS PLAN C1 00 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. GRADING LIMITS r`-929.4 contourNo now i i i 7 \ �# 1 \I � I ■ GRADING LIMITS 113 . o sA, \ FIELD STONE PAVERS. \ COORD. COLOR, STYLE \ \ AND MATERIAL w/ LANDSCAPE ARCH., SAMPLES REQUIRED, TYP. �x PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION, COORDINATE W/ ARCH AND OWNER Most westerly corner of Lot Found Spike 1 , � 1I ■ I 1 ■ / 7 .0 i Mqr 12' WIDE BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY l 33.3 / / G Floor / / 185, TAYLOR S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ F Most southerly corner of Lot O 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O �L O� v�9 12' WIDE SAND BEACH, TYP. s -0 �/� OZ6 PROPOSED HOUSE PAD, 9� / / COORD. w/ FINAL DESIGN FROM d � ARCH., TYP. �� q \\ \ PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE O mss\ 12' WIDE SAND BEACH, TYP. 0:1- /> 4 (II A� / 3" ��n'U pruce .y 00 Sti0// ff; Sii6 S SITE AREA TABLE: �jhiff-11 118111Wt14ir9l0F1 BUILDING COVERAGE ALL PAVEMENTS ALL PERVIOUS SURFACES TOTAL SITE AREA IMPERVIOUS SURFACE EXISTING 0 SF 0.0°% 302 SF 0.3% 93,778 SF 99.7% 94,080 SF 100.0°% EXISTING CONDITION 302 SF 0.3% PROPOSED CONDITION LOT 1 6,276 SF 6.7% PROPOSED CONDITION LOT 2 8,996 SF 9.6% OUTLOTA 2,837 SF 3.0°% LOT TOTAL ( LOT 1 + LOT 2) 15,272 SF 16.2% TOTA L ( LOT 1 + LOT 2 + 0 UTLOT A) 18,109 SF 19.2% LOT DIFFERENCE (EX. VS PROP.) 14,970 SF 15.9% TOTAL DIFFERENCE (EX. VS PROP.) 17,807 SF 18.9% *All existing impervious area is owned by the adjacent property owner SITE LAYOUT NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUSTMENTS TO THE LAYOUT SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 5. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 8. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS -SEE DETAIL. 9. CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24" WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48" ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE 5' WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 10. CURB AND GUTTER TYPE SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS -TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES -SEE DETAIL. 11. ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM T UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 14. PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 15. ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4" WIDE TYP. 16. BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE "LIGHT DUTY" UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 17. ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. CITY OF ORONO SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES. PROPOSED LOT 1 4,653 SF 16.0% 1,623 SF 5.6% 22,827 SF 78.4% 29,103 S F 100.0% PROPOSED LOT 2 7,296 SF 12.3% 1,700 SF 2.9% 50,243 SF 84.8% 59,239 SF 100.0°% SITE PLAN LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE M M M M M CONSTRUCTION LIMITS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1W (651) 454-0002 LOCAL O UTLOT A 0 SF 0.0% 2,837 SF 49.4% 2,901 SF 50.6% 5,738 SF 100.0% Alpok 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO�e Crz M © M 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC U w O IY IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C200 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. Lo J M J L0 ., z CF) Z L0 LLJ z z a Lu o O z oJ 0� 0LU LLJ > N U LLI LU Q J Q - � 112- CO C CD O co UU < M = C� WU-) = QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN C200 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. �----929.4 contour i 11011 \ \ \ `..% \ \ % DRAINAGE AND SHORE STABILIZATION EASEMENT PER DOCUMENT NO. T5010662 \ `� \\ `. % 1 1 V I i 1 I / // / G FI or 4f / 4444 Found Spike ------------- / / 1 / Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION --- \\ OF SPRING PARK LOTS J \ F Most southerly corner of Lot O 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O \\ A Found 1/2" Iron Pipe / / / / �D / 00 / y / 0/1P Or 0:1- Stiff; Sii6 S SITE PLAN LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE O O O Cr © M 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek 763-213-3944 Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC I— U W O Il M L0 L0 O O LdU 0 0 M J M J L0 ., z z W z m a Lu Oz z J2 W Lo (DN W w W Q w QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY SETBACK LINE 1 REVISION SUMMARY EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1W (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 4 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - DRNG & SHORE STBL EASE C2.1 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC �----929.4 contour i /1011 � / .� \ \IN, 1 \ \ 9 \ 9 - \\ VACATE EXISTING ROADWAY EASEMENT % \ 1 \ \� Found 1/2" Iron Pipe \ ` \ \ "o Ir of I� � G J" 0A (I / spruce 00 Q0 lar /1 \ \ 1 1 Poplar I / / 0111el OAC sx) !// ♦ / ( V / \\ // ♦� G Floor - / \ /Found Spike --------...... ♦ `\\ \\ ��\ ROADWAY EASEMENT TO REMAIN \ 0 Most westerly corner of Lot \' 3 \ 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION --`-. \�n OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ 1p 000. F Most southerly corner of Lot ,b 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION----~"'� 0" / OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O00 C) \ % 1� SITE PLAN LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO\e Crz m © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS . I DEVELOPMENT, LLC U J W O Of Il I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 149'e Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ROADWAY EASE C202 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. J M J L0 ., z z L0 W z O W z a Lu V o p z Q oJ J 0� O W > N L W *� LU Q C) C) (D W M = C� W 2 QN U J W O Of Il I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 149'e Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - ROADWAY EASE C202 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. / _` contour i `♦ /1011 REALIGNED / UNDERGROUND UTILITY EASEMENT10.01 --�\ \�` < 931.24 TYP. In . 21.24 W \ \ 's 1 Found 1/2" Iron Pipe--.-.-.-.. \ / / / / / / pl- Most westerly corner of Lot \' MH 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ ) \ F Most southerly corner of Lot O 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O / 0:1- Stiff; Sii6 S SITE PLAN LEGEND: PROPERTY LINE SETBACK LINE EASEMENT LINE WETLAND LINE GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE 1W (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 4 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" O O O Cr © M 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek 763-213-3944 Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC I— U W O IL M L0 L0 0 0 LdU 0 0 M V � J M J L0 ., z z W z m a w z O z J :E W N W w W Q W 2 QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN - UNDGRND UTIL EASE C2.3 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC.I GRADING LIMITS -29.91 29.65/ 29.66 MASH 10000 MATCH j* / fid, -- = \ 29.69 ' #• i �'�� ♦ ♦ ��'�` MATCH MATC : �9� ♦ ♦ '♦ �; 00 29.43 30.38 , � � MATCH MATCH 1 ---- ` 9130\` \� 29.49 i MATCH -9 '' ` ♦ ` \��\ 1930 \ 932 � �--g3j 5 �\ \ MATCHcon tO4,, / /-/ s /lam 33.0 `� ♦ \�` \ \_ 1 ♦ ` \ 29.13 q7 34. MATCH6' (33.00♦ ♦ \ 29.09 `9� o 1 ' 3 0 ♦ •`� MATCH !/ 30.93 \ �� MATCH ` 9 x`.50 34.00 34.00 / 33.OUr' A%ATCH� C \� ` • 133.50 `♦\\��� ~� �` �O� 31.47 34.00 ♦ ♦ ` 1 \ MIX FFE=934.00 34.00 - - - - \ 33. `\ 34.00 9� GRADING LIMITS ` \ 31.52 MATCH 34.00 34.00 33.50 SB -2 _ ♦ ��� - �� 29.53 % \ O 33.60 4.00 MATCH % 34.00 33.74 ® O 34.00 1 �� ♦ 31.77 O 34.00 8 \ ♦ \ \ \ \ �� MATCH O A�� ��� ��\ � It � 28.92 `\ �� OO / \ �I'm MATCH � V O .37 O st 33.33 x 33.33 9� / \31.40 34.00 i \ MATCH 33.04 3.16 34.00 Found 1/2" Iron Pipe--- ` \ . 33.6 `33.24 -3 34.00 - 32.46 / SB -4 •_, \ \ \ \ � X32.29/ FFE=934.00 h� 32#0 / \ \ `% \ / OO 47 34.00 34.00 4# ,�, SEE INSET A e OTC �i� O f � O DRAIN RUNOFF FROM I31 S2 \`\ 1.70 O 34.O�JACENT PROPERTY / ` O TOWARD LAKE/LAGOON .00 0,,�0 2 �, `� ' \ %%> THROUGH SWALE, TYP. 1.7 �H i 30.66 34.00 32.07 `%4 �, -6 INN MATCH 31.83 , � �0 � 31.2'/ \ I, 32.43 0 \�\ MATCI 3181 .00 ATCHF,�'\�� A 3.80 N 34.20 H 32.2 32.50 �/ MATCH 933.01 �I 1 MATCW , 31.06 �"� , ��NO RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED MATC/ 04 SITE SHOULD BE DIRECTED ATJ�►9CTOWARDS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER MACH 1 1 / O . 31. CO \ 32.09/ 33.3 G Floor 32.24 / ] MATCH4.24 fJC I i / RAIN RUNOFF FROM Found Spike - - / 4 ` A CENT PROPERTY 1� TOWAR N !i gP THROUGH SWALE, TYP. A'S 1111 ii `� /' / 32. Hyd. ' Q; \ 32.24 /j » Most westerly corner Lot t �i �\ / O \ `T 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION ------"'" �\ � �ar I OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ � p Op odd \\� \ )) Most southerly corner of Lot ,,/ �o 32.45 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION -- - "' \ �� \ / // MATCI- OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ 0/ INSET A EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5 GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: PER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT BY NORTHERN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., DATED 03-30-2016 GROUNDWATER WAS OBSERVED AT ELEVATIONS RANGING FROM 914.80 TO 925.70 THE BORINGS & GROUNDWATER ARE AS FOLLOWS: SB -1 914.80 SB -2 919.10 SB -3 925.70 SB -4 924.90 REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR ALL FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. CITY OF ORONO GRADING NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC GRADING NOTES. "� \ / 's31.52 / 32.45' MATC / 31.7 / DRAIN UNOFF F OM ' ADJ ENT PR,9PERTY/32.51 TO ARD LA LAG00 �y`L j MATCH ROUG WALE, P. I//� 32.55 32.07 � MATCH' 32.43 / 2.7 �TCH�v \ I 33.80 // `32.63 HP 9.335 MATCH �' NO RUNOFF FROM THE SED SITE SHOULD BE i / D TED TOWARDS THE //l �n ru C e ADJAC ROPERTY OWNER 34.20 MATCH PIS M.65 6 _ /or YCH 6" Poplar GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 4. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW -LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1 % MIN. AND 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:1 7. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES. 9. IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. 11, FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK. 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. 13. TOLERANCES 13.1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. .2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER. 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. 14. MAINTENANCE 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. 14.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. 14.3. WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. GRADING PLAN LEGEND: EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 881.26 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 891.00 G SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER 891.00 TC SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB 891.00 BS/TS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS CURB AND GUTTER (T.0 = TIP OUT) -------------------- EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=891.00 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO�ei Crz m © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC U J w O IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IZ& - Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C300 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. Lo J M J L0 ., z C7 Z L0 LLJ z W z a V o O z Q OJ J 0r O LLQ N li LLI LLI LU Q J � � C:) O LU M = C� LU = Lo QN U J w O IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. IZ& - Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN C300 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. GRADING LIMITS �- g -•11H /_' ,v--929.4 29.65 J - - : 29.66 �H - - �iIATCH i 57"- 29.12 00 / ��' ♦ Q �:` MATCH 29.69 00 144 � 29.43 30.38 / 'jam \ MATCH PROPOSED 100 -YR FLOOD MATCH / ,�� \ \ ELEVATION CONTOUR ------- ` \ (931.5) /� \ g �♦ I I ' � � � _ '--'�Q � 29.49 <�\Z' 0 1 ` MATCH 9� 1913, 932 ` \ �\ \ 29.34 `..g3j SMATCH condoIr �\\ \ 33.0 \ ' 1 ♦ ` 29.13 EXISTING 100 -YR FLAW 'ROPOSED 100 -YR FLOOD 34 0 o \\ MATCH ELEVATION CONTOUR 6' ELEVATION CONTOUR�� X932 \ (931.5) \� (931.5) \„ \ 33.00 / ` \29.09 9 O 34.00 \ MATCH W 30.93 `MATCH �� �� ��\ \ �j9 I <r3.50 34.00 34.00 ��g `33.00 I1 S1.27 ` `\ MATCH �� °� \`� 9 C/_ �; `� `� & • X33.50 V, 31.47 34.00 ` \`� ► "MA FFE=934.00 34.00 4% 33. 34.00 ♦ �•.� � / � �� � ' 29.49 31.52 34.00 vr, \�`� +�. MATCH GRADING LIMITS ` \ `�\ MATCH 34.00 1.21/ 0 0 33.50 ♦ �`�\ '` 29.53 \� OO 33.60 34.00 ' 34.00 1 \MATCH 31.77 �0 34.00 8 \ MATCH28.92 34.00 33.74 .37 ,� L, MATCH \ :OO 33.33 `�� 9�ti'---�\\ `�\\ �Nv X33.33 N r 31,40 �34.00 ! i � MATCH 33.04 3.16 34.00 ' 'Found 1/2" Iron Pipe-----.--- 33.6 `33.24 34.00 ----' \ . 32.46 / '-32.29 FFE=934.00 - ♦` \ 32#0 4 7 033. 0 34.00 34.00 0. A�TCP,I �� r' ` DRAIN RUNOFF FROM 31.52 � I \ . 5 1.70 00 34'�JACENT PROPERTY / \ ' TOWARD LAKE/LAGOON .00 1 7 0'b �` \ 4� 00 0 THROUGH SWALE, TYP. / ,K G, / 30.66 34.00 32.07 MATCH \ 31.83 32.43 MATC 31.81 4.00 ATCHF,� % 1 33.80 y l�% HP 34.20 v ` 32.24 32.50 P MATCH 1 I % 31. 9� 1 33.01 MATCH 1 31.06 I� NO RUNOFF FROM THE PROPC 1 MATC "r' SITE SHOULD BE DIRECTED 9 TOWARDS THE ADJACENT A / . Dc ATCH PROPERTY OWNER i 302 i M'AATCH 1 31/ /I_ v EROSION CONTROL NOTES: SEE SWPPP ON SHEETS SW1.0-SW1.5 FLOODPLAIN TABLE Floodplain Definition = Volume below the 931.5 contour Required mitigation =1:1 EXISTING FLOODPLAIN VOLUME ON SITE 1,158 CY PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN ON SITE 1,449 CY 32.09 / �' F o Floor 32.24 MATCH 312.2,4 / ATC Found Spike --------...... / 444 I \ Hyd' Most westerly corner of Lot �'� \' 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ F Most southerly corner of Lot O \ 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. 3. GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 4. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW -LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 5% MAX. LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1 % MIN. AND 2% MAX. CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:1 7. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER. DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEER/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES. 9. IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. 11, FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK. 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND/OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. 13. TOLERANCES 13.1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER. 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. 14. MAINTENANCE 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. 14.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. 14.3. WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. GRADING PLAN LEGEND: EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL ""-41.26 SPOT GRADE ELEVATION (GUTTER/FLOW LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) 891.00 G SPOT GRADE ELEVATION GUTTER 891.00 TC SPOT GRADE ELEVATION TOP OF CURB 891.00 BS/TS SPOT GRADE ELEVATION BOTTOM OF STAIRS/TOP OF STAIRS CURB AND GUTTER (T.0 = TIP OUT) EMERGENCY OVERFLOW EOF=1135.52 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" C�OVHO SRO�(e Crz M © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC U J w O IY IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION C301 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. V Lo J M J L0 ., z CF) Z L0 LLJ z W z a V o O z Q OJ J 0 O W Lo (D N li LU LLI LU Q O O LU M = C� LU z L0 QN U J w O IY IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Ma hew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - FLOODPLAIN ALTERATION C301 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. GRADING LIMITS �_- 29.T1H 29.65- 29.66 MATCH.' . O W N e ATCH 29.12 WETLAND BUFFER 29.69 ",' 9� ` MATC MIN. BUFFER= -12.5' DELINEATED WETLAND "A �� \ BUFFER LENGTH=992LF BUFFER AREA PROVIDED=25,371SF 29.43 AVG. BUFFER PROVIDED=25' 30.38 MATCH MATCH , 9 0 29.49 O� r / i MATCH Z' DELINEATED WETLAND "B" (TO BE FILLED) ` 9 29.34 932 MATCH 33. 0 �` ` ' ♦ 29.13 7O O 34.0 M ATCH /6 `3 0 . \ 29.09 9 O MATCH �A ZF �\ M T3 \ �j t l\ 9 33.50 34.00 34.00`LIQ tt �i 33�027 ` \a i ATCH `. � 133.0 J ®31.47 \ 34.00 FFE=934.00 \ 34.00 33. 34.00 '9 � � \ 29.49 1.52 34.00 MATCH GRADING LIMITS TCH 34.00 1.21 00 s / 0 33.60 34.00 0 34.00 \31.77 OO 34.00 �a'G' 8 N s ` ATCH \ OO \ 34.00 33.74 0 \ 37 33.3 ' 0 .33 / r 1.40 33.04 34.00 34.00 TCH 3.16 rouna jL it 11 1 . 33.6 `33 % 34.00 32.46 '-32.29/ / / FFE=934.00 OOO 34.00 34.00 \ 0.3 3 ��r �� \ OO ;TC � DRAIN RUNOFF FROM 31.52 �\ 1.70 OOO \ 34•OAODJACENT PROPERTY3 .00 ` TOWARD LAKE/LAGOON Cb �;, 2 %\ 2 OOH THROUGH SWALE, TYP. 1.7 � H � O 3 .6 31.83 34.00 32.07 � g�5 x p��� M T H' / 5 G 32.43 3 .2 \ '10 5 AT 31.81 1 4.00 ATCHF,� 33.80 r' 3„ HP / i ; 34.20 / 1 32,24 132.50 i MATCH 31. 9� P lar op I 33.01 ,, 1 I amu, jMATCH NO RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED JIA C r' SITE SHOULD BE DIRECTED / 9 .TOWARDS THE ADJACENT Dc ATCH PROPERTY OWNER r , 32 r � r- WETLAND MITIGATION AREA 9.53 ATCH 28.92 MATCH 7O 32.09 �I moi' 33.3 G Floor / 32.24 / MATCHop O � I 0 O I / Found Spike-------- - '"� 4 o 444 I � / I rn \ Hyd. Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS Most southerly corner of Lot O 185, TOF SOPR SION NG PARKLOTS O EXISTING WETLAND AREA TABLE: WETLAN D AREA TABLE 9,871 SF TOTAL WETLANDA (ON SITE) 9,546 SF UNDISTURBED 325 SF FILLED WETLAND B 168 SF FILLED WETLAND MITIGATION TABLE: WETLAND MITIGATION TOTAL PROPOSED FILLAREA (WTLNDs A&B) 493 SF REQUIRED MITIGATION - 1:1 493 SF ON-SITE PROPOSED WETLAND MITIGATION AREA: 498 SF BUFFER INFORMATION EXISTING PERIMETER OF WETLAND A 994 LF PROPOSED PERIMETER OF WETLANDA 992 LF REQUIRED ON-SITE PROPSOED NATURAL WETLAN D BUFFER AREA: 24,800 SF PROVIDED ON-SITE PROPSOED NATURAL WETLAND BUFFER AREA: 25,371 SF TOTAL NEW WETLAND AND BUFFER USED FOR MITIGATION 1,069 SF *USING PART OFTHE BUFFER AS WETLAND MITIGATION PROVIDES FOR OVER 2:1 WETLAND MITIGATION LEGEND WETLAND MITIGATION AREA WETLAND BUFFER - MnDOT SEED MIX 34-262 WET PRAIRIE. SPREAD AT 14.5 LBS/ACRE AND PER MnDOT SEEDING MANUAL. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL A ' WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG I \1 (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE VVtlll (651) 454-0002 LOCAL V. = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" (COR OO 0 0 00 0 Crz OS O M 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC V � J LO .. z 6i Z Y LO W z W z O a w z V o Oz Q O J 2i J W 1-6Q0 O N a LU> *� U W Lu 0 J � U) V♦ O Uj >Q C� W 2 L0 QN 0 J LLI O I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Ma thew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN - WETLAND ALTERATION C302 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. GRADING LIMITS 929.4contour - - - - � /' r �► UNDERGROUND STORMWATER \\ \ ho FILTRATION SYSTEM 2 \ \ % 12" PERF. CMP / \\ (2) HEADERS \ 12" SIDE & END STONE, 12" STONE PIPE SEPARATION 6" STONE COVER ( FOOTPRINT= 17.0'x64.0' \ IE 12" CMP=930.00 �� ` OE 2" ORIFICE=930.00 N MH ToP" ORIFICE=930.40 OE 6 ` In v. 9' Inv. 9, ## OE 6" ORIFICE=930.50 \ AW' TOP 12" CMP=931.00 GUTTER REAR HALF OF HOUSES TO AREA DRAIN AND PIPE INTO UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, TYP. COORD. LOCATION OF DOWNSPOUT CONNECTIONS w/ ARCH PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE POSITIVE SLOPE ON ALL PVC CONNECTIONS TO UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS \ v \ TOP STONE=931.50 � /J 100 -YR HWL=931.38 \ \ \ -0 (3) ACCESS RISER, TYP. 12" SLOTTED GRATE TO ALLC(W9 INFLOW, TYP. �9 HDPE FES 1 IE=±929.50 RIPRAP TO NWL CONNECT TO EXISTIN SANITARY STUB CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, AND ELEVATION OF EXISTIN `\ SANITARY SERVICE. REP T FINDINGS TO ENGINEER GRADING LIMITS \ 22LF 2 PVC STORM @ 1.05% 22LF 6"x2 PVC STORM @ 3.32%, / 2.86% \� STUB 2"T � SERVICE TO WI IN 5' O 29LF 2" PVC T p 931.06 FROM HNSE O STORM @ 0.79% ,IT 926.36 A, \%� 4 \ 54LF 6 PVC \ INSTALL NON -RETURN STORM @ 0.50% \ VALVE TO DISALLOW \ LAKE/FLOOD WATER \ VROM ENTERING SYSTEM \ ' PROVIDE CLAY LINER BENEATH AND ON SIDES \ OFUNDERGROUND NYLOPLAST MH 1 \ FILTRATION SYSTEMS, TYP. RIM=932.00 \ �' I E=929.77 29LF 4"x2 PVC \ `� STORM @ 1.66% (3) ACCESS RISER, TYP. 12" SLOTTED GRATE TO ALLOW STUB 2" WATER x ./ SERVICE TO WITHIN 5' FROM HOUSE v 00061 I � � op 9 \ 0 �G _ CONFECT TO EXISTING } SANITARY STUB JP 5lar CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION, SIZE, AND Poplar ELEVATION OF EXISTING SANITARY SERVICE. REPORT FINDINGS TO ENGINEER I IN 2" COPPER WATER SERVICE. COORDINATE l •/) SIZING W/ MECHANICAL WET TAP (2) SERVICES DESIGNING IN HOUSE TO EXISTING WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEM STUB. COORDINATE W/ PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION CITY To 932.10 Inv. 927.20 � � CON i� �ROR TO VERIFY .LOCA N, SIZE, AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING \ I WATER SERVICE. REPORT Found Spike ------------- .. 4 44 sem, FINDINGS TO ENGINEER \ Hyd. \ Most westerly corner of Lot MH \ 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ F Most southerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ O INFLOW, TYP. UNDERGROUND STORMWATER FILTRATION SYSTEM 1 12" PERF. CMP 0HEADERS 124 SIDE &END STONE, 12" STONE PIPE SEPARATION 6" STONE COVER FOOTPRI NT=11.0'x64.0' IE 12" CM P=930.00 OE 2" ORIFICE=930.00 OE (x2) 4" ORIFICE=930.25 TOP 12" CMP=931.00 TOP STONE=931.50 100 -YR HWL=931.47 C�OVHO 0 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarv CITY OF ORONO UTILITY NOTES: 1. TELEVISE EXISTING SANITARY SEWER MAIN AND REPORT FINDINGS TO ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. !z/ V 0/i/ 0/, GENERAL UTILITY NOTES: 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL DIMENSIONS AND LAYOUT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATION AND ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 3. ALL EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTACT "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" (651-454-0002 OR 800-252-1166) FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS, 48 HOURS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY UTILTIES THAT ARE DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 4. UTILITY INSTALLATION SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERVICE LINE INSTALLATION" AND "SANITARY SEWER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION" AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), AND SHALL CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS. 5. CASTINGS SHALL BE SALVAGED FROM STRUCTURE REMOVALS AND RE -USED OR PLACED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE OWNER. 6. ALL WATER PIPE SHALL BE CLASS 52 DUCTILE IRON PIPE (DIP) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 7. ALL SANITARY SEWER SHALL BE SDR 26 POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PVC) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE HDPE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9. PIPE LENGTHS SHOWN ARE FROM CENTER TO CENTER OF STRUCTURE OR TO END OF FLARED END SECTION. 10. UTILTIES ON THE PLAN ARE SHOWN TO WITHIN 50F THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE CONTRACTOR IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FINAL CONNECTION TO BUILDING LINES. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL AND MECHANICAL PLANS. 11. CATCH BASINS AND MANHOLES IN PAVED AREAS SHALL BE BUMPED 0.04 FEET. ALL CATCH BASINS IN GUTTERS SHALL BE SUMPEd 0.15 FEET PER DETAILS. RIM ELEVATIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN DO NOT REFLECT BUMPED ELEVATIONS. 12. ALL FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE LOCATED 5 FEET BEHIND BACK OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 13. HYDRANT TYPE, VALVE, AND CONNECTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS. HYDRANT EXTENSIONS ARE INCIDENTAL. 14. A MINIMUM OF 8 FEET OF COVER IS REQUIRED OVER ALL WATERMAIN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. EXTRA DEPTH MAY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN A MINIMUM OF 18" VERTICAL SEPARATION TO SANITARY OR STORM SEWER LINES. EXTRA DEPTH WATERMAIN IS INCIDENTAL. 15. A MINIMUM OF 18 INCHES OF VERTICAL SEPARATION AND 10 FEET OF HORIZONTAL SEPARATION IS REQUIRED FOR ALL UTILITIES, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 16. ALL CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING UTILITIES SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS AND COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 17. CONNECTIONS TO EXISTING STRUCUTRES SHALL BE CORE -DRILLED. 18. COORDINATE LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF SERVICE CONNECTIONS WITH THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS. 19. COORDINATE INSTALLATION AND SCHEDULING OF THE INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES WITH ADJACENT CONTRACTORS AND CITY STAFF. 20. ALL STREET REPAIRS AND PATCHING SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS SHALL BE SAWCUT. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND SHALL BE ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCD) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 21. ALL STRUCTURES, PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, SHALL BE ADJUSTED TO PROPOSED GRADES WHERE REQUIRED. THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL OWNERS MUST BE COMPLIED WITH. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 22. CONTRACTOR SHALL CORDINATE ALL WORK WITH PRIVATE UTILITY COMPANIES. 23. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE CONNECTION OF IRRIGATION SERVICE TO UTILITIES. COORDINATE THE INSTALLATION OF IRRIGATION SLEEVES NECESSARY AS TO NOT IMPACT INSTALLATION OF UTILITIES. 24. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN AS -BUILT PLANS THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SUBMIT THESE PLANS TO ENGINEER UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. 25. ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT. APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, OR OTHER STRUCTURES. 26, ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN RULES, CHAPTER 4714, SECTION 1109.0. GRADING FLOODPLAIN NOTES (CITY &WATERSHED): 1. FILLING IN THE FLOODPLAIN WILL BE MITIGATED ON SITE ATA 1:1 VOLUME RATIO. 2. PER CITY OF ORONO RULES, THE LOW FLOOR ELEVATION (LFE) OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES MUST BE 932.5 OR HIGHER. 3. PER MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT RULES, THE LOW OPENING OF PROPOSED STRUCTURES MUST BE 933.5 OR HIGHER. UTILITY LEGEND: • CATCH BASIN mMANHOLE ►1 GATE VALVE AND VALVE BOX -4- PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANT I WATER MAIN SANITARY SEWER STORM SEWER PVC STORM SEWER FES Alpok AND RIP RAP GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 30'-0" • 15' 0" 0 30'-0" C400 er 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC W U Q J aOfLU U w O IL O M O O U Q J O Lo O M J M J � ., z Z � Wz O a W Oz Z J :E W O N W Lu W Q W = QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLAN COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. BUILDING DOWNSPOUT REFER TO ARCH'L EXTEND DOWNSPOUT AND POINT DOWN OVER 6 _1 — it Ir Compacted Backfill CENTER OF GRATE Bc II 'I 0 5B SII 2000# Concrete 8"X8" NYLOPLAST — _— LOAD FACTOR 2.3 '=1 RECTANGULAR, DUCTILE 0, 513c SLOPE TO SLOPE TO IRON GRATE, OR Bc+12" Min. "Bc' Denotes outside CLASS A DRAIN DRAIN APPROVED EQUIVALENT diameter of pipe Concrete backfill to 0.5 - of outside diameter with 1 ° 6 ° shaped bedding. -I' COMPACTED SOIL 8" GRATE TO 4" PIPE INLINE I�=1 DRAIN ADAPTER N I I I CONCRETE COLLAR ON COMPACTED BACK FILL a 4" PVC SEWER RISER PIPE 12" (LENGTH AS REQUIRED) 4" PVC LONG RADIUS 4 BEND SEWER ELBOW 4" PVC SEWER PIPE CRUSHED AND COMPACTED STONE DOWNSPOUT TO PIPE CONNECTION NTS DIA + 3' m.R,..s..r� MATERIAL 1'-6" (MIN) 1. INSULATION BOARD TO BE CLOSED CELL. EXTRUDED POLYSTYRENE FOAM MEETING ASTM 578, TYPE VI, 40PSI COMPRESSING STRENGTH (ASTM D1621) 0.1%MAX. WATER ABSORPTION (ASTM C272). 2. BACKFILL MATERIAL AROUND INSULATION MUST BE FINE SAND FREE FROM ROOT, ORGANIC MATERIAL, OR OTHER INJURIOUS MATERIALS. 3. OVERLAP ALL INSULATION BOARD JOINTS. UTILITY PIPE INSULATION DETAIL NTS 3" THICK IRD (USE 2-2" MASTIC ALL JOINTS \TION BOARD DOWN EPTH. 12" _ /0-111 Compacted Backfill Bc -1 -1 + + + + + + + + I- =1 + + + 0:513d- +11'- + + 111 Course Filter Aggregate Bc/4 but not'=1 + + + + + + IIS- MnDOT Spec. 3149H Mod. less than 6" =1 + + + + + + _SII 6" _"'="'="'="'="'='' LOAD FACTOR 1.9 Bc+12" Min. " Bc" Denotes outside CLASS B diameter of pipe Hand shaped from angular bedding material Bc/4 but not less than 6" Compacted Backfill )utside 7e LOAD FACTOR 1.5 CLASS C-1 Hand shaped from firm undisturbed soil Be VIII'- Compacted Backfill -1 � I- + �c+++—IIIIII� Course Filter Aggregate + + + + + + _llI MnDOT Spec, 3149H Mod. III—III—III-III-III-III - LOAD FACTOR 1.5 "Bc' Denotes outside CLASS C-2 Bc+12" Min. diameter of pipe Hand shaped from angular bedding material PIPE BEDDING - RCP & DIP NTS Compacted Backfill COR7 R 0H aot C� G3 © CUJ 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC 2'> -1 + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + ++ + + ++ + + + I= Granular Borrow +++++++ Bc +++++++++ = (MnDOT Spec. =1 + + + 1- _I + + + + + I— 3149A modified) + + III -III -III -III -III= � U W Min,=Bc+12 "Bc" Denotes outside 0 Of diameter of pipe IL PIPE FOUNDATION & BEDDING IN GOOD SOILS Compacted . Backfill Bedding Foundation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + —I + + + + + + + + + + + +=' =1 + + + + + + Bc + + + + + +I- -� + + + + + + + + + + I- -I + + + + + + + + + + I— =1 + + + + + + + + + + + =' . , + + + + + + + + + + =' able//�_ "Bc" Denotes outside Minimum diameter of pipe 2d+Bc+12" 12" 6" -Course Filter Agg. (MnDot Spec. 3149H Modified) PIPE FOUNDATION & BEDDING IN POOR SOILS PIPE BEDDING - PVC NTS T_ M L0 L0 5z L O 0 0 LUU 121- O O M Lo J M J L0 ., z z W z M0 a. Luz Oz J :E W N W Lu W Q W 2 Lo QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY CIVIL DETAILS C5.0 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC GRADING LIMITS JNo DBH rt SPECIES rt CONDITION rt REMOVED am_ -_929.4 contou- � am 919 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES / y / �� 920 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES ♦ 921 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES ��r �•- \'�`♦ 922 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 923 8 BOXELDER POOR YES j .•� ae ag \ 924 7 BOXELDER POOR YES 7 925 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES � i hg \7 926 9 BOXELDER POOR YES 6 \ �� 927 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 928 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 929 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 3 2 3�, 9� 930 7 BOXELDER POOR YES 7 0 O� 931 11 BOXELDER POOR YES 1 \ 2 0 3 \ v 932 14 BOXELDER POOR YES '' 9 6\ � 933 9 BOXELDER POOR YES 934 10 BOXELDER POOR YES ##8 o 935 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES oe /4V 936 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ \ 7 02937 21 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ \ 938 19 BOXELDER FAIR YES 9 9 01 \ \ \ 9 O 939 19 BOXELDER POOR YES 940 15 BOXELDER FAIR YES 5W os 8 \ �� 941 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES sS ao 30--1 —57 942 18 BOXELDER FAIR YES 943 18 BOXELDER FAIR YES %28\� �/ 944 16 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1 ##7 009 29 \\� CL 945 12 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1 6 11 \ 946 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES e 947 11 BOXELDER FAIR YES ` , \ , 12 948 15 BOXELDER FAIR YES 0 `\ 3 31 '♦ 949 16 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ 1 , ♦ 950 11 BOXELDER POOR YES 1 §;46 013 951 16 BOXELDER POOR YES `\ 47 �6� 952 12 BOXELDER POOR YES GRADING LIMITS 14 32 \ 44 953 15 BOXELDER FAIR YES 9 ` \ 1 6 15 047 / \ ♦ 954 14 BOXELDER FAIR YES 43 / 955 21 BOXELDER POOR YES \\ 1819 21 �'♦ 956 8 BOXELDER POOR YES 0 22 ' 033 957 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES / 34 �435 �0 958 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES \^ ' 023 2j24 / \ 959 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 400 960 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ ' 444 \ 961 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 3 X126 962 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ \ :9 g25 43 \ 963 10 BOXELDER POOR YES 0 tk?-Found 1/2" Iron Pipe •` 964 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES \ -- �, �A 46 41 � 965 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 0 ♦ ' 966 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES ♦ \\ �� • / / 967 2-8 BOXELDER POOR YES ♦' \ 968 2-8 BOXELDER FAIR YES `\ 7 969 7 ELM FAIR YES ♦ \ / ------ 970 6/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES ♦ \ / 36 971 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES `; ' ' 972 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES \\♦\ A 973 6/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES \'4 J5� 974 6/7 BOXELDER FAIR YES \\�♦ 5 G�0 / 975 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 976 6 ELM FAIR YES \\\♦\3 : 9�&8 �� �'�977 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 3" o / 978 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 3" 30 Spruc spruce A�,yll 979 6/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES Poplar 6" / 980 6/8 ELM POOR YES 1 �P lar � 981 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1 s" / �\ 982 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1 , 5 Poplar I 983 7 BOXELDER POOR YES 984 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 14 9 T / 985 11/11 BOXELDER POOR YES 3 986 6 BOXELDER POOR YES i ^ X . O CO 0 / sx) s� / 33.3 G Floor r � V o°` Found Spike -------- -__- / / 4444 / Most westerly corner of Lot \ 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ F O Most southerly corner of Lot O 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS O O r REMOVALS LEGEND: X 987 6 OV OO�7 BOXELDER FAIR YESC �OR � / s 988 7/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES (rz m © P 989 8 BOXELDER POOR YES 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 990 12 BOXELDER FAIR YES CivilSiteGroup.com 991 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 992 8 BOXELDER POOR YES 993 16 BOXELDER FAIR YES 994 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 995 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 996 10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 997 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES LAKE W�EST 998 8/10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 999 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES DEVELOPMENT, LLC 1000 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1001 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1002 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1003 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1004 6/6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1005 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1006 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1007 8/18 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1008 6/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1009 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1010 3-9 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1011 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1012 9/10 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1013 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1014 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1015 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1016 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1017 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1018 7 BOXELDER POOR YES 1019 12 BOXELDER FAIR YES LO 1020 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES J M 1021 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES J � 1022 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES Z 1023 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1024 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1025 22 BOXELDER FAIR YES C Uj Z 1026 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES 1027 7/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES Z 1028 7/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES UU Lu 1029 3-9 BOXELDER FAIR YES0 O z 1030 6/8 BOXELDER FAIR YES zJ 1031 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES 0 1032 8 ELM POOR YES O > N 1033 9 ELM FAIR YES a LU 1034 10 BASSWOOD POOR YES W Lu 1035 11 BOXELDER FAIR YES Q Q — J � 1036 11 ELM FAIR YES 1037 10 ELM POOR YES ; ti 1038 9 BOXELDER FAIR YES — >- 1039 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES CD W j 1040 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES M = 1041 7 ELM FAIR YES ('J 1042 6 BOXELDER FAIR YES W 2 1043 7 MAPLE FAIR YES N 1044 13 ELM FAIR YES LO 1045 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES U J 1046 7 BOXELDER FAIR YES w 1047 8 BOXELDER FAIR YES � IL EXISTING TREES TOTAL TREES 129 FAIR CONDITION 103 REMOVED= 103 SAVED= 0 POOR CONDITION 129 26 94 REMOVED= 26 SAVED= 0 TREE REPLANTING EXISTINGTREES REMOVED 129 PROPOSEDTREES 94 *SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PROPOSED TREES TREE PROTECTION TREE REMOVAL - INCLUDING ROOTS AND STUMPS GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 4 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C6.0 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC SEEDING ZONE A, SEE LEGEND & PLANT LIST 2-PCW SEEDING ZONE B, SEE LEGEND & PLANT LIST + +++++++++++'+++ ++ + - SEEDING ZONE C, SEE LEGEND & PLANT LIST + + + + + + + * +++ *+ _++ ` 4' WIDE MULCH PATH, TYP. + + + + + + + ++++ + + + ++++ + + + ++++ ++ +++ 2-SWO + + + ++ ++ +++ F + + + + 4 + 4 + + + + + + +++ +++ + +++ + *+* +*+*+ +*+ +*+++++*+++++*+++* + + + *+ shy. ++ ++ ++++++ ++ + i + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + , + +++ ++ ++ +++ + ++++ ++ +++ + + +++ + + + + 4 -RB 7 + + ++ N + + + + + + + + + Q + i + + c + ++ + 1_ ++ +++ ,�L++ �. + + +` + 1-NRM - +i+* ++ 4' WIDE MULCH PATH, TYP. ` + * • � + + + + + 3-FFSM t\+V+++ + �'9s + +: �` ` a +++ + 1 -HB 1 -RB ++ + :J ++ ++ +" SEEDING ZONE C, SEE ; +++ ++ + ++ +++ \\ LEGEND & PLANT LIST + + + + I'* ***+ 2 -ABS ` + r.« + + ++++++ ++ +++++++++++++ M 1 - SWO + + + + a, + + + ++ r +++++++ SEEDING ZONE B, SEE + * * * + + '+ +++ *++++ * + *+ LEGEND & PLANT LIST + + + + + + +++ + + 1 -PB + 2 - SWO + + + + + + + + + ++ + 1 - RB ++++ ++++++ +++ + + ++++++ SEEDING ZONE A, SEE + + + + + +++ ++ + LEGEND & PLANT LIST + +++++ + +++ + ++++ + + + + + 1 BB ++++++ 2 - FFSM + + + + + + +++ + +++++ ++ +++ +++ + ++ ++++ +++ +++++ ` +++ +++ 1 -PCW+++++ 2-FFSM -` `1 LANDSCAPE NOTES: 0, 2-NRM BEACH AREA O \ \� 4 - RB ` SEEDING ZONE A, SEE LEGEND"J��ANT L� SEEDING ZONE B, SEE LEGEND*ANT I T \+ + 9 ++ * + {+ +* `� SEEDING ZONE A, SEE LEGEND & PLAI r ST +**+ ++* * * 3 -WC \+ j,. + +++' 'a BEACH AREA 1. INSTALL ALL SEED MIXES PER SEED SUPPLIERS INSTRUCTIONS, OR EMPLOY SUPPLIER TO SEED MATERIAL CORRECTLY. 2. PLANTING OF SEED MATERIAL BUT BE ACCOMPANIED BY CONTINUED MAINTENANCE BY THE SEEDING COMPANY UNTIL FULL COVERAGE IS ESTABLISHED ZONE(PER PLAN): A ZONE(PER PLAN): B MANUFACTURER: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. MANUFACTURER: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. SEED MIX: SHORELINE WILDFLOWER MIX SEED MIX: POLLINATOR MIX FOR MESICTO WETSOILS SEED MIX INFORMATION: SEED MIX INFORMATION: Soil Type: For that zone one foot higher than water elevation down to six inches lower than water elevation Soil Moisture: Mesic-Wet c, ` Average Height: 2-4 ft. Sun Exposure: Full to partial sun 3 RB Seeding Rate: Broadcast: 1/2-lib./10,000 sq. ft. t\ SEEDING ZONE B, SEE BIG BLUESTEM 5.00% LEGEND &PLANT LIST GENERAL COMPOSITION (BY PLS WEIGHT): PLANT SCHEDULE - TREES 3.50% BLUE JOINT GRASS 3.25% '++ �� ` SYM QUANT. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT COMMENTS Z *+* \ DECIDUOUS TREES SWAMP MILKWEED 12% + +++ +++SEE ' * * * * LEGEND & PLANT LIST NRM 18 NORTHWOOD RED MAPLE Acer rubrum'Northwood' 4.0" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM FFSM 7 FALL FIESTA SUGAR MAPLE Acer saccharum 'Bailsta' 4.0" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM PCW 3 PRAIRIE CASCADE WEEPING WILLOW Salix'Prairie Cascade' 2.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM RB 15 RIVER BIRCH Betula nigra 2.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM PB 5 PAPER BIRCH Betula papyrifera 2.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM SWO 6 SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor 2.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM HB 2 HACKBERRY Celtis occidentalis 2.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM C� W 2 ORNAMENTALTREES QN ABS 5 AUTUMN BRILLIANCE SERVICEBERRY Amelanchier x grandiflora 'Autumn Brilliance (tree form)' 1.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM THH 7 THORNLESS HAWTHORN Crataegus crus-galli 'lnermis' 1.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM BB 5 BLUE BEECH Carpinus caroliniana 1.5" CAL. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Patrick J. Sarver DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 24904 EVERGREEN TREES BHS 5 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea glauca'Densata' 6' ht. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM WP 7 WHITE PINE Pinus strobus 6' ht. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM WC 9 WHITE CEDAR Thuja occidentalis 6' ht. B&B STRAIGHT LEADER. FULL FORM NATIVE SEEDING NOTES & SPECIFICATIONS: 1. INSTALL ALL SEED MIXES PER SEED SUPPLIERS INSTRUCTIONS, OR EMPLOY SUPPLIER TO SEED MATERIAL CORRECTLY. 2. PLANTING OF SEED MATERIAL BUT BE ACCOMPANIED BY CONTINUED MAINTENANCE BY THE SEEDING COMPANY UNTIL FULL COVERAGE IS ESTABLISHED ZONE(PER PLAN): A ZONE(PER PLAN): B MANUFACTURER: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. MANUFACTURER: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. SEED MIX: SHORELINE WILDFLOWER MIX SEED MIX: POLLINATOR MIX FOR MESICTO WETSOILS SEED MIX INFORMATION: SEED MIX INFORMATION: Soil Type: For that zone one foot higher than water elevation down to six inches lower than water elevation Soil Moisture: Mesic-Wet c, ` Average Height: 2-4 ft. Sun Exposure: Full to partial sun 3 RB Seeding Rate: Broadcast: 1/2-lib./10,000 sq. ft. t\ SEEDING ZONE B, SEE BIG BLUESTEM 5.00% LEGEND &PLANT LIST GENERAL COMPOSITION (BY PLS WEIGHT): INDIAN GRASS 3.50% BLUE JOINT GRASS 3.25% '++ �� ` 2.75% BLUE VERVAIN 15% SWITCH GRASS 0.25% WILDFLOWERS Z *+* \ SEEDING ZONE A, SWAMP MILKWEED 12% + +++ +++SEE ' * * * * LEGEND & PLANT LIST JOE-PYE WEED 11% ++ ++ 7.00% SWEET FLAG 8% + +* + ++ ++*+ 6.25% BON ESET 5.00°% * + 5.00°% BON ES ET 9% ++ + * **+ i ++ \� BLACK-EYED SUSAN GIANT BUR -REED 6% 6% Found 1/ ++++ + + + ;..P` -a- /� GOLDEN ALEXANDER IRONWEED 6% 6% +>+\+++++ ' '�I �� + ++ �_'WATER PLANTAIN 4% \+++++++ +++;w++++ /+ + FLAT-TOPPED ASTER 3% 1. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4" DEPTH OF DOUBLE + + + 1 -NRM + ' �+++++� 2 - NRM + COMMON OX -EYE 3% SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S 1* + REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. �O 1 THH ++ + MEADOW BLAZING STAR 3% EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL. \ \O + 3 -WC TALL BLAZING STAR 2% o 2. ALL TREES SHALL BE MULCHED WITH SHREDDED HARDWOOD 3 -WP `_ SWU ARROWHEAD 2% MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER OR TO EDGE OF PLANTING ` \O THH 1 -PB °'+ MEADOW ROSE 1% 1- BED, IF APPLICABLE. ALL MULCH SHALL BE KEPT WITHIN A PAN ICLED ASTER 1% MINIMUM OF 2" FROM TREE TRUNK. �. J5� RED -STALKED ASTER 1% 3. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN 2 - RB \ G \N \ TALL MEADOW RUE 1% ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF \�100% HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND 2 -L DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING \ / PLUMPNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURATION OF ACCEPTANCE ` �,�� `* o� PERIOD. ------ Druce ny 4. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY 11 `+ +, P/bar \ / � ZONE(PER PLAN): C OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY 1 i + SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. I �n CJ'++� 1 -ABS 5. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE I + MANUFACTURER: PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS, INC. ` 3 -WP \ SEED MIX: NORTHERN WET MEADOW WILDFLOWER MIX LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE I � *+ , CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT I I " I * \\ SEED MIX INFORMATION: SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (1) FULL GROWING SEASONS ij ) ++ �* " * \ FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE I� II �� �++++ 7 / 6. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL ' \ +`+ ' ,� [/) y RECEIVE 4" LAYER LOAM AND SODAS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. i 11-NRM/ \ 7. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND f SIC) AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES LIGHTING FIXTURESDOORS AND �' ' Soil Type: Ideal forsites in the North Northeast part of the state Soil Moisture: Mesic-Wet Average Height: 3-6 ft. Sun Exposure: Ful I to partial sun Seeding Rate: Broadcast: 1-2 oz./1,000 sq. ft. \\ \ WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL �/ � � \ \\ GENERAL COMPOSITION (BY PLS WEIGHT): o LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL �/ r BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. �// G`F-loor / \ \ /\\ BLUE VERVAIN 13/0 Top932.I i �'S�P \ �- SWAMP MILKWEED 12% 8. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND MAINTAINED i v. 20 JOE-PYE WEED 10°% UNTIL ACCEPTANCE. I �\ �`o \ o � � � \ \ 9. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM / �so BON ESET 8%I i BLACK-EYED SUSAN 8% LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. Found Spike ------_....,I r ; 4 Is ��t COMMON OX -EYE 6% 10, SWEEP AND MAINTAIN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS ' GOLDEN ALEXANDER 5% GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. /C; \ o� -�'o� SWEET FLAG 5% �o WATER PLANTAIN 5% r� ARROWHEAD 5% \i \ Hyd. 0 i '5o' \ FLAT-TOPPED ASTER 4% Most westerly corner of Lot MH \ WILD BERGAMOT 3% 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \ �9 MEADOW ROSE 3% 0. poi°\\� STIFF GOLDENROD 3% , TALL MEADOW RUE 3% LARGE -LEAVED ASTER 2% PAN ICLED ASTER 2% Most southerly cornerof Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION.001 RED -STALKED ASTER 2% --�----�"' OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\°� \ �� YARROW 1% 0, �� 100°% LEGEND Soil Type: Loam, Clay, Sand Soil Moisture: Mesic-Wet Average Height: 3 to 6 ft. Sun Exposure: Ful I to partial sun Seeding Rate: 4 ozs. per 1,000 sq. ft. GENERAL COMPOSITION (BY PLS WEIGHT): GRASSES BIG BLUESTEM 5.00% CANADA WILD RYE 4.00% INDIAN GRASS 3.50% BLUE JOINT GRASS 3.25% FRINGED BROME 2.75% LITTLE BLUESTEM 1.00°/ SWITCH GRASS 0.25% WILDFLOWERS Z SWAMP MILKWEED 8.00°/ PURPLE PRAIRIE CLOVER 8.00°/ JOE-PYE WEED 7.00% MEADOW BLAZING STAR 7.00% TALL BLZING STAR 7.00% BLUE VERVAIN 7.00°% GOLDEN ALEXANDER 6.25% BON ESET 5.00°% COMMON OX -EYE 5.00°% BLACK-EYED SUSAN 5.00°% FLAT-TOPPED ASTER 3.00°% STIFF GOLDEN ROD 3.00°% IRONWEED 3.00°% WILD BERGAMOT 2.00°% YARROW 1.00°% CANADA MILK VETCH 1.00°% PAN ICLED ASTER 1.00°% RE -STALKED ASTER 1.00°% 100.00°% SHREDDED CYPRESS MULCH SEED ZONE A, SEE SPECS. ABOVE PATH, SAMPLES REQUIRED, APPROX. 7,420 SF APPROX. 1,750 SF SEED ZONE B, SEE SPECS. ABOVE SOD. APPROX 3,000 SY APPROX. 20,215 SF STANDARD BEACH SAND, ENSURE SEED ZONE C, SEE SPECS. ABOVE LOCAL SUPPLIER, SAMPLES L r APPROX. 4,000 SF REQUIRED. APPROX. 700 SF PROPOSED CANOPY & EVERGREEN PROPOSED PERENNIAL PLANT TREE SYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE SYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES PLANTING SIZES � DECORATIVE BOULDERS, 18"-30" DIA. PROPOSED DECIDUOUS AND EVERGREEN SHRUB SYMBOLS - SEE SCHEDULE AND PLAN FOR SPECIES AND PLANTING SIZES GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG Alpok (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 " = 20'-0" • 10'-0" 0 20'-0" C�OVHO SRO\(e Crz M (K::D M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE W�EST DEVELOPMENT, LLC REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 LANDSCAPE PLAN Ll 00 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. Lo J M J L0 ., z CF) Z L0 W z W z a Lu V O p z z Q OJ J 0z O W li LU > N *� LLI LU Q O O M = C� W 2 Lo QN C J w O IY IL I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. Patrick J. Sarver DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 LANDSCAPE PLAN Ll 00 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. ----929------ i r---929.4 contour-- _------ - 00 I ♦ ��,�� 8 9 �. 7 \� ♦ °"E 0 (D78 0a </ `_— ' ' ` �-� /,� i � ♦,♦, � ` -- , 932 � \ �♦ \ \ Top. ♦9 0 ,♦ $5Con __—\k j5 Inv. 5 �♦; x \fo \ � Inv. l9 ♦ , �e,r� u� 1 ♦ \ \,\ \ \ \\ \ ♦♦♦ X IN 937— \ X4"1 O 9 01 co %\\ \\\ ` ;11t \41% \�`;♦ ��J (jo N 4 x 1 `\\ x x 7 x x ;L009 X 29 `\\ \ ,♦♦♦ �i \ 4r� �� x 1 \ r\�� INSTALL DOUBLE ROW OF SILT \ ` ` IN `. \\ \ ��� ` FENCE AT GRADING LIMITS TO �� \\ �0 \`\ �� ♦3 / _---__ x�_________---�♦ \`\♦�♦ PROTECT SITE FROM RUNOFF \ --�— 1 x 1314f\�.m— ��� \ INSTALL DOUBLE ROW OF SILT \\ \\ \ ��9 \ x 17 `� tl \`\ \ FENCE AT GRADING LIMITS TO ` It � •'••PROTECT SITE FROM RUNOFFxa4 x TEMPORARY MULCH PARKING �.� ��\ \\ .,♦ - x 17 6 47 `., AREA, INSTALL AT EXISTING �. `\ , ♦`baa x le x 19 x 21 GRADE, TYP. UPON CONCLUSION \\ `\ \ s ♦��♦ + x 22 OF USE, RETURN SITE TO \\ \ PREVIOUS CONDITION, x \ \ O INCLUDING AERATION OF SOIL, \� \ + �o i ; 1� AND RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF + +j \ \ �o i\ �� TURF.'NIH \ \� \ o ♦♦ ter, .\`;�� Top 9.06 \ �7 \\ ;� '��\ i X j�444 Inds 926.36 Found 1/2" Iron Pipe-- ,"410 \\`\\ \ deo• \\\ �I `ter, X51----'' � ii skm 3kK IV n�Kx 46 Apo ; \ 11 IQ� ` UNDERGROUND STORMWATER \\ �9\\` 11 \\ I �• ' ; �_____ SYSTEMS TO REMAIN OFFLINE UNTIL SITE IS ESTABLISHED, TYP. 41. \I F. \\ G�-)2 8 0 /9 �ruce� ',�� 'Spruct X05" 72) \ t LG 4 1 0 jt�oplar�� ,f J �' ��jP lar A , III a l 311 to /,' 0 'opt ! I In g2f'' '� + x 5 / / epi , Poplar / 4t �, 19 , / .,1l'40, -I-� 10�j 7 z�0 / �O Found Spike Top 932.10 // 1 Inv. 927.20 (`'�� ( o 14. ." d, -- �� 4PORA )ATLIF ISTRUCTION H yd. Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS ) Most southerly corner of Lot ENTRANCE V 33.3 / Floor ' 0 GPS \V ' V MH \ OTS. SWPPP NOTES: 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. AN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT IS ALSO REQUIRED FROM THE CITY OF ORONO. C�' VH' SR' � �' Orz m CD U P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.3 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES,I Matt Pavek DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. 763-213-3944 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND: 1137 EX. 1' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW ■■�■■■■�■■�■■■■�■■�■ SILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMIT ■ ■ INLET PROTECTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TEMPORARY MULCH PARKING AREA EROSION CONTROL BLANKET GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WWW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 4 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC I— U w 0 Il M L0 L0 O O LUU J C) C) M Lo J M J L0 ., zzC G z W z O a z 0 z J :E W N W Lu W Q 2 C� W 2 L0 QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Mafthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - EXISTING CONDITIONS swi 00 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC /e,. 929.4 contour -�--------- 00foo �♦ / / �♦ hp 11 i ♦ ♦ r \ e N \ \ H %%932io� Inv. ,��� \ 93j'S costoA. �\ \ �- \ 1�\ 111 ,`�� \ ♦ \\ ` \ `♦ %s /lam 41 `I \111 10 \11\ 11\ ,,`,�, `\\� ``� \\\�� / ,, % % 19 414 INSTALL DOUBLE ROW OF SILT 1\ 10 ��\ ` �, \ \ ` �♦ FENCE AT GRADING LIMITS TO INSTALL DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE AT GRADING LIMITS TO PROTECT SITE FROM RUNOFF \`\ x'91 \ 'MH -bo 4 .F Top 931\06 In\ s 926.36 Ar11 ♦♦ 0 \ ` A it 1 1 11 I q it 4t IF I �V i i "I Top 932.10 Inv. 927.20 ` _ J� Found Spike- __.44,`�y\ i 0 / Hyd. Most westerly corner of Lot 185, TAYLOR'S SUBDIVISION OF SPRING PARK LOTS \\ \ �` PROTECT SITE FROM RUNOFF `. `N 14k, % TEMP;fJRARY MULCH PA ING \�`� ,�N�♦ INSTALL AT EXISTIN ` **1'., ADE, TYP. UPON CONCLU N �� \�`` %'o' �® OF USE, RETURN SITE TO \\\ 1 ,•���� 5 PREVIOUS CONDITION, ING AERATION OF SOIL, D R � TABLISH;ME�NT OF o \ 'P 1 �� F. 9 '5 Found 1/2" Iron Pipe 76� UNDERGROUND STORMWATER DRAIN RUNOFF FROM SYSTEMS TO REMAIN OFFLINE O ADJACENT PROPERTY UNTIL SITE IS ESTABLISHED, TYP. OO TOWARD LAKE/LAGOON O O THROUGH SWALE, TYP. \ \ 1 V , / r i / O ."• , I 1 ��,��' #,/41 ,,,,,-Spruce ��Cy �l 6� Poplar NO RUNOFF FROM THE PROPOSED SITE SHOULD BE DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER �/1";0 7 CONSTRUCTION \ ENTRANCE / i 33.3 / G Floor 5�� 0 �' GP S/10i'ji��G' SWPPP NOTES: 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. AN EROSION CONTROL PERMIT IS ALSO REQUIRED FROM THE CITY OF ORONO. O O O Cr © M 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com 2. SEE SHEETS SW1.0 - SW1.3 FOR ALL EROSION CONTROL NOTES,I Matt Pavek DESCRIPTIONS, AND PRACTICES. 763-213-3944 3. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES. 4. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. CITY OF ORONO EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES. ALL SPECIFIED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES, AND MEASURES CONTAINED IN THIS SWPPP ARE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONAL PRACTICES MAY BE REQUIRED DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION. LEGEND: EX. T CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 1.0' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW -------------------- SILT FENCE / BIOROLL - GRADING LIMIT ■ ■ INLET PROTECTION STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TEMPORARY MULCH PARKING AREA K/727z_ z7zzj EROSION CONTROL BLANKET GOPHER STATE ONE CALL W WW.GOPHERSTATEONECALL.ORG (800) 252-1166 TOLL FREE (651) 454-0002 LOCAL 4 1 " = 30'-0" 15'-0" 0 30'-0" Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC U W 0 Il T_ M L0 L0 O 0Y O LUU J C) O M Lf� J M J L0 ., z Z W z m a W z O Z J 2 W `o (DN W Lu V/ ~ W Q W 2 QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP -PROPOSED CONDITIONS COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROU"NC "rRFLOW IS% OF THE CURB K HEIGHT =RFLOW AT TOP OF fER ASSEMBLY ISTING CURB, PLATE, BOX, ID GRATE .TER ASSEMBLY DIAMETER, 6" I -GRADE 10" AT LOW POINT GH -FLOW FABRIC NUIt6: 1. REPLACE INLET GRATE UPON COMPLETE INSTALLATION OF INLET PROTECTION FABRIC. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REMOVE ALL ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT AND DEBRIS FROM THE SURFACE OF THE SYSTEM AFTER EACH STORM EVENT AND AT THE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACT. 3. REFERENCE APPLE VALLEY STANDARD PLATE ERO-4C. CURB INLET FILTER NTS 30' FROM EDGE OF ROAD TO FRONT OF SPEED BUMP 35' R Q - 0 I Q z 0 Lu TO CONSTRUCTION z I AREA F- o a I W o o a z C� PLAN 35'R TO CONSTRUCTION AREA 6" MIN CRUSHED STONE X • w EXISTING 7r,' KAININnl Inn ....... FINISHED GRADE PROFILE NOTES: 1. PROVIDE APPROPRIATE TRANSITION BETWEEN STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AND UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. 2. THE ENTRANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOWING OF SEDIMENT ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH ADDITIONAL STONE OR ADDING STONE TO THE LENGTH OF THE ENTRANCE. 3. REPAIR AND CLEANOUT MEASURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT. 4. ALL SEDIMENT SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED, OR TRACKED ONTO UNDISTURBED ROADWAY SHALL BE REMOVED AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 5. FINAL LOCATION AND INSTALLATION SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 6. CRUSHED STONE SHALL BE 1-1/2" DIA. CLOSE GRADED, AND IN ACCORDANCE TO MNDOT SECTION 2118. STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS NTS 'B' TAMP THE TRENCH FULL OF SOIL. SECURE WITH ROW OF STAPLES, 10" SPACING, 4" DOWN FROM TRENCH r " rr 'C' OVERLAP: BURY UPPER END OF LOWER STRIP AS IN 'A' AND'B'. OVERLAP END OF "r TOP STRIP 4" AND STAPLE. 'D, EROSION STOP: FOLD OF MATTING BURIED IN SILT TRENCH AND TAMPED. DOUBLEROW OF STAPLES. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL. EROSION BLANKET NTS 'A' BURY THE TOP END OF THE MATTING IN A TRENCH 4" OR MORE IN DEPTH 'E' OVERFALL r r r r, * 4 �r NOTE: 1. PLACE STAPLES 2 FEET APART TO KEEP MATTING FIRMLY PRESSED TO SOIL. TYPICAL STAPLE #8 GAUGE WIRE EXISTING GROUND SURFACE ILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED ILLER AS SPECIFIED FILL UPSTREAM BASE EDGE WITH 2" OF DIRT OR COMPOST TO EMBED ROLL. DIRECTION OF FLOW WOODEN STAKES 1/2"X2"X16" MIN. PLACED 10' O.C. WHEN INSTALLED ON GROUND. IF INSTALLED ON PVMT. PROVIDE SANDBAGS BEHIND AND ON TOP AT MIN. 10' O.C. NOTE: 1. COMPOST FILTER LOGS (BIO ROLLS) SHALL BE FILTREXX EROSION CONTROL SOXX OR APPROVED EQUAL. 2. COMPOST FILLER TO BE MADE FROM A COMPOST BLEND 30%-40% GRADE 2 (SPEC 3890) AND 60%-70% PARTIALLY DECOMPOSED WOOD CHIPS, PER MNDOT SPEC 3897. 3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE GEOTEXTILE KNITTED MATERIAL WITH MAX. OPENINGS OF 3/811. 4. IF MULTIPLE ROLLS NEEDED, OVERLAP BY MIN. 12" AT ENDS AND STAKE. 5. SILT SHALL BE REMOVED ONCE IT REACHES 80% OF THE HEIGHT OF THE ROLL OR AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY SITE CONTRACTOR TO MAINTAIN PROPER FUNCTION. SEDIMENT BIO -ROLL / COMPOST FILTER LOG NTS SUPPORT NET: 12 GAUGE 4" x 4" WIRE HOOKED ONTO — PREFORMED CHANNELS ON POSTS AS SPECIFIED. EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FILTER FABRIC WITH WIRE SUPPORT NET AS SPECIFIED. METAL POST AS SPECIFIED. N CARRY WIRE SUPPORT NET DOWN INTO TRENCH �z N SEDIMENT FENCE NTS FILTER FABRIC AS SPECIFIED SECURE TO WIRE SUPPORT NET WITH METAL CLIPS 12"O.C. COR70H 0 RO N C� G3 Oo CUJ 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek 763-213-3944 Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 LAKE VIS DEVELOPMENT, LLC ANCHOR FABRIC WITH uu SOIL, TAMP BACKFILL DIRECTION OF FLOW J 6„ T METAL POSTS 8'-0" O.C. MAX. U w O IL M LO LO z O O LuU J 0 O M LO J M J LO LO ., z z W z m a Luz O z J :E W N W Lu W Q C� W 2 L0 QN J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Mafthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT INC.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - DETAILS SW1 02 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. GENERAL SWPPP REQUIREMENTS AND NOTES: THE CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED WITH A CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT DISTURBS SITE SOIL OR WHO IMPLEMENT A POLLUTANT CONTROL MEASURE IDENTIFIED IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) GENERAL PERMIT (DATED AUGUST 1, 2013 # MNR100001 PAGES 1-35) AND ANY LOCAL GOVERNING AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION CONCERNING EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL. PART III STORMWATER DISCHARGE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SWPPP (PART III.A) THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IS REPRESENTED IN THIS SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. SEE THE SWPPP PLAN SHEETS AND SWPPP NARRATIVE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) FOR ADDITIONAL SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP INFORMATION. THE PLANS SHOW LOCATIONS AND TYPES OF ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S. STANDARD DETAILS ARE ATTACHED TO THIS SWPPP DOCUMENT. THE INTENDED SEQUENCING OF MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. INSTALL STABILIZED ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 2. INSTALLATION OF SILT FENCE AROUND SITE 3. INSTALL ORANGE CONSTRUCTION FENCING AROUND INFILTRATION AREAS. 4. CLEAR AND GRUB FOR TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN / POND INSTALL 5. CONSTRUCT TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN / POND (PART 111.6) 6. CLEAR AND GRUB REMAINDER OF SITE 7. STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL 8. ROUGH GRADING OF SITE 9. STABILIZE DENUDED AREAS AND STOCKPILES 10. INSTALL SANITARY SEWER, WATER MAIN STORM SEWER AND SERVICES 11. INSTALL SILT FENCE / INLET PROTECTION AROUND CB'S 12. INSTALL STREET SECTION 13. INSTALL CURB AND GUTTER 14. BITUMINOUS ON STREETS 15. FINAL GRADE BOULEVARD, INSTALL SEED AND MULCH 16. REMOVE ACCUMULATED SEDIMENT FROM BASIN / POND 17. FINAL GRADE POND / INFILTRATION BASINS (DO NOT COMPACT SOILS IN INFILTRATION AREAS.) (PART III.C) 18. WHEN ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE AND THE SITE IS STABILIZED BY EITHER SEED OR SOD/LANDSCAPING, REMOVE SILT FENCE AND RESEED ANY AREAS DISTURBED BY THE REMOVAL. RECORDS RETENTION (PART III.E): THE SWPPP (ORIGINAL OR COPIES) INCLUDING, ALL CHANGES TO IT, AND INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE RECORDS MUST BE KEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION BY THE PERMITTEE WHO HAS OPERATIONAL CONTROL OF THAT PORTION OF THE SITE. THE SWPPP CAN BE KEPT IN EITHER THE FIELD OFFICE OR IN AN ON SITE VEHICLE DURING NORMAL WORKING HOURS. ALL OWNER(S) MUST KEEP THE SWPPP, ALONG WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL RECORDS, ON FILE FOR THREE (3) YEARS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NOT AS OUTLINED IN PART II.C. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RECORDS AFTER SUBMITTAL OF THE NOT. 1. THE FINAL SWPPP; 2. ANY OTHER STORMWATER RELATED PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT; 3. RECORDS OF ALL INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE CONDUCTED DURING CONSTRUCTION (SEE PART IV.E. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE); 4. ALL PERMANENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED, INCLUDING ALL RIGHT OF WAY, CONTRACTS, COVENANTS AND OTHER BINDING REQUIREMENTS REGARDING PERPETUAL MAINTENANCE; AND 5. ALL REQUIRED CALCULATIONS FOR DESIGN OF THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. THE OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ARE PERMITTEE(S) AS IDENTIFIED BY THE NPDES PERMIT. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ON-SITE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP, INCLUDING THE ACTIVITIES OF ALL OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SUBCONTRACTORS. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A PERSON(S) KNOWLEDGEABLE AND EXPERIENCED IN THE APPLICATION OF EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS TO OVERSEE ALL INSTALLATION AND MAINTENANCE OF BMPS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SWPPP. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE PERSON(S) MEETING THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES PERMIT TO CONDUCT INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PERMIT. ONE OF THESE INDIVIDUAL(S) MUST BE AVAILABLE FOR AN ONSITE INSPECTION WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST BY MPCA. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE TRAINING DOCUMENTATION FOR THESE INDIVIDUAL() AS REQS UIRED BY THE NPDES PERMIT. THIS TRAINING DOCUMENTATION SHALL BE RECORDED IN OR WITH THE SWPPP BEFORE THE START OF CONSTRUCTION OR AS SOON AS THE PERSONNEL FOR THE PROJECT HAVE BEEN DETERMINED. DOCUMENTATION SHALL INCLUDE: 4.1. NAMES OF THE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRAINED PER PART III.F.1 OF THE PERMIT. 4.2. DATES OF TRAINING AND NAME OF INSTRUCTOR AND ENTITY PROVIDING TRAINING. 4.3. CONTENT OF TRAINING COURSE OR WORKSHOP INCLUDING THE NUMBER OF HOURS OF TRAINING. 5. FOLLOWING FINAL STABILIZATION AND THE TERMINATION OF COVERAGE FOR THE NPDES PERMIT, THE OWNER IS EXPECTED TO FURNISH LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE (0 & M) OF THE PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. PART IV. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY REQUIREMENTS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FIELD REQUIREMENTS: 1. ALL FIELD REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES PERMIT AND STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP). 2. THE CONTRACTOR MUST IMPLEMENT THE SWPPP AND PROVIDE BMPS IDENTIFIED IN THE SWPPP IN AN APPROPRIATE AND FUNCTION MANNER. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL RESPOND TO CHANGING SITE CONDITIONS AND IMPLEMENT/SUPPLEMENT EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES UTILIZED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION OF DISTURBED SOILS AND ADEQUATE PREVENTION OF SEDIMENT TRANSPORT OFF-SITE. AT A MINIMUM, THE FOLLOWING STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY FIELD REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE FURNISHED BY THE CONTRACTOR. EROSION PREVENTION (PART IV.B): THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PLANING FOR AND IMPLEMENTING APPROPRIATE CONSTRUCTION PHASING, VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, HORIZONTAL SLOPE GRADING, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT MINIMIZE EROSION, SO THAT THE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS OF PART IV.E ARE COMPLIED WITH. THE LOCATION OF AREAS NOT TO BE DISTURBED MUST BE DELINEATED (E.G. WITH FLAGS, STAKES, SIGNS, SILT FENCE ETC.) ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT NO LATER THAN THE END OF THE NEXT WORK DAY WHEN EARTH -DISTURBING ACTIVITIES WILL CEASE FOR AT LEAST 14 DAYS. TEMPORARY STOCKPILES WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT SILT, CLAY OR ORGANIC COMPONENTS (E.G., CLEAN AGGREGATE STOCKPILES, DEMOLITION CONCRETE STOCKPILES, SAND STOCKPILES) AND THE CONSTRUCTED BASE COMPONENTS OF ROADS, PARKING LOTS AND SIMILAR SURFACES ARE EXEMPT FROM THIS REQUIREMENT BUT MUST COMPLY WITH PART IV.C.5. SOILS WITHIN 200 FEET OF A PUBLIC WATER (AS DESIGNATED BY THE MINNESOTA DNR) MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS DURING FISH SPAWNING TIMES. THE NORMAL WETTED PERIMETER OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCH OR SWALE THAT DRAINS WATER FROM ANY PORTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, OR DIVERTS WATER AROUND THE SITE, MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 200 LINEAL FEET FROM THE PROPERTY EDGE, OR FROM THE POINT OF DISCHARGE INTO ANY SURFACE WATER. STABILIZATION OF THE LAST 200 LINEAL FEET MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER. STABILIZATION OF THE REMAINING PORTIONS OF ANY TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES MUST BE COMPLETE WITHIN 14 DAYS AFTER CONNECTING TO A SURFACE WATER AND CONSTRUCTION IN THAT PORTION OF THE DITCH HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DITCHES OR SWALES THAT ARE BEING USED AS A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (WITH PROPERLY DESIGNED ROCK DITCH CHECKS, BIO ROLLS, SILT DIKES ETC.) DO NOT NEED TO BE STABILIZED. THESE AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER NO LONGER BEING USED AS A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM. PIPE OUTLETS MUST BE PROVIDED WITH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT ENERGY DISSIPATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER CONNECTION TO A SURFACE WATER. SEED NOTES (PART III.A,4.A): ALL SEED MIXES AND APPLICATION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS: IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SEEDING THE SOIL SHALL BE TILLED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 3 INCHES. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL SEEDING, MULCHING & BLANKET. SEED • TEMPORARY SEED SHALL BE MNDOT SEED MIX 21-112 (WINTER WHEAT COVER CROP) FOR WINTER AND 21-111 (OATS COVER CROP) FOR SPRING/SUMMER APPLICATIONS. BOTH SEED MIXES SHALL BE APPLIED AT A SEEDING RATE OF 100 LBS/ACRE. MULCH • IMMEDIATELY AFTER SEEDING, WITHIN 24 HOURS, MNDOT TYPE 1 MULCH SHOULD BE APPLIED TO PROTECT AND ENHANCE SEED GERMINATION. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT 90% COVERAGE (2 TONS PER ACRE OF STRAW MULCH) SLOPES • 3:1 (HORIZIVERT.) OR FLATTER MUCH SHALL BE COVERED WITH MULCH • SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 OR DITCH BOTTOMS SHALL BE COVERED WITH EROSION CONTROL BLANKET. • SEE PLAN FOR MORE DETAILED DITCH AND STEEP SLOPE EROSION CONTROL TREATMENTS. SEDIMENT CONTROL (PART IV.C): SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST MINIMIZE SEDIMENT FROM ENTERING SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS AND STORM SEWER INLETS. a. TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT DRAINAGE DITCHES AND SEDIMENT BASINS THAT ARE DESIGNED AS PART OF A SEDIMENT CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (E.G., DITCHES WITH ROCK CHECK DAMS) REQUIRE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES ONLY AS APPROPRIATE FOR SITE CONDITIONS. b. IF THE DOWN GRADIENT TREATMENT SYSTEM IS OVERLOADED, ADDITIONAL UPGRADIENT SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES OR REDUNDANT BMPS MUST BE INSTALLED TO ELIMINATE THE OVERLOADING, AND THE SWPPP MUST BE AMENDED TO IDENTIFY THESE ADDITIONAL PRACTICES AS REQUIRED IN PART III.A.4, A. THROUGH C. c. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN SHEET FLOW AND MINIMIZE RILLS AND/OR GULLIES, THERE SHALL BE NO UNBROKEN SLOPE LENGTH OF GREATER THAN 75 FEET FOR SLOPES WITH A GRADE OF 3:1 OR STEEPER. SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE ESTABLISHED ON ALL DOWN GRADIENT PERIMETERS BEFORE ANY UPGRADIENT LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES BEGIN THESE PRACTICES SHALL REMAIN IN PLACE UNTIL FINAL STABILIZATION HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PART IV.G. THE TIMING OF THE INSTALLATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MAY BE ADJUSTED TO ACCOMMODATE SHORT-TERM ACTIVITIES SUCH AS CLEARING OR GRUBBING, OR PASSAGE OF VEHICLES. ANY SHORT-TERM ACTIVITY MUST BE COMPLETED AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND THE SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ACTIVITY IS COMPLETED. HOWEVER, SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES MUST BE INSTALLED BEFORE THE NEXT PRECIPITATION EVENT EVEN IF THE ACTIVITY IS NOT COMPLETE. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE BMPS DURING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABILIZED. INLET PROTECTION MAY BE REMOVED FOR A PARTICULAR INLET IF A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN (STREET FLOODING/FREEZING) HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND THE PERMITTEE(S) HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY (E.G. CITY/COUNTY/TOWNSHIP/MNDOT ENGINEER) VERIFYING THE NEED FOR REMOVAL. THE WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE SWPPP OR AVAILABLE WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST. WHEN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE CAN NOT BE OBTAINED IN A TIMELY MANNER, THE SPECIFIC INLET PROTECTION CAN BE REMOVED TO ALLEVIATE THE IMMEDIATE SAFETY CONCERN. HOWEVER, EFFORTS TO OBTAIN WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE MUST BE DOCUMENTED IN THE SWPPP AND AVAILABLE WITHIN 72 HOURS UPON REQUEST. PERMISSION TO REMOVE INLET PROTECTION BASED ON A SPECIFIC SAFETY CONCERN MUST STILL BE OBTAINED FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL AUTHORITY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF REMOVAL. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, AND CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING STORMWATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB AND GUTTER SYSTEMS, OR CONDUITS AND DITCHES UNLESS THERE IS A BYPASS IN PLACE FOR THE STORMWATER. VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE (OR ONTO STREETS WITHIN THE SITE) MUST BE MINIMIZED BY BMPS SUCH AS STONE PADS, CONCRETE OR STEEL WASH RACKS, OR EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS. STREET SWEEPING MUST BE USED IF SUCH BMPS ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THE STREET (SEE PART IV.E.4.D.). THE PERMITEE MUST MINIMIZE SOIL COMPACTION AND, UNLESS INFEASIBLE, PRESERVE TOPSOIL. MINIMIZING SOIL COMPACTION IS NOT REQUIRED WHERE THE FUNCTION OF THE SPECIFIC AREA OF THE SITE DICTATES THAT IT BE COMPACTED. METHODS FOR MINIMIZING COMPACTION INCLUDE THE USE OF TRACKED EQUIPMENT, AND STAYING OFF OF AREAS TO BE LEFT UN -COMPACTED. METHODS TO PRESERVE TOPSOIL INCLUDE STRIPPING AND STOCKPILING TOPSOIL PRIOR TO GRADING OR EXCAVATION OPERATIONS. THE PERMITTEE MUST INSTALL TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS AS REQUIRED IN PART III.B. OF THIS PERMIT DEWATERING AND BASIN DRAINING (PART IV.D) DEWATERING OR BASIN DRAINING (E.G., PUMPED DISCHARGES, TRENCH/DITCH CUTS FOR DRAINAGE) RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE TURBID OR SEDIMENT LADEN DISCHARGE WATER MUST BE DISCHARGED TO A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASIN ON THE PROJECT SITE WHENEVER POSSIBLE. IF THE WATER CANNOT BE DISCHARGED TO A SEDIMENTATION BASIN PRIOR TO ENTERING THE SURFACE WATER, IT MUST BE TREATED WITH THE APPROPRIATE BMP'S SUCH THAT THE DISCHARGE DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE RECEIVING WATER, DOWNSTREAM LANDOWNERS OR WETLANDS. THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE THAT DISCHARGE POINTS ARE ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SCOUR. THE DISCHARGE MUST BE DISPERSED OVER NATURAL ROCK RIPRAP, SAND BAGS, PLASTIC SHEATHING OR OTHER ACCEPTED ENERGY DISSIPATION MEASURES. ADEQUATE SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES ARE REQUIRED FOR DISCHARGE WATER THAT CONTAINS SUSPENDED SOLIDS. FILTER BACKWASH WATERS MUST BE HAULED AWAY FOR DISPOSAL, RETURNED TO THE BEGINNING OF THE TREATMENT PROCESS, OR INCORPORATE INTO THE SITE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE EROSION. DISCHARGE OF THE BACKWASH WATER TO SANITARY SEWER IS ALLOWED WITH PERMISSION OF THE SANITARY SEWER AUTHORITY. INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE (PART IV.E): THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE AT ALL TIMES FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND PROPER OPERATION OF EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL AT A MINIMUM, INSPECT, MAINTAIN AND REPAIR ALL DISTURBED SURFACES AND ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL FACILITIES AND SOIL STABILIZATION MEASURES ONCE EVERY SEVEN (7) DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS FOLLOWING A RAINFALL OF 0.5 INCHES OR GREATER AND WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER THAT. CONTINUE INSPECTION ACTIVITIES UNTIL LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY HAS CEASED. THEREAFTER THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM THESE RESPONSIBILITIES AT LEAST WEEKLY UNTIL VEGETATIVE COVER IS ESTABLISHED. INSPECTIONS MUST INCLUDE STABILIZED AREAS, EROSION PREVENTION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMP'S AND INFILTRATION AREAS. BASED ON INSPECTION RESULTS THECONTRACTOR MAY MODIFY THE SWPPP IN ORDER TO PREVENT POLLUTANTS FROM LEAVING THE SITE VIA STORM WATER RUNOFF. THIS MODIFICATION MUST BE MADE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS OF THE INSPECTION UNLESS OTHERWISE REQUIRED BY THE TERMS OF THE PERMIT, LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. INSPECTION REPORTS MUST BE RECORDED WITHIN 24 HOURS IN WRITING AND KEPT ON FILE BY THE CONTRACTOR AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SWPPP ON SITE AND THEN FOR AT LEAST 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT. ALL PERIMETER CONTROL DEVICES MUST BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED WHEN THEY BECOME NONFUNCTIONAL OR THE SEDIMENT REACHES 1/2 OF THE HEIGHT OF THE DEVICE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE BY THE END OF THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY AFTER DISCOVERY, OR THEREAFTER AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. REMOVE ALL DELTAS AND SEDIMENT DEPOSITED IN SURFACE WATERS, INCLUDING DRAINAGE WAYS, CATCH BASINS, AND OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, AND RESTABILIZE THE AREAS WHERE SEDIMENT REMOVAL RESULTS IN EXPOSED TOPSOIL. THIS REMOVAL AND STABILIZATION MUST TAKE PLACE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF DISCOVERY UNLESS PRECLUDED BY LEGAL, REGULATORY, OR PHYSICAL ACCESS CONSTRAINTS. SEE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) FOR SITE SPECIFIC INSPECTIONS AND MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT (PART IV.F): THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES ON THE SITE; SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY (MPCA) DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED, INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT, TO PREVENT SPILLS, LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDALISM. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. EXTERNAL WASHING OF TRUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE. RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND WASTEWATER PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. CONCRETE WASHOUT: ALL LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE CONTAINED IN A LEAK PROOF CONTAINMENT FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER. A COMPACTED CLAY LINER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW WASHOUT LIQUIDS TO ENTER THE GROUND IS CONSIDERED AN IMPERMEABLE LINER. THE LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST NOT CONTACT THE GROUND, AND THERE MUST NOT BE RUNOFF FROM THE CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS OR AREAS. LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACILITY TO INFORM CONCRETE EQUIPMENT OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. CONCRETE WASHOUT MAY ALSO OCCUR OFF SITE ACCORDING TO THE APPROPRIATE REGULATIONS. FUELING OPERATION PLAN: ALL FUELING SHALL TAKE PLACE AT THE DESIGNATED FUELING LOCATION AND ACCORDING TO BEST PRACTICES FOR SITE FUELING OPERATIONS AS TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR SPILLS. SPILL PREVENTION PLAN: ALL SPILLS SHALL BE IMMEDIATELY CLEANED UP AFTER DISCOVERY. THE SITE SUPERINTENDENT, WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DAY-TO-DAY ONSITE CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS WILL BE THE SPILL PREVENTION COORDINATOR AND WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING CLEAN UP PROCEDURES, POSTING CLEAN UP RECOMMENDATIONS, AND ENSURING PROPER CLEAN UP TRAINING OF APPROPRIATE PERSONNEL. SANITARY AND SEPTIC WASTE: SANITARY/SEPTIC FACILITIES SHALL BE PROVIDED AND MAINTAINED IN A NEAT AND SANITARY CONDITION, FOR THE USE OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EMPLOYEES. A LICENSED SANITARY WASTE MANAGEMENT CONTRACTOR AS REQUIRED BY STATE REGULATIONS WILL COLLECT SANITARY WASTE FROM PORTABLE UNITS. FINAL STABILIZATION (PART IV.G): THE CONTRACTOR MUST ENSURE FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE ACCORDING THE DEFINITIONS IN THE NPDES GENERAL PERMIT PART IV SECTION G. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT A NOTICE OF TERMINATION (N.O.T.) WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL STABILIZATION IS COMPLETE OR WITHIN 7 DAYS AFTER SELLING THE SITE OR PORTION OF THE SITE (THAT HAS NOT UNDERGONE FINAL STABILIZATION) TO ANOTHER PARTY. A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF TERMINATION / PERMIT MODIFICATION FORM MUST GO TO THE NEW OWNER. THE ORIGINAL CURRENT OWNER MUST PROVIDE A SWPPP TO THE NEW OWNER THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE REMAINING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. SEE THE SWPPP PLAN SHEETS AND SWPPP NARRATIVE (ATTACHMENT A: CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE) AND SWPPP PLAN SHEETS FOR FINAL STABILIZATION MEASURES I of TA 10 110 0-110110 ML La 2 11 WTIVA DESIGN ENGINEER: MATTHEW R. PAVEK P.E. TRAINING COURSE: DESIGN OF SWPPP TRAINING ENTITY: UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA INSTRUCTOR: JOHN CHAPMAN DATES OF TRAINING COURSE: 5/15/2011 - 5/16/2011 TOTAL TRAINING HOURS: 12 RE -CERTIFICATION: 1/13/14-1/13/14 (8 HOURS), EXP. 5/31/2017 OWNER INFORMATION LAKE WEST DEVELOPMENT, LLC 14525 HIGHWAY 7, SUITE 265 MINNETONKA, MN 55345 952-653-1359 CONTACT: CURT FRETHAM (C�OVHO SRO�e Crz M © M P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 �EST AREAS AND QUANTITIES (PART III.A.4.B&C): I LAKE til ►1h 1[dllFit 1[01k1&I IMPERVIOUS SURFACE EXISTING CONDITION EXISTING 0.3% PROPOSED LOT 1 6,276 SF PROPOSED LOT 2 OUTLOT A 8,996 SF DEVELOP 0UTLOTA 2,837 SF 3.0°% LOT TOTAL ( LOT 1 + LOT 2) 15,272 SF 16.2% TOTAL (LOT 1 + LOT 2 + OUT LOT A) BUILDINGCOVERAGE 0 SF 0.0°% 4653 SF 16.0% 7296 SF 12.3% 0 SF 18.9% *All existing impervious area is owned by the adjacent property owner ENT w0.0% LLC ALL PAVEMENTS 302 SF 0.3% 1,623 SF 5.6% 1,700 SF 2.9% 2,837 SF 49.4% ALL PERVIOUS SURFACES 93,778 SF 99.7% 22,827 SF 78.4% 50,243 SF 84.8% 2,901 SF 50.6% TOTAL SITE AREA 94,080 SF 100.0°/ 29,103 SF 100.0°% 59,239 SF 100.0% 5,738 SF 100.0% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE EXISTING CONDITION 302 SF 0.3% PROPOSED CONDITION LOT 1 6,276 SF 6.7% PROPOSED CONDITION LOT2 8,996 SF 9.6% 0UTLOTA 2,837 SF 3.0°% LOT TOTAL ( LOT 1 + LOT 2) 15,272 SF 16.2% TOTAL (LOT 1 + LOT 2 + OUT LOT A) 18,109 SF 19.2% LOT DIFFERENCE (EX. VS PROP.) 14,970 SF 15.9% TOTAL DIFFERENCE (EX. VS PROP.) 17,807 SF 18.9% *All existing impervious area is owned by the adjacent property owner EROSION CONTROL QUANTITIES DISTURBED AREA 74,000 SF SILT FENCE/BIO-ROLL 2,700 LF EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 0 SF INLETPROTECTION DEVICES ±0 EA NOTE: QUANTITIES ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE FOR THEMSELVES THE EXACT QUANTITIES FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION. CONTRACTOR: SWPPP INSPECTOR TRAINING: ALL SWPPP INSPECTIONS MUST BE PERFORMED BY A PERSON THAT MEETS THE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS OF THE NPDES CONSTRUCTION SITE PERMIT. TRAINING CREDENTIALS SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND KEPT ON SITE WITH THE SWPPP PARTY RESPONSIBLE FOR LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF PERMANENT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT TO MEET NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONG TERM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM. SWPPP ATTACHMENTS (ONLY APPLICABLE IF SITE IS 1 ACRE OR GREATER): CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE FOLLOWING SWPPP ATTACHMENTS WHICH ARE A PART OF THE OVERALL SWPPP PACKAGE: ATTACHMENT A. CONSTRUCTION SWPPP TEMPLATE - SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP DOCUMENT ATTACHMENT B. CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER INSPECTION CHECKLIST ATTACHMENT C. MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PERMANENT STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS ATTACHMENT D: STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT - ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ENGINEER. AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. ATTACHMENT E: GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION REPORT - ON FILE AT THE OFFICE OF PROJECT ENGINEER. AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST. SUPPLEMENTARY SITE SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES: THESE NOTES SUPERCEDE ANY GENERAL SWPPP NOTES. THIS PROJECT IS GREATER THAN 1.0 ACRES SO AN NPDES PERMIT IS REQUIRED AN MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE MPCA. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES IN THE NPDES PERMIT THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. PROJECT NARRATIVE: PROJECT IS A REDEVELOPMENT OF AN EXISTING VACANT SITE WITH EXTENSIVE TREE GROWTH INTO A RESIDENTIAL SITE WITH 2 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SITE AND LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS WILL OCCUR. SPECIAL TMDL BMP REQUIREMENTS SITE SPECIFIC (IF REQUIRED): 1. DURING CONSTRUCTION: A. STABILIZATION OF ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE INITIATED IMMEDIATELY TO LIMIT SOIL EROSION BUT IN NO CASE COMPLETED LATER THAN SEVEN (7) DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY CEASED. B. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN REQUIREMENTS DESCRIBED IN PART III.C. MUST BE USED FOR COMMON DRAINAGE LOCATIONS THAT SERVE AN AREA WITH FIVE (5) OR MORE ACRES DISTURBED AT ONE TIME. 2. POST CONSTRUCTION:THE WATER QUALITY VOLUME THAT MUST BE RETAINED ON SITE BY THE PROJECT'S PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DESCRIBED IN PART III.D. SHALL BE ONE (1) INCH OF RUNOFF FROM THE NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES CREATED BY THE PROJECT. SEE PART III.D.1. FOR MORE INFORMATION ON INFILTRATION DESIGN, PROHIBITIONS AND APPROPRIATE SITE CONDITIONS. PERMANENT STABILIZATION NOTES SITE SPECIFIC: PERMANENT SEED MIX • FOR THIS PROJECT ALL AREAS THAT ARE NOT TO BE SODDED OR LANDSCAPED SHALL RECEIVE A NATIVE PERMANENT SEED MIX. of AREAS IN BUFFERS AND ADJACENT TO OR IN WET AREAS MNDOT SEED MIX 33-261 (STORMWATER SOUTH AND WEST) AT 35 LBS PER ACRE. •• DRY AREAS MNDOT SEED MIX 35-221 (DRY PRAIRIE GENERAL) AT 40 LBS PER ACRE. • MAINTENANCE SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE TO THE MNDOT SEEDING MANUAL. U W O Of IL co LO LO O O LUU O O M Lo J M J L0 In ., z Z W z O LILI az O z J 2 W(D LoN W Lu V♦ ~ W Q W = Lo N QL0 J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - NARRATIVE SW1 3 ■ ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. ATTACHMENT A: SITE SPECIFIC SWPPP DOCUMENT 1 0 C014 0 a . bite CA R 0 U P - Minnesota Pollution Attachment A■ Control Agency 9 y tC t R SWPPP is Site Specific D men � � 4 520 Lafayette aid North h o t St. Paul, MN 5535.5-41195 Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) To comply with the General stormwater Permit for Construction Activity Doc Type: Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Construction Activity Information Project name: IVY PLACE Project location (Briefly describe where construction activity occurs. include address if available.) Address or describe area: 36001VY PLACE City or Township: ORONO State: MN Zip code: 55391 Latitudellongitude of approximate centroid of project: 44.9260341, -93-613450 Method of collection of €atttudellongitude: ❑ GPS N Ontine tool ❑USGS Topographic map All cities where construction will occur: ORONO All counties where construction will occur: HENNEPIN All townships where construction will occur: Project size {number of acres to be disturbed)- 1-7 Project type: N Pesidentiial ❑ ComrnerciaUlndustrial ❑ Pead construction ❑ Residential and road construction ❑ Other (describe): Cumulative Impervious surface: Existing area of impervious surface: 0.0 (to the nearest tenth acre) Post construction area of impervious surface: 0.4 (to the nearest tenth acre) Total new area of impervious surface: 0.4 (to the nearest tenth acre) Receiving waters TypeI Special water? I Impaired Water?" (ditch, pond, wetland, lake, (See Stormwater Permit (See Stormwater Permit ID, I I I LJ Yes U No I U Yes U No - Water i r i ' Walsr Body ldenfiiffcaflon (it]j might not he available for all wets bodies. Use the Speen and Impaired Waters Search Too) at: uwut_aca.srate mn.ors/warerisfowaterlstarmwater-r..htmf. Impaired wafer for the following pofiulant(s) or sfressor(s): phosphorus, turbidity, dfssofved axygen, or biotin impairment. www.pca.state.mn-us - 651-296-6300 - 800-657-3854 . TTY 651-2112.5332 or 800-557-3864 - Available in alternative formats wq-strm2.12 - 4113109 Fr 8176113 Page T of 7 iv ite CiR 01 U P - Dates of construction (Briefly describe where construction activity occurs, Include address if available.) Construction start date: 04/0112018 Estimated completion date: 0410 1 12 01 9 General Construction Project Information Describe the construction activity (what will be built, general timellne, etc): THE PROJECT WILL BE THE DEVELOPMENT OF TWO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON A EXISTING VACANT SITE. Describe soil types found at the project: THE EXISTING SOILS AT THE SITE ARE PRIMARILY SANDY LEAN CLAYS. Site Location map - Attach maps (U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5 minute quadrangle.. National Wetland Inventory maps or equivalent) showing the location and type of ail receiving waters., including wetlands, drainage ditches, stormwater ponds or basins, etc. that will receive runoff from the project. Use arrows showing the direction of flow and distance to the water body ng Par k rr -- * CARMAN BAY 71 71 www.pca.state.mn_us - 651-296-6300 - 800.657-3864 - TTY 651-282.5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-strm2-12 • 4113109 & 8116113 Page 2 of 7 ,e-'% 1v11te G R C� U P - Generat Site Information (III.A) 1. Describe the location and type of all temporary and permanent erosion prevention and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs). Include the timing for installation and procedures used to establish additional temporary SMPs as necessary. (III.A.4.a) THE PROJECT WILL BE PROTECTED BY TWO (2) MAiN BMP"S, SILT FENCE AND INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. THE SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE DOWNHILL LOCATIONS OF THE SiTE AND MONITORED AS NECESSARY. INLET PROTECTION DEVICES WILL BE INSTALLED IN ALL CATCH BASINS ON THE SITE AND ANY OFF SITE THAT WILL RECEIVE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THIS SITE. AS THE PROJECT PROGRESSES ADDITIONAL BMP'S SUCH AS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET MAY BE UTILIZED. 2. Attach to this SWPPP a table with the anticipated quantities for the life of the project for all erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs (III. A. 4.b) SEE PAGE SW1.3 3. Attach to this SWPPP a site map that includes the following features (III.A.3.b - f): • Existing and final grades, including dividing lines and direction of flow for all pre and post -construction stormwater runoff drainage areas located within the project limits. • Locations of impervious surfaces and soil types. ■ Locations of areas not to be disturbed. • Location of areas of phased construction ■ All surface waters and existing wetlands within one mite from the project boundaries that will receive stormwater runoff from the site (identifiable on maps such as USGS 7.5 minute quadrangle maps or equivalent). Where surface waters receiving runoff associated with construction activity will not fit on the plan sheet, they must be identified with an arrow, indicating both direction and distance to the surface water. Methods to be used for final stabilization of all exposed soil areas. 4. Were stormwater mitigation measures required as the result of an environmental, archaeological, or other required local, state, or federal review of the project? ❑ Yes N No If yes, describe how these measures were addressed in the SWPPP. (III.A.6.) N/A S. Is the project located in a karst area such that additional measures would be necessary to protect drinking water supply management areas as described in Minn. R. chapters 7050 and 70607 ❑ Yes N No If yes, describe the additional measures to be used. (III.A.7.) NIA 6. Does the site discharge to a calcareous fen listed In Minn. R. 7050.0180, subp. 6.b.? ❑ Yes N No If yes, a letter of approval from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources must be obtained prior to application for this permit. (Part i B.6 and Part III.A:B) 7. Does the site discharge to a water that is listed as impaired for the following pollulant(s) or stressor(s): phosphorus, turbidity, dissolved oxygen or biotic impairment? Use the Special and Impaired Waters Search Tool at: www.pca.state.mn.ustwaterlstormwaterlstormwater-c.html. ❑ Yes N No If no, skip to Training. Does the impaired water have an approved Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) with an Approved Waste Load Allocation for construction activity? ❑ Yes ® No If yes: a- List the receiving water, the areas of the site discharging to it, and the pollutant(s) identified in the TMDL. b- List the BMPs and any other specific construction stormwater related implementation activities identified in the TMDL. If the site has a discharge point within one mile of the impaired water and the water flows to the impaired water but no specific BMPs for construction are identified in the TMDL, the additional SMPs in Appendix A (C.1, C.2, C.3 & (C.4 -trout stream)) must be added to the SWPPP and implemented. (iiI.A.7), The additional BMPs only apply to those portions of the project that drain to one of the identified discharge points. www.Pc a. state. mn.Lis - 651.295-6300 - 800-657-3864 - TTY 651482.5332 or 800-657-3864 - Available in alternative formats wq-strm2.12 - 4113109 it 8116173 Page 3 of 7 G1v11ite _ G R Q 1.1 P NIA 9. Identify adjacent public waters where the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has declared "work in water restrictions" during fish spawning timeframes N/A Selection of a Permanent Stormwater Management System (11I.D,) 1v1Ulte G R O U P - 5. Describe Methods to be used for energy dissipation at pipe outlets (e.g., rip rap, splash pads, gabions, etc. RIP RAP WILL BE UTILIZED AT PIPE OUTLETS. 6. Describe Methods to be used to promote infiltration and sediment removal on the site prior to offsite discharge, unless infeasible (e.g., direct stormwater flow to vegetated areas): DISCONNECTED IMPERVIOUS AREA AND INFILTRATION AREAS WILL BE UTILZED. 7 For drainage or diversion ditches, describe practices to stabilize the normal wetied perimeter within 200 lineal feet of th e property edge or point of discharge to surface water. The last 200 lineal feet must be stabilized within 24 hours after connecting to surface waters and construction in that portion of the ditch has temporarily or permanently ceased for all discharges to Special, Impaired or "work in water restrictions". All other remaining portions of the temporary or permanent ditches or swales within 14 calendar days after connecting to a surface water, property edge and construction in that area has temporarily or permanently ceased. N/A - NO DITCHES ON SITE S. Describe additional erosion prevention measures that will be implemented at the site during construction (e.g., construction phasing, minimizing soil disturbance, vegetative buffers, horizontal slope grading, slope draining/terracing, etc.)' OTHER EROSION CONTROL PRACTICES INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO; MINIMIZE SITE EXPOSURE WHEN POSSIBLE, 9. If applicable, include additional requirements in Appendix A Part C.3 regarding maintaining a 100 -foot buffer zone or installing redundant BMPs for portions of the site that drain to special waters). N/A 10. If applicable, describe additional erosion prevention BMPs to be implemented at the site to protect planned infiltration areas MINIMIZE SITE EXPOSURE IN AREAS ADJACENT TO INFILTRATION AREA. Sediment Control Practices (IV.C� Describe the methods of sediment control EMI's to be Implemented at this site during construction to minimize sediment impacts to surface waters, including curb and gutter systems 1. Describe Methods to be used for down gradient perimeter control: SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. 2. Describe Methods to be used to contain soil stockpiles: SEED AND MULCH AS WELL AS EROSION CONTROL BLANKETS WILL BE UTILIZED AS NECESSARY. 3, Describe Methods to be used for storm drain inlet protection: SEE INLET PROTECTION DETAILS. 4. Describe Methods to minimize vehicle tracking at construction exits and street sweeping activities: THE PROJECT WILL UTILIZE A ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE. 5. Describe Methods, If applicable, additional sediment controls (e.g., diversion berms) to be installed to keep runoff away from planned infiltration areas when excavated prior to final stabilization of the contributing drainage area: INFILTRATION AREAS ARE NOT PROPOSED AS PART OF THiS PROJECT, 6. Describe methods to be used to minimize soil compaction and preserve top soil (unless infeasible) at this site: LIGHT TRACKED EQUIPMENT WILL BE USED, TOPSOIL WILL BE STRIPPED AND STOCKPILED. 7. Describe plans to preserve a 50 -foot natural buffer between the project's soil disturbance and a surface water or plans for redundant sediment controls if a buffer is infeasible: DOUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED ALONG WETLAND. THIS PROJECT WILL DISTURB WITHIN WETLANDS BUT WILL WORK TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS S. Describe plans for use of sedimentation treatment chemicals (e.g.. polymers, flocculants, etc.) see Part iV.C.10 of the permit: N/A www.pca.state.mn-us - 651-296-6300 - 800.657.3854 . TTY 651.282.5332 or 800.657-3MA • Available in alternative formats w4q•strm2-12 • 4113109 fr 8176113 Page 5 of 7 1v1IS1te G R C3 t.J P - 9, Is the project required to install a temporary sediment basin due to 10 or more acres draining to a common location or 5 acres or more if the site Is within 1 mile of a special or impaired water? ❑ Yes N No If yes, describe (or attach plans ) showing how the basin will be designed and constructed in accordance with Part III.0 of the permit. N/A ivld lte G R 40 U P - Pollution Prevention Management Measures (IV.I=) 1. Describe practices for storage of building products with a potential to leach pollutants to minimize exposure to stormwater ALL BUILDING PRODUCTS WILL BE SEALED AND STORED IN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE. 2. Describe practices for storage of pesticides, herbicides, insecticides fertilizers treatment chemical. and landscape materials: ALL LANDSCAPE TREATMENT CHEMICALS WILL BE SEALED AND STORED iN A MANNER TO MINIMIZE EXPOSURE. 3. Describe practices for storage and, disposal of hazardous materials or toxic waste (e.g., oil, fuel, hydraulic fluids, paint solvents, petroleum-based products, wood preservative, additives, curing compounds, and acids) according to Minn. R. ch. 7045, including restricted access and secondary containment: ALL HAZARDOUS WASTE WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE ACCORDING TO LOCAL AND STATE LAWS. 4. Describe collection, storage and disposal of solid waste in compliance with Minn. R. ch. 7035: ALL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND SOLiD WASTE WILL BE APPROPRIATELY DISPOSED OF OFF SITE ACCORDING TO LOCAL AND STATE LAWS, S. Describe management of portable toilets to prevent tipping and disposal of sanitary wastes in accordance with Minn. R. ch. 7040: SANITARY AND SEPTIC SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO WORKERS WITH PORTABLE FACILITIES MAINTAINED AS NEEDED BY THE PROVIDER. 6. Describe spill prevention and response for fueling and equipment or vehicle maintenance: EMPLOYEES WILL BE TRAINED IN TECHNIQUES DESIGNED TO MINIMIZE SPILLS. VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE CHECKED FOR LEAKS. 7. Describe containment and disposal of vehicle and equipment wash water and prohibiting engine degreasing on the site: ALL CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES SHALL BE WASHED OFF SITE- S. Describe storage and disposal of concrete and other washout wastes so that wastes do not contact the ground: ALL CONCRETE WASHOUT SHALL OCCUR OFF SITE. Final Stabilization (IV.G) 1. Describe method of final stabilization (permanent coven of all disturbed areas: FINAL STABILIZATION WILL BE ACOMPLISHED WiTH PAVEMENT. SOD AND LANDSCAPE MATERIALS 2. Describe procedures for completing final stabilization and terminating permit coverage (see Part IV.G.1-5): UPON FINAL STABILIZATION DESCRIBED ABOVE, THE CONTRACTOR AND OWNER SHALL MUTUALLY TRANSFER THE NPDES PERMIT TO THE NEXT OWNER WITH DOCUMENTS DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF TERMINATION PROCEDURE. Documentation of infeasibility: (if Applicable) www.pca.state.mn.us - 651-296-6300 - 800-657.3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 - Available in alternative formats wq-strm2.12 • 4113109 & 8176113 Page 7 of 7 1. Will the project create anew cumulative impervious surface greater than or equal to one acre? ❑ Yes N No Dewatering and Basin Draining (IV.D) ' COR7 00� Rt a n © U P 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek Pat Sarver 763-213-3944 952-250-2003 LAKE W �EST DEVELOPMENT, LLC If yes, a water quality volume of one inch of runoff from the cumulative new impervious surfaces must be retained on site (see 1• Will the project include dewatering or basin draining? ❑ Yes N No U LLJ Part IIID of the permit) through infiltration unless prohibited due to one of the reasons in Part III -D.1 -j- If infiltration is prohibited If yes, describe measures to be used to trealldispose of turbid or sediment -laden water and method to prevent erosion or identify other method of other volume reduction (e.g., filtration system. Wet sedimentation basin, regional ponding or scour of discharge points (see Part iV, D of the permit): 0 equivalent method d 2. Describe which method will be used to treat runoff from the new impervious surfaces created by the project (IILD): • Wet sedimentation basin • Infiltration/Filtration Regional ponds • Combination of practices Include all calculations and design information for the method selected. See Part IILD of the permit for specific requirements associated with each method. I N FI LTRATI O NIF I LTRAT ION Calculations are within the Site Storm Water Management Report and part of this SWPPP as Attachment D. 3. If it is not feasible to meet the treatment requirement for the water quality volume, describe why. This can include proximity to bedrock or road projects where the lack sof right of way precludes the installation of any permanent stormwater management practices. Describe what other treatment, such as grasses swales, smaller ponds, or grit chambers, will be implemented to treat runoff prior to discharge to surface waters. (iII.C) IT IS FEASIBLE TO MEET REQUIREMENT FOR WATER QUALITY VOLUME. 4. For projects that discharge to trout streams, including tributaries to trout streams, identify method of incorporating temperature controls into the permanent stormwater management system. N/A Erosion Prevention Practices (IV.B) Describe the types of temporary erosion prevention BIIfIPs expected to be implemented on this site during construction: 1. Describe construction phasing, vegetative buffer strips, horizontal slope grading, and other construction practices to minimize erosion. Delineate areas not to be disturbed (e.g., with flags, stakes, signs, silt fence, etc.) before work begins. SILT FENCE WILL BE INSTALLED AT THE DOWNHILL LOCATIONS OF THE SITE. 2. Describe Methods of temporarily stabilizing soils and soil stockpiles (e.g., mulches, hydraulic tackifiers, erosion blankets, etc.): TEMPORARY EROSION PROTECTION WILL BE SEED AND MULCH AND EROSION BLANKETS WHERE REQUIRED, WITH PERMANENT COLTER BEING EITHER SOD OR LANDSCAPE FEATURES. 3. Describe Methods of dissipating velocity along stormwater conveyance channels and at channel outlets (e.g., check dams, sediment traps, rip rap, etc.): SOD WILL BE UTILIZED ALONG CHANNELS AND RiP RAP AT CHANNEL OUTLETS. 4. Describe Methods to be used for stabilization of ditch and Swale wetted perimeters (Note that mulch, hydraulic soil tackfiers, hydram ulches, etc. are not acceptable soil stabilization methods for any part of a drainage ditch or Swale) FINAL STABILIZATION OF SWALES WILL BE SOD, 2, Will the project include use of filters for backwash water? ❑ Yes N No if yes, describe how filter backwash water will be managed on the site or properly disposed (see Part 111.D.3, of the permit)-. Additional BMPs for Special Waters and .Discharges to Wetlands (Appendix A, Parts C and D) 1, Special Waters. Does your project discharge to special waters' ❑ Yes N No 2. If proximity to bedrock or road projects where the lark of right of way precludes the installation of any of the pennanent stormwater management practices, then other treatment such as grassed swales smaller ponds, or grit chambers €s required 9 P 9 P 9 q prior to discharge to surface waters. Describe what other treatment will be provided. N/A 3. Describe erosion and sediment controls for exposed soil areas with a continuous positive slope to a special waters, and temporary sediment basins for areas that drain five or more acres disturbed at one time - N/A 4. Describe the undisturbed buffer zone to be used (not less than 100 linear feet from the special water). N/A S. Describe how the permanent stormwater management system will ensure that the pre and post project runoff rate and volume from the 1, and 2 -year 24-hour precipitation events remains the same. 6. Describe how the permanent stormwater management system will minimize any increase in the temperature of trout stream receiving waters resulting in the 1, and 2 -year 24-hour precipitation events. N/A 7. Wetlands, Does your project discharge stormwater with the potential for significant adverse impacts to a wetland (e.g., conversion of a natural wetland to a stormwater pond)? ❑ Yes N No If Yes, describe the wetland mitigation sequence that will be followed in accordance with Part D of Appendix A. N/A Inspections and Maintenance (IV.E) Describe procedures to routinely inspect the construction site: • Once every seven (7) days during active construction and, • Within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours, and within seven (7) days after that,. inspections must include stabilized areas, erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs, and infiltration areas. INSPECTOR WILL FOLLOW REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED ABOVE AND FILL OUT "ATTACHMENT B - CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER INSPECTION CHECKLIST." www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 - 800-657-3864 . TTY 651-282.5332 or 800-657-3864 - Available in alternative formats www.pca.state.mn-us - 651-296-6300 - 800-657-3864 . TTY 651-282.5332 or 800-657-3854 - Available in alternative formats wq•strm2.12 • 4113109&8116113 Page 4 of 7 wq-strm2-12 • 4113109 fr 8116173 Page 6 of 7 c`7 to L() O 0 O LUU J tl O O O C) Ln J � M J to Li') Z Z Y W z 2° a. LUZ Z O J2i Wt -6Q0 N W w U) U W a W z Lf') QN Lf) d' J I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Matthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS SW1 m4 ©COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. ATTACHMENT B: SWPPP INSPECTION FORM .'iiLole G R O U P Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 32-DLdfdyelueRudd NVlth ATTACHMENT B: St. Paul, MN 55135-4144 Construction Stormwater Inspection Checklist Construction Stormwator Program Doc Type Permitting Checklist Note: This inspection report does not address all aspects of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System/State Disposal System (NPDES/SDS) Construction Stormwater permit (Permit) issued on August 1, 2013. The completion of this checklist does not guarantee that all permit requirements are in compliance; it is the responsibility of the Permittee(s) to read and understand the permit requirements. Facility Information Site name: Facility address: City: Inspection Information State: Permit number: Zip code: Inspector name: Phone number: Date (mmldd/yyyy): Time: ❑ am ❑ pm Is the inspector certified in sediment and erosion control and it is documented in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Is this inspection routine or in response to a storm event: Rainfall amount (if applicable): Is site within one aerial mile of special or impaired water? []Yes ❑No If yes, follow Appendix A and other applicable permit requirements. Note: If NA is selected at anytime, specify why in the comment area for that section. Erosion Control Requirement (Part IV.B) www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-stnm2-36 • 314114 Page 1 of 4 CivilSite G R O U P 6. Do pipe outlets have energy dissipation? ❑ I ❑ ❑ Comments: Sediment Control Requirement (Part IV.C.) Has access been restricted to onsite hazardous materials? Yes No NA 1. Soil stabilization where no construction activity for 14 days? 7 days were applicable) ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Has the need to disturb steep slopes been minimized? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. All ditches stabilized 200' back from point of discharge within 24 hours? Not mulch ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are there erosion BMP's for onsite stockpiles? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Are appropriate BMP's installed protecting inletsfoutlets? ❑ ❑ ❑ www.pca.state.mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats wq-stnm2-36 • 314114 Page 1 of 4 CivilSite G R O U P 6. Do pipe outlets have energy dissipation? ❑ I ❑ ❑ Comments: Sediment Control Requirement (Part IV.C.) Comments: Maintenance -Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs (Part IV.E.) Has access been restricted to onsite hazardous materials? Yes No NA 1. Perimeter control installed on all down gradientperimeters? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Perimeter control trenched in where appropriate? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. 50 Foot -natural buffer maintained around all surface waters? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. If No, have redundant sediment controls been installed? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Inlet protection on all catch basins and culvert inlets? Ln 5. Vehicle tracking Best Management Practices (BMPs) at all site exits? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. All tracked sediment removed within 24 hours? 1-1 El 11 7. Are all infiltrations stems staked and marked to avoid compaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8. Are all infiltration areas protected with a pretreatment device? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. Do all stockpiles have perimeter control? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: Maintenance -Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs (Part IV.E.) Comments: Other Yes I No I NA 1. Are all materials that can leach pollutants under cover? I ❑ I ❑ I ❑ G R O U P 2. Has access been restricted to onsite hazardous materials? Yes No I NA 1. Are all previously stabilized areas maintaining 90% ground cover? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. Any ditch erosion observed? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. Perimeter Control -Has sediment reached one half the height of the device? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are inlet protection devices maintained and functioning ro erl ? ❑ ❑ ❑ Comments: Other Yes I No I NA 1. Are all materials that can leach pollutants under cover? I ❑ I ❑ I ❑ G R O U P 2. Has access been restricted to onsite hazardous materials? ❑ I ❑ I ❑ 3. Does on-site fueling only occur in a contained area? ❑ ❑ ❑ 4. Are all solid wastes being properly disposed of? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5. Is the concrete washout area completely contained? n n n Comments: 7. Were any discharges seen during this inspection, sediment, water, or otherwise? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, state the exact location of all points of discharge. Photograph the discharge and describe the discharge (color, odor, foam, oil sheen, etc). How will it be removed? How did the discharge happen? How much was discharged? How will it be stopped, and how long will it take to stop? Is the discharge going into an adjacent site? Was the discharge a sediment delta? If yes, will the delta be recovered within 7 days? 8. Will a permanent stormwater management system be utilized in this project as required and in accordance with Part I ILD of the permit? Describe: 9. Is any dewatering occurring on site? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, where? What BMP is being used? How much water is being dewatered? Is the water clear? Where is the water being discharged to? 10. Is a copy of the SWPPP located on the construction site? ❑ Yes ❑ No 11. Has the SWPPP been followed and implemented on site? ❑ Yes ❑ No 12. Is a sedimentation basin required for this project as specified in the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, are they maintained as specified in the permit? ❑ Yes ❑ No 13. Is the topsoil on this project being preserved? ❑ Yes ❑ No If yes, explain how the topsoil is being preserved. If not, explain why it was infeasible. 14. Are all infiltration systems marked to avoid compaction? ❑ Yes ❑ No Do all infiltration areas have pretreatment devices? ❑ Yes ❑ No www.pca.state. mn.us 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 . Available in alternative formats wq-strm2-36 . 314114 Page 3 of 4 ,,ivilSite G R O U P 15. Description of areas of non-compliance noted during the inspection, required corrective actions, and recommended date of completion of corrective actions: 16. Proposed amendments to the SWPPP: 17. Potential areas of future concern: 18. Additional comments: Disclosures: • After discovery, the permit requires many of the deficiencies that may be found in this checklist be corrected within a specified period of time. See permit for more details. • This inspection checklist is an option for small construction sites. Large construction sites and linear projects require more extensivelmore location specific inspection requirements. • The Permittee(s) is/are responsible for the inspection and maintenance of temporary and permanent water quality management BMP's as well as erosion prevention and sediment control BMPs until another Permittee has obtained coverage under this Permit according to Part 11.8.5., or the project has undergone Final Stabilization and a Notice of Termination has been submitted to the MPGA. www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 . 800-657-3864 TTY 651-282-5332 or 800-657-3864 • Available in alternative formats www.pca.state.mn.us • 651-296-6300 . 800.657.3864 TTY 651.282.5332 or 800-657-3864 . Available in alternative formats wq-strm2-36 . 314114 Page 2 of 4 wq-strm2-36 • 314114 Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT C: MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR PERMANENT STORM WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM �LivftSite G R U U P ATTACHMENT C COR7 00� qN' 4931 W. 35TH ST. SUITE 200 ST. LOUIS PARK, MN 55416 CivilSiteGroup.com Matt Pavek 763-213-3944 Pat Sarver 952-250-2003 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITY MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE LAKE W�EST 1 . All stormwater retention, detention and treatment basins must be inspected at least once a year to determine that basin retention and treatment DEVELOPMENT, LLC characteristics are adequate. A storage treatment basin will be considered inadequate if sediment has decreased the wet storage volume by 50 percent or dry storage volume by 25 percent of its original design volume. Based on this inspection, if a stormwater basin requires sediment cleanout, the basin will be restored to its original design contours and vegetated state within one year of the inspection date. 2. All grit chambers, sump catch basins, sump manholes, outlet structures, culverts, outfall structuresandother stormwater facilities forwhich maintenance requirements are not otherwise specified herein must be inspected in the spring, summer and fall of each year. Within 30 days of the inspection date, all accumulated sediment and debris must be removed such that each stormwater facility operates as designed and permitted. Contributing drainage areas must be kept clear of litter and vegetative debris, inflow pipes and overflow spillways kept clear, inlet areas kept clean, and undesirable vegetation removed. Erosion impairing the function or integrity of the facilities., if any, will be corrected, and any structural damage impairing or threatening to impair the function of the facilities must be repaired. 3. Volume control facilities and contributing drainage areas must be inspected every three months during the operational period (between spring snowmelt and first substantial snowfall) and monitored after rainfall events of 1 I- M inch or more to ensure that the contributing drainage area is clear of litter and LID debris, inflow pipes and overflow spillways are clear, inlet areas are clean, Ln undesirable vegetation is removed and there is no erosion impairing or " Z threatening to impair the function of a facility. If sediment has accumulated in a infiltration feature, within 30 days of inspection deposited sediments must be Z removed, the infiltration capacity of the underlying soils must be restored, and LO W Z any surface disturbance must be stabilized. Inspection must ensure that C O sediment traps and forebays are trapping sediment and that more than 50 Z a.Z Lu V O p Z 1 oJ J 0� W co O > N *� 1 V'"I It e Lu Q W ~ G R O U P n LL percent of the storage volume remains, the contributing drainage area is stable ri > Cal� ti (i.e., no erosion is observed), and inlets and outlet/overflow spillways are in OQ L good conditions with no erosion. Maintenance techniques used must protect C:) the infiltration capacity of the practice by limiting soil compaction to the M 30 >_ greatest extent possible (e.g., by using low -impact earth -moving equipment). (� W = 4. Underground storage chambers must be inspected at least once a 1,17 year to ensure that adequate storage capacity remains. Capacity will be LID considered inadequate if sediment has decreased the storage volume by 50 percent of its original design volume. Accumulated debris and sediment will be w removed, and inlet and outlet structures will be cleared of any flow O impediments. IL 2 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. - Mafthew R. Pavek DATE 07/19/17 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY PROJECT NO.: 17059 PRELIMINARY SWPPP - ATTACHMENTS SW1 05 COPYRIGHT 2017 CIVIL SITE GROUP INC. MINUTES OF THE Council Exhibit C ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3962 Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. 17-3962 LAKE WEST DEVEOPMENT, LLC, ON BEHALF OF RICK AND BARBARA LUPIENT, PIDs 20-117-23-42-0001/0002/0003 (Lots 1, 2 and 3 Casco Point Addition) "Ivy Place", PRELIMINARY PLAT, 7:16 P.M. — 8:40 P.M. Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, was present. Barnhart stated the City has received a request for preliminary plat approval of a proposed two -lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The project is located on Casco Point on a peninsula near a lagoon on the east side. The aerial photograph shows a vacant parcel, a boathouse, a generally flat peninsula, and a lot of volunteer vegetation which would be removed as part of the project. The property consists of three existing tax parcels, which the applicants propose to reconfigure to result in two residential building lots, each meeting the size requirements, and one outlot as a front lotiback lot configuration. Based on the preliminary pad layout, it does appear that the structures themselves would meet the setback requirements, or at least building pads are depicted on the plan showing an adequate building pad without the need for variances. Also proposed is the vacation of an existing roadway easement through the parcels, which will be replaced with a new one that better aligns with the proposed development pattern. The property will be served by municipal water and sewer. Barnhart noted there are a number of easements that impact the property, with many of them remaining in effect and the others being modified. There is a view easement over the northern half of the property in favor of a private resident across the bay. That is a private easement and the City is not looking to enforce that but it is shown to be preserved as part of the plat. In addition, there is a sanitary sewer main that is protected by an easement. That easement does not necessarily follow exactly where the sanitary sewer line follows so some modification will be necessary. The proposed plat shows that easement on the west portion of the property. Easements to be vacated include a private driveway easement that includes a private cul-de-sac and a utility easement that does not match the actual location of the sewer lines. Staff has been advised that the existing sewer connection for the residence at 3560 Ivy Place crosses the applicants' property. This will need to be confirmed, and if it exists, the encroachment should be Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. eliminated by relocating the sewer connection or the applicants must grant an easement for the encroachment. The survey indicates that a small portion of the deck for the house at 3560 Ivy Place may encroach into the applicants' property. In addition, a portion of the driveway serving 3560 Ivy encroaches into the applicants' property. Possible remedies for these two encroachments include a lot line rearrangement, an easement, or removal of the encroachment. The applicant's proposed driveway parallels this encroachment. Access to the site is via a road easement that extends through 3560 Ivy Place. An existing driveway easement will be vacated and replaced with a 30 -foot wide Outlot A that will serve both Lots 1 and 2. Outlot A will be located within the 75 -foot lake yard but generally outside of the drainage and shore stabilization easement. A portion of the outlot will encroach into this easement because the existing road easement terminates into the drainage and shore stabilization easement. Establishment of a cul-de-sac or more functional turnaround at the end of Ivy Place would be desirable but there is not sufficient room to accomplish that within the existing right-of-way. Acquisition of additional right-of-way from the applicants' property would seem to be of marginal value given the configuration of the property and the close proximity of the lakeshore. The neighboring property owner has raised concerns with access and the applicant's attorney has responded. As a result of it being a private driveway, the City is not in a position to arbitrate the access question. Because this is a peninsula and because both lots having shoreline on two sides, the average lakeshore setback should be addressed as part of the approval resolution. It would appear that the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy should be the defining property for establishing average lakeshore setback on the lake side. The home at 3560 Ivy appears to be 35 feet from the lake. Since the survey indicates that 3560 Ivy does not abut the lake on the lagoon side, there would be no average lakeshore setback on the lagoon side. Any new homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be at least 75 feet from the shore and Staff would suggest that 75 feet become the required average setback regardless of which lot is built first. The proposed plan shows both lots having a conceptual footprint preserving the 0-75 foot lake yards. Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart noted there is a wetland that runs along the entire perimeter of the property and a very small wetland within existing Lot 3. The applicant proposes filling this wetland. Approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District must be obtained prior to preliminary plat approval. A wetland buffer of 25 feet will be required by the Watershed District. The City requires a setback of 10 feet from the buffer for structures and hardcover. The wetland along the shoreline and its buffer/setback impact the proposed driveway at the extreme south end of the parcel and a wetland variance will be necessary for the driveway. A Conservation Design Report has been submitted and identifies a number of boxelder and elm trees. The applicant's landscape plan suggests the planting of 94 new trees on the property. The Fire Chief has recommended that the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems and that no contractor parking be allowed on Ivy Place during construction. In addition, it was recommended that the driveway be wider than eight feet to better accommodate emergency and service vehicles. Staff recommends approval with the following conditions: 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. The property line between Lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring a 15 -foot setback. 3. The applicant must comply with all comments of MCWD outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017. 4. The applicant should submit declaration and documentation of a wetland buffer as required by the MCWD. All comments of the City Engineer outlined in a memo dated August 14, 2017, shall be addressed. Page 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed. 7. Additional approvals include the following: a. Variance from the wetland setback. b. Variance of wetland buffer impact from the Watershed District. C. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain. d. Successful vacation of the existing driveway easement. e. Successful realignment of an underground utility easement. Landgraver stated to his recollection at the time of sketch plan review there was an issue with the view easement. Landgraver asked whether that was regarding Lot 2. Barnhart indicated it is. Landgraver asked if the location of the house on Lot 1 complies with the side lot setback. Barnhart stated the required setback is 10 feet and the plan is showing 16 feet. Lemke asked where the existing house is. Barnhart illustrated the location of Lots 1, 2, and 3 on the overhead as well as the existing home and garage. Lemke asked if the existing home would be set off from the proposed house. Barnhart indicated it appears to be close to the property line but that he does not know what that distance is. The proposed house shows a 16 -foot setback. Thiesse asked if there are concerns with construction staging that would cause problems with the average lakeshore setback. Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart suggested the average lakeshore setback be identified as part of preliminary plat approval. If both of the new homes are at 75 feet, that would be the average lakeshore line on both sides. Schoenzeit asked if the one-story limitation and sprinkler would be recorded on the title. Barnhart indicated it would be a restriction on the property if it is approved. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission has no control over the single -story limitation. Barnhart stated it would be up to that property owner to enforce the view easement and that the City would have a hard time denying a two-story house that meets City requirements based on a private agreement. Barnhart stated the sprinklers are enforceable by the City. Lemke asked if the sewer will work given its proximity to the water. Barnhart stated that is where the existing sewer is and that it would remain as is. Curt Fretham, Lake West Development, stated he is here to answer questions. Lemke asked if one unit would make it economically feasible to develop the property. Fretham noted it was originally platted as three lots and that what they are proposing is very reasonable in terms of the two homes. Fretham stated if the site was developed as one lot, he is not sure how big that house would get someday. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Tera White, 3560 Ivy Place, stated their house is located at the bottom of the hill and all the water runs down the hill and floods into the lower lot. White expressed a concern with adding hardcover and runoff to the already existing water that runs down the hill. White stated at times that creates a pond and that she is concerned they will have runoff onto their property after construction. White stated she is not sure a 10 -foot setback will be sufficient for a Swale between their house and this property. Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Jay White noted the house will also be 1.5 feet higher than their home 15 feet away and that they would request some consideration be given to an additional side setback. Tera White stated their other concern is that they have not heard any sort of plan regarding the sewer and gas encroachments. White stated in 1970 the sewer went in but that it is not within their property and is an encroachment. White commented they do not know where to put it, nor do they want to incur the cost of that since they just installed a new driveway and it would have to be ripped up if the lines were relocated. White commented the project seems to be very impactful to them and that they have concerns about that. White stated the utilities were allowed to be installed on land they did not believe would be buildable and was not their choice. Jay White noted it was considered wetland two years ago. White stated in regards to access, a 12 -foot driveway would put it within two feet of the lake and that he is not sure how a truck would get through there. White stated at the last meeting the City had suggested barging in a lot of the fill and equipment and that they would support that rather than having huge trucks coming up a private driveway and making that turn. Tera White stated they also back up the driveway to make that turn and that they have encountered people coming down the hill as they are backing up. White commented they would now be adding two other families with possible multiple drivers, which would add to the congestion. Jay White commented there are safety concerns associated with that. White stated since it will not be a public road so the City is not considering making any improvements. White noted there is no agreement concerning the driveway and that he would ask the Planning Commission to consider whether it would be better for only one home to be built. White stated in their view adding two home would not be safe. As it relates to the outlot, White stated that will end up being a private shared driveway off of their driveway and not dedicated as a public road. White commented he is not sure if a variance is needed or how it works, but the subject lot has no hardship. White stated the access should go directly to the setback and that they are using the outlot to create the two homes and that there will be a lot of hardcover in the impact area. Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. William "Frenchie" Dampier, 3550 Ivy Place, stated he has spoken with several neighbors who have a concern about an overly cozy relationship between the Mayor and this developer and that they feel powerless to do anything. Dampier stated the common question that came up was why the maximum profit for the developer is the overriding interest rather than maintaining the community's interest. Dampier stated as he understands it, the developer has a contingency agreement with the owners, and should the Planning Commission not approve this, he has nominal costs in the project. Dampier stated they have ignored the fact that everybody who lives on Ivy Place, with the exception of the Whites, live within the 130 -foot sight setback. Dampier stated if they are allowed to build within 75 feet, it would preclude him and everybody else who has adhered to that sight setback from ever having a view of the lake. Dampier indicated he has a little over 135 feet from the front of his house to the lakeshore and that he had to give up eight feet in order to build his house back in 1998. Dampier stated he is familiar with the sightline setback rules and that everybody else has adhered to that 135 feet setback over the years. Dampier stated if they are allowed to put two houses in there at the 75 -foot line, it will change the character of the neighborhood permanently. Dampier questioned whether they would all then be allowed to move forward. Dampier noted he also found out recently that 15 feet of the street belongs to him and that he can use that 15 feet to justify building closer to the lakeshore. Dampier commented it is going to be a never-ending battle unless another approach is taken to developing this land. Dampier stated it is not a hardship for somebody to build a house with a compromised setback but it is just not as profitable. Dampier stated as has been mentioned, the point of the peninsula has always been wetlands. Dampier stated if it has been defined as 168 square feet, that's fine, but that he knows it has been much bigger than that over his lifetime. The flood water coming down the hill does turn that whole point into a pond, which causes the developer to have to raise the land. That, in turn, will cause drainage problems for the neighbors. Dampier expressed a concern about how many dump truck loads it will take to raise the elevation of the land and how many trucks will be going up and down the road. Dampier stated the road is not rated for heavy trucks and that it has less than two inches of paving in spots. If heavy traffic is allowed on the road, the road will crumble. Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Dampier stated at a bare minimum, if this is allowed and barging is not required, the City should demand some type of surety bond or warranty to ensure that any damage to the road will be addressed by the developer. Dampier stated the congestion from construction crews and equipment will bring further problems and damage to the neighborhood. Mark Pfleghaar, 3509 Ivy Place, stated he would second what Frenchie said about traffic and the condition of the road. Pfleghaar stated there are a lot of kids on the road and that the road can barely pass two vehicles right now. Pfleghaar stated he is not sure if anyone talked to Jim White about why this lot was never developed before but to allow somebody variances for financial gain is senseless. If the Lupients wanted to retire there and build their dream home, the neighborhood would be a lot more supportive of anything happening at all. Pfleghaar stated when he presented some things to the Planning Commission and City Council, he was told that financial gain is not a reason to grant a variance. Pfleghaar stated the developer is building the homes for a profit and that he wants to go outside the rules of the City to do that, which he does not believe is fair. Peter Graff tinder, 3630 Casco Avenue, stated he is not close to this site and not impacted by the work but that he has great concerns about filling wetland. Graffunder noted earlier photographs depict this area as all wetland and that it has already been filled somewhat. Graffunder stated he is not sure whether the filling was permitted or not. Graffunder stated the mitigation of a 165 -foot wetland is a ridiculous amount since virtually all of the site is wetland. Dave Pichotta, 2914 Casco Point Road, asked if there have been soil borings done of these lots and whether the Planning Commission or City Engineer has reviewed them. Pichotta stated he stood on his lot near the shoreline by the high water mark from a few years and that entire peninsula was under water. Pichotta commented it seems ludicrous to him that the City would allow building on there, but what is more ludicrous is that the County and the City have been taxing the Lupients for developable lots for so long. Jeff Danberry, 3545 Ivy Place, asked why they want access across Jay's driveway. Danberry asked if that access has already been granted and whether it is for a walkway or for vehicles. Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated it is vehicular access and it is already there. Danberry asked if Jay White has any say in what goes on there. Barnhart stated based on the easement he does not. Danberry stated his understanding was his driveway was set up to turn the snowplows around from Ivy Place. Danberry asked if there is an easement to do that. Barnhart stated he is not aware of an easement for that but that there is an easement through Mr. White's property to the point. Danberry noted the street ends at Frenchie's house and from there it is all driveway. Danberry commented it is not very thick asphalt down there and it will be torn up for sure. Danberry stated there should be compensation to Jay by the developer. Danberry asked if they can or cannot restrict the height or not. Barnhart stated one lot is governed by a view easement, which is in favor of a private resident. Barnhart stated the City would not enforce that but that there is an easement that restricts it to one story. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Barnhart noted one of the concerns expressed related to the average lakeshore setback and allowing these properties to be built to the closer than what presumably would be allowed. Barnhart stated if Lot 1 is the first one to be built, when Staff computes the average lakeshore setback, they would look at the adjacent lakeshore lot to that property. Typically Staff would look at the property to each side of the proposed house and draw a straight line between the most lakeward protrusions of each adjacent house. Dampier commented that is not how it was calculated when he requested his building permit. Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated that is how it is calculated now. Barnhart stated based on the most lakeward protrusion of those two homes, the house can go up to that point. Barnhart noted also in play is the 75 -foot lake yard setback and that homes are not allowed to go within 75 feet of the lake. Barnhart stated if the house is 50 feet from the lake, the average lakeshore line would be 50 feet, but that there would also be a 75 -foot lake yard. As a result, the house cannot go closer than 75 feet to the lake. In this case there is not an adjacent lake yard for one of the lots since it does not touch the lake and the average lakeshore really only applies to one lot. Staff is proposing that the lake yard on all three sides be 75 feet, which is similar to what was proposed at the sketch plan review earlier. Barnhart stated as it relates to the filling of the wetland, Staff is aware of the history of this parcel and has presented that information to the DNR. Based on the information the City was able to find, the DNR was not willing to say that area was a wetland and thereby protected. Barnhart noted Staff spent quite a bit of time and energy trying to prove it was a wetland and was not able to do so. As a result, Staff went with the wetland delineation that was done within the last eight or nine months ago. That delineation depicted a wetland along the shoreland and also a 168 -foot wetland on Lot 3. Barnhart stated those are the known wetlands based on the delineation and accepted by the Watershed District. Barnhart stated with regards to the wetland setback and wetland buffer, with the exception of some areas that the Watershed District is still discussing, the only impact to the wetlands, other than the filling of the 168 foot wetland, is a small portion of the driveway that is necessary to gain access to the lot. Barnhart noted there is no other place to put the driveway other than driving along this parcel, which would still be impacting the wetland and the wetland buffer. Staff felt the proposed location would be the least impact to the neighbor. Barnhart stated the applicant can have an 8 -foot wide driveway in the shoreland and in the 75 -foot setback area if there are no other options. The developer is proposing 12 feet because it is serving two lots. Barnhart indicated it is up to the City Council on whether to allow the 12 feet, but the additional four feet is to provide more maneuverability in the curves. Thiesse asked if they can construct two 8 -foot driveways. Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart stated that would defeat the purpose but that they could possibly come back with two 8 -foot driveways. Barnhart stated he would like to reduce the amount of hardcover in that area. As it relates to soil borings, Staff is anticipating pilings or another extraordinary foundation being required for these buildings. Barnhart stated the building officials likely will require some additional engineering or additional proof to show that the foundation can support the building. Barnhart stated Staff does realize it is at the bottom of the hill and that the soils are somewhat suspect. Barnhart stated as it relates to access, there is an access that cuts through private property, which is certainly not an ideal situation, but that is what is available. Barnhart stated it is his belief the developer is attempting to minimize the impact to the property and still provide access but that the applicant is aware of the concerns of the neighborhood. In addition, the fire chief has recommended no parking on Ivy Place during construction. Landgraver asked if Ivy Place is a private road. Barnhart stated it is a platted right-of-way and publicly maintained. Lemke asked if Staff is going to look into the ability of the road to support heavy loads. Barnhart stated he would recommend that verification of the condition be established before construction and then following construction. Lemke asked how much fill will be required. Barnhart indicated he does not have those numbers at this time. Schoenzeit questioned how someone in a floodplain, which is below 932.5, can get to create more land by the lake. Barnhart stated it would be through a Conditional Use Permit and that Staff does not know those numbers yet. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission can either table it or move forward. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Fretham stated their engineer has proposed 1,000 yards of fill and that with a typical excavation 200 to 300 yards of material is hauled out and 200 to 300 yards is hauled in. Fretham stated if you times that by two, it will be approximately 1,200 cubic yards, which is a little more than typical. Fretham stated another way to double check those calculations is to take the square footage of the lots and multiply that by two, which is approximately a third of an acre. It would take approximately 1,600 yards of fill for that area. Fretham stated in his estimation they are looking at around 1,200 to 1,300 cubic yards. Fretham stated while it might seem that they will be hauling in a lot of material, a lot of that has to do with the fact that the homes will be slab on grade so there is not a need to haul material out. Thiesse stated stormwater management is a concern of his as well as the neighbor. Thiesse asked how it will be confirmed that the water will not disturb the neighbor's property. Fretham noted he has provided a drawing that specifically addresses water runoff and that what they are proposing should help the Whites. Fretham stated a berm will be installed to help divert the water away from the White's property. Tera White stated they do not have a problem currently but it is the addition of hardcover that they are concerned about. White stated the water appears to be diverted to a swale that is very close to their house and that it will be creating a problem that does not currently exist. Fretham noted there will actually a mound in that area. Tera White stated it does not assure her that they will not get runoff onto their property. Thiesse noted they have contours that show the water will go down Casco and onto the subject property. Fretham stated they are not diverting any water onto the White's property and that it should improve their situation. Fretham noted they will also be adding some underground stormwater treatment on Lots 1 and 2. Thiesse asked how he proposes to address the existing roadway and construction traffic. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Fretham stated they are planning to do a thorough analysis of the road independent of what the City does, and if the road is damaged, they will be accountable, but they will know what it looked like before they start. Fretham stated even though the sewer and gas lines are on the subject property, they are not in their way and they are not planning to do anything about it. Thiesse asked if he would give the Whites some sort of easement to repair. Fretham stated that depends. Schoenzeit asked if there is any existing easement for that. Thiesse stated the City is not aware of one. Fretham stated there will be an easement on their side. Schoenzeit noted the other property does not have to grant an easement as part of this project. Fretham stated as it relates to the wetland and the wetland buffer area, the Lupients, in granting this restoration easement, created their own burden by creating a wetland and a restoration easement along the property line that is in conflict to their own interests to the property. Fretham stated the Lupients gave that up and that they are now expecting a variance to the easement will be needed. Thiesse asked if the City was provided with that easement. Barnhart stated he did not provide it to the Planning Commission but that the City does have possession of it. Dampier stated when he was getting his building permit, the City explained that the house to the north was exempt because it was a pre-existing nonconforming structure. Dampier stated to base a setback on a Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. pre-existing nonconforming structure ignores all the potential that exists. Dampier commented not all the houses will be here 100 years from now or even 20 years from now and at some point the houses will be replaced. Dampier stated what won't be replaced is that sightline, and if a house is set at the 75 -foot line and everybody else on Ivy Place is at 120 and 130 feet from the shoreline, that precludes him from using his property to the same degree that is being granted to the Lupients. Barnhart stated he does not know how the rules were applied when Mr. Dampier got his building permit but that he is basing the average lakeshore setback on the current regulations. Dampier stated he was forced to give up a significant portion of his house because of that 130 -foot setback. Dampier stated his neighbors were also told that as well as the two new houses on Ivy Place. In all of those situations the City ignored the pre-existing nonconforming structure, but yet the City is using the pre-existing nonconforming structure as the basis for creating the 75 -foot setback in this case, and it is not right. Curtis noted the interpretation and the actual language in the average lakeshore code have changed and is not written the way it was when Mr. Dampier was working on his home. Dampier asked if he can move closer to the lake. Curtis stated if the homes on either side of him are more lakeward and there is still room within the 75 - foot setback, he can, but that hardcover and structural coverage would also come into play. Landgraver stated the rules were probably changed because of that situation. Thiesse stated if he has not already closed the public hearing, he will do so now. The public hearing was reclosed at 8:20 p.m. Landgraver asked if snow just gets pushed down Ivy Place into the lake. Landgraver stated in his view this is an opportunity to maybe put in a little more protection for the lake. Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented he is afraid protections of the lake in connection with snow removal will create other problems elsewhere and that there is very little room to turn around as it is without snow being piled in that area. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can either forward the application to the City Council or table the application to give the applicant time to submit the requested information. Barnhart noted the Planning Commission is not recommending approval of any variances or a conditional use permit at this time and that those items were highlighted merely to identify future actions that will be required as part of construction of the property. Barnhart stated a separate public hearing will be held for those items. Leskinen asked if the variances and conditional use permit would be discussed as part of final plat. Barnhart indicated it would. It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that the condition of the road be verified both before and after construction. Thiesse asked whether the fill would be brought in by barge. Fretham stated they did not contemplate bringing trucks across the lake for fill, and that when that was discussed, he thought they meant lumber and other things. Fretham indicated their plan was to bring in the fill and other materials by truck. Fretham noted there is a City Engineer's memo regarding drainage. Barnhart stated the City Engineer's comments were added as a condition to make sure it was incorporated into the final plat. Thiesse asked if both homes would be built at once. Fretham stated probably not. Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Lemke asked if all the water runoff will be away from the neighbor's property and oriented towards the lake. Fretham stated the biggest runoff will be from the rooftops and that the gutters will direct it towards the storm management system. Fretham stated there will be some treatment by the driveway and the only water that is going to end up between the two houses will just be surface water. The other runoff will end up in the shady area. Fretham noted the arrows on the plan depict the direction of the surface water and not off the roof. Peter Graffunder, 3630 Casco Avenue, asked if there will be any attempt to mitigate the hardcover stormwater that comes off the driveway and straight into the lake. Graffunder noted that runoff will have salt from Ivy Place and in his view that should also be handled with some type of treatment. Thiesse noted it is not being handled now. Landgraver asked if the Planning Commission has settled on a 12 -foot road. Thiesse noted that is what is shown, and if it is approved, they would require a variance. Barnhart indicated that would need to be approved as part of preliminary plat and that it has been identified as an issue. Schoenzeit stated the City should go in thinking it is going to be 12 feet wide because they do not want someone to build a nonfunctional road and then be forced to deal with it after the fact. Schoenzeit stated eight feet is not functional. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission would like to table the application. Lemke stated he does not need to see the additional information. Schoenzeit commented it would be nice to have the top number for fill limited to 1,250 cubic yards. Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated he would prefer to include an understanding in the motion rather than a hard number. Thiesse stated the City Council will be making that decision. Landgraver stated the property owner has the ability to develop the property and that he does not believe the neighbors will be entirely happy with whatever is constructed on the site. Landgraver noted there have been some concessions made by the Lupients along the way and that he would be willing to advance it with conditions. Schoenzeit asked if the drainage could be observed prior to occupancy to ensure it works. Barnhart stated the issue is that the City approves a building plan and a stormwater plan that includes treatment as shown. The developer would then build it as approved. Barnhart stated he is not aware of a scenario where it has been approved and then the City has not allowed them to occupy if it doesn't work. Schoenzeit asked what the recourse is if it does not work. Barnhart stated the standard condition on the building permit is someone cannot add water onto the adjacent property, which is what is being proposed here. The developer will be adding hardcover so there will be more runoff but the applicant is showing collection from the roof into an area not on the adjacent property. In addition, the City Engineer has reviewed the plans and those comments have been incorporated into the conditions. Barnhart stated in his opinion that is the due diligence Commissioner Schoenzeit is looking for. Schoenzeit moved, Lemke seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3962, Lake West Development, LLC, on behalf of Rick and Barbara Lupient, for preliminary plat, subject to the recommendations of Staff outlined in the August 21, 2017, Staff report, and based upon the discussion of the Planning Commission, with a recommendation that the amount of fill be identified prior to appearing before the City Council, with the understanding the Planning Commission based their decision on 1,300 cubic yards of fill, and subject to the City observing and verifying the current condition of Ivy Place prior to and after construction. Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission would like the Council to understand what was told to the Planning Commission and what their decision was based on. Thiesse asked whether the width of the road should be identified in the motion. Barnhart stated in terms of the driveway width, that is part of the project that is being recommended for approval. Barnhart stated the additional approvals are outlined in Staff s report, and at some point in the future the applicant will need to request a variance from the wetland setback, a variance from the wetland buffer, and a conditional use permit for filling in the floodplain. Schoenzeit moved to amend his motion to add the condition that the neighboring property should not incur any expenses to remain connected to utilities. Thiesse noted there will be an easement down the property line of this subject project. Schoenzeit stated the Whites are connected today and they should remain connected after the project and that there should not be any cost to them. Thiesse asked what the easement is along the property line. Barnhart indicated it is a standard easement. Schoenzeit stated if the utility company wants $3,000 to reconnect the gas, the Whites should not have to pay for that. Thiesse noted the applicant is not moving the utility lines and that the applicant is not responsible for replacing it. Landgraver stated in his view that condition might be overreaching and could cover any number of situations. Leskinen stated she is not sure that is within the scope of the Planning Commission's authority. Amendment dies for lack of a second. Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. VOTE ON ORIGINAL MOTION: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Page 19 of 19 Date Application Received: July 19, 2017 Date Application Considered as Complete: July 19, 2017 120 -Day Review Period Expires: November 16, 2017 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Doug Reeder, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: August 21, 2017 Council Exhibit D 17-3962 Subject: #17-3962, Lake West Development, LLC on behalf of Rick & Barbara Lupient, PIDs 20-117- 23-42-0001/0002/0003 (Lots 1, 2 & 3 Casco Point Addition) "Ivy Place", Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval of a proposed two - lot subdivision of a vacant property located at the northerly end of Ivy Place on Casco Point. The property consists of 3 existing tax parcels, which the applicants propose to reconfigure to result in two residential building lots, each exceeding the 1/2 -acre minimum lot size of the LR -1C district. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff supports the project, but recognizes issues related to floodplain filling and wetland mitigation need to be resolved prior to Council approval of the plat. The Planning Commission may table action on the subdivision request pending resolution of these items, or provide a recommendation to the Council, subject to these issues and the conditions below: 1. No structure may be closer than 75 feet to the lake on either side. 2. The property line between lots 1 and 2 shall function as a side property line, requiring 15 feet setback (150% of 10 feet side yard setback for LR -1C) 3. All comments of MCWD, outlined in their memo of August 10, 2017 4. Declaration and documentation of wetland buffer as required by MCWD 5. All comments of the city engineer, outlined in a memo dated August 14, 2017 shall be addressed. 6. Comments from the Fire Chief shall be addressed 7. Additional approvals a. Variance from the wetland setback b. Variance of wetland buffer impact (Watershed District) c. Conditional Use Permit for filling in the floodplain d. Successful vacation of the existing Driveway easement (Doc. 1023891) e. Successful realignment of a underground utility easement (Document Nos. 855727 and 862192) Background The applicants propose the replatting of the three lots into two buildable parcels and one outlot, as a front lot/ back lot configuration. Also proposed is the vacation of an existing roadway easement through the parcels, to be replaced with a new one that better aligns with the proposed development pattern. The documents provided suggest the construction of two homes meeting setback requirements. Accessory structures are also shown on the proposed plans, including docks and beaches. All improvements beyond general grading and improvement of outlot A will require city approval. The site is located at the northern terminus of Ivy Place. The property will be served by municipal water and sewer. This project was the subject of a sketch plan in May, 2017. The minutes from the Council's review of the #17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 6 sketch plan are provided in Exhibit F. General Site Characteristics The property is a peninsula created by filling of wetland adjacent to the shore of Carman Bay more than 50 years ago. The property is wooded with mostly poor -quality volunteer trees that have grown up over the past 30-50 years. The land is relatively flat, just a few feet above lake level, and portions of it are below the 931.5' floodplain elevation. In areas where filling of flood plain is required in order to build homes, mitigation measures would be necessary. Given the history of the parcel as a wetland, measures such as pilings may be necessary in order to support homes. There are a number of existing easements on and adjacent to the property as well as potential encroachments that influence the proposal: Utility Easement, Document Nos. 855727 and 862192. This is the sanitary sewer easement granted to the City when the sewer lines serving this area were installed in 1966. The easement as described apparently does not match the actual location of the sewer lines. The proposal suggests thay these easements will be vacated and new ones over the actual pipe location will be granted. Drainage and Shore Stabilization Easement, Document No.T5010662. This is an easement granted to the City in 2012 to allow the restoration of shoreline over the existing sewer lines where the shore had eroded over time. This easement will remain in place. The watershed district has noted that the Easement prohibits structures within the easement; they are verifying with their legal consul to verify if the road and docks are considered structures per that document. Private Driveway Easement, Document No. 1023891. This easement was created in 1972 as part of the platting of the three lots to provide access to all three. The easement includes a private cul-de-sac. The easement will be vacated. Perpetual Roadway Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 922012. This is an easement granted in 1968 over the adjacent lot owned by the White's at 3560 Ivy Place. This easement presumably remains in place. Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 855726. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City over 3560 Ivy Place in August 1966. Unknown at this time whether this easement remains in effect given the easement granted in 862191 (below). Utility Easement (over 3560 Ivy Place), Document No. 862191. This is a perpetual underground utility easement granted to the City in October 1966, believed to be a replacement or correction of the easement granted in August 1966. View Easement, Document No. 1160211. In addition to the defined easements within or adjacent to the property, there is a view easement of record in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, which limits the number, location and height of the homes allowed within Lots 1-2-3 (no more than two homes total; no home may extend northwest of a line 25' NW of the line between Lots 2 & 3; dwelling closest to the NW end of the three lots cannot be more than one story in height). Possible Sewer Connection Encroachment. Staff has been advised that the existing sewer connection for the residence at 3560 Ivy Place crosses the applicants' property. This needs to be confirmed and if it exists, the encroachment should be eliminated (relocate sewer connection) or applicants must grant an easement for the encroachment. #17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 3 of 6 Deck and Driveway Encroachments. The survey work provided indicates that a sliver of the deck for the house at 3560 Ivy Place may encroach into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include a lot line rearrangement or possibly an easement. Also, a portion of the driveway serving 3560 Ivy encroaches into the applicants' property. Possible remedies include lot line rearrangement, easement, or removal of encroachment. Applicants' proposed driveway parallels this encroachment. Conformity with 2010 - 2030 Orono Community Management Plan The proposed re -platting to create two residential lots from three existing tax parcels conforms to the CMP guiding of the property for Low -Medium Density Residential Use. Relationship to Surrounding Development The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development are all single-family residential in nature, with lot sizes ranging from as small as % acre to more than an acre. It is anticipated that the proposed homes would be consistent with other lakeshore residential development on Casco Point. Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is zoned LR -1C, Lakeshore Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 0.5 dry buildable acres and 100' width as measured at the shoreline and at the 75' setback line. Lot Area and Width. Each of the two lots exceeds the minimum acreage requirements. Lot 1 is approximately 0.66 acre in area. Lot 2, being platted as a back lot given the unusual property shape and access limitations, exceeds the 150% lot area requirement at approximately 1.35 acres. Each lot exceeds the 100' width requirement. Front/Back Lot Configuration. The front/back lot configuration was recommended by staff as the most conforming method of converting these three lots into two. Zoning Code Section 78-1369 states that "each lot shall face on a public street or appropriate private easement". The existing driveway easement with cul- de-sac becomes a limiting factor for development of the site, cannot be counted towards lot area, and its location conflicts with other easements. In order to convert the 3 lots into two lots, a new, relocated access corridor for Lot 2 is necessary, suggesting the need for a subdivision process that creates a 'front lot', a 'back lot', and an access outlot (typically 30 feet in width per City code). Setbacks. The Zoning Code back lot standards have a significant impact on potential locations of a home on the back lot. By definition the line between proposed Lots 1 and 2 becomes the front lot line, requiring a 45' setback (instead of 30') when the back lot "150% of standard setbacks" rule is applied. The proposed house location on proposed Lot 2 is shown at a 10' setback. Elsewhere in the city, the 'front yard' for lake lots is the yard adjacent to the lake, therefore it could be argued that the orientation of the homes on Lots land 2 will be such that the 'front'yard will be either the easterly or westerly lake yard, and the line between the two lots will function as a side lot line. This would only require a 15' side setback for Lot 2. Under this scenario, staff would be comfortable with recommending the redefining of lot lines and yard designations, but not for granting of a variance to allow a side setback of 10' instead of 15' for Lot 2. Note that proposed Outlot A, the 30' wide driveway corridor, extends approximately 15 feet into Lot 2. This could also be used as a justification for the redesignation of yards. Staff has prepared a setback exhibit (exhibit N) illustrating the designation of yards. Both lots show a conceptual house footprint preserving the 0-75 lake yards. Both lots would still be required to adhere to the 75' lakeshore setback and 25% hardcover limit, as well as the 20% structural coverage limit. Average Setback. Because this is a peninsula, and with both lots having shoreline on two sides, the average lakeshore setback should be addressed as part of the approval resolution. It would appear that the location of the adjacent home at 3560 Ivy should be the defining property for establishing average lakeshore setback #17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 4 of 6 on the lake side. The home at 3560 Ivy appears to be 35 feet from the lake. Because the survey indicates that 3560 Ivy does not abut the lake on the lagoon side, there would be no average lakeshore setback on the lagoon side. Since any new homes on Lots 1 and 2 must be at least 75' from the shore, staff would suggest that 75 feet become the required average setback regardless of which of Lots 1 or 2 is built on first. Access and Standards Access to the site is via a road easement that extends through 3560 Ivy Place, from the northern terminus of Ivy Place. An existing driveway easement (Document 1023891) will be vacated and replaced with a 30 foot wide Outlot A, serving both Lots 1 and 2. Outlot A will be located within the 75' lake yard, but generally outside of the Drainage and Shore Stabilization (D/SS) Easement (Document T5010662), illustrated on sheet C0.2. A portion of the Outlot will unavoidably encroach into this easement because the existing road easement terminates into the D/SS easement. While establishment of a cul-de-sac or more functional turnaround at the end of Ivy Place would be desirable, there is not sufficient room to accomplish that within existing right-of-way. Acquisition of additional right-of-way from the applicants' property would seem to be of marginal value given the configuration of the property and the close proximity of the lakeshore. Whether the addition of two new homes at the end of this street will cause future maintenance, service vehicle or emergency services issues is a point for discussion, to be addressed by the pertinent service providers (Public Works, Police, Fire). The neighboring property owner has raised concerns with access, outlined in the letter dated May 1, 2017, attached as Exhibit J. The applicant's attorney has responded in a letter dated August 4, 2017, attached as exhibit L. The city is not in the position to arbitrate the access question. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted A very small wetland was delineated within existing Lot 3. The applicant proposes the filling of this wetland, triggering the Watershed District's review, which includes a 14 day public comment period. Watershed approval of wetland mitigation must be achieved prior to preliminary plat approval, it is recommended that this item not be placed on the City Council's agenda until this review is complete. The proposed beaches impact the wetlands beyond diminimuos limits. If the beaches are removed, the wetland may be filled without mitigation. Per the Watershed District. a wetland buffer of 25 feet will be required. The city requires a setback of 10 feet from the buffer for structures and hardcover. The wetland along the shore line and its buffer/ setback impact the proposed driveway at the extreme south end of the parcel. A wetland variance will be necessary for the driveway. Floodplain Alteration Filling activities exceeding 500 cubic yards in the Shoreland require a conditional use permit. Further, filling activities which exceed 1,000 cubic yards of imported material within the floodplain requires review of a conditional use permit. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) will be reviewing the proposed grading and mitigation plan to assure the overall volume of flood storage has not been diminished. The lowest floor of the proposed home must be at or above the Regulatory Flood Protection Elevation (RFPE) for Lake Minnetonka which is 932.5 feet; the MCWD's regulations require low openings to be one foot higher at 933.5 feet. The proposed concept plan suggests a first floor elevation of 934.00. The Watershed district has requested additional information to verify floodplain regulations are met, their comments are provided as Exhibit I. Conservation Design. #17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 5 of 6 A Conservation Design Report has been submitted (Exhibit D) and notes the wetlands discussed previously and the identification of 129 substantial trees (greater than 6" DBH), 127 of them Boxelder and Elm. The landscaping plan suggests the planting of 94 new trees to the property, adding to the vegetative diversity. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) on a per -lot basis at the rate of $3,025 per lot. The fee will be $6,050 per the 2017 Fee Schedule. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. Park/Trail Easement/Fees or Dedication Needed No new parks or trails are planned for in the area of this property. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee of $5,550 per each new building lot would be due at final plat approval, assuming that records will indicate that no park fees were paid in the past (verification required prior to final plat). Utility Locations and Availability The property is served by municipal water and sewer. Based on a review of the assessment history for this property, it was fully assessed for municipal sewer in 1965 and no sewer connection charge would be due save for the Metropolitan Council SAC charge which is currently $2,485 per dwelling unit. City water was installed in 1970 and the property was assessed for one unit; if more than one home is built, a water connection charge of $4,240 for the second unit would be due at the time a building permit is issued. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has prepared comments which should be addressed prior to formal Planning Commission approval, or as a condition of such approval. Fire Department Comments Chief Van Eyll, based on a review of the Sketch Plan suggested that due to the difficulty of access to this site, he would recommend: - the residences be provided with fire suppression sprinkler systems; - no contractor parking be allowed on Ivy Place during construction; and - it would be beneficial for emergency and service vehicles to allow a driveway wider than 8 feet to serve the two homes (the distance from end of Ivy Place to the northerly proposed home is approximately 250'). Public Comments As noted above, the view easement in favor of the Powell property at 2916 Casco Point Road, exists, impacting the property. There was some discussion during the sketch plan phase to remove this easement, however, the property owner has submitted a letter indicating a desire to retain the easement, provided as Exhibit K. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the subdivision is consistent with City Code and the Comprehensive Plan? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose additional conditions in order to protect the vision of the Comprehensive Plan and the requirements of the Code? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? #17-3962 August 21, 2017 Page 6 of 6 List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Specifications Exhibit D. Conservation Design Report Exhibit E. Wetland NOD (signed) Exhibit F. City Council minutes May 8, 2017 Exhibit G. Map and Property Owners List Exhibit H. City Engineer Memo dated August 14, 2017 Exhibit I. Watershed District Comments dated August 10, 2017 Exhibit J. Comments from resident RE access Exhibit K. Comment from resident RE view easement Exhibit L. Applicant access response Exhibit M. 82-256 Front Lot/ Back Lot Exhibit N. Setback designation exhibit 1 JUN 0 5 Z017 CITY OF ORONO Council Exhibit E 17-3962 Oa- dj �i 8--, .Z_aCg' cia4 c��a ize cwt-qze. lL 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsry Jamundsonlaw com www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger May 1, 2017 Planning Commission City of Orono P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Council Exhibit F 17-3962 RE: Lots 1, 2, and 3 Casco Point Addition, PID 201172320001, 20117232002, and 201172320003 Dear Planning Commission: RECEIVED MAY 02 2017 CITY OF ORONO I am contacting you on behalf of Jay and Tera White regarding a proposed two -lot subdivision involving the above described parcels. Lake West Development, LLC is attempting to develop these lots on behalf of Rick and Barbara Lupient, the owners of the properties. Jay and Tera White own the home directly adjacent to and southwesterly of the subject property, and object to the proposed development as set forth in the sketch plan. I have reviewed the Memo submitted to the Planning Commission members by Mike Gaffron, senior planner for the City of Orono. Mr. Gaffron identifies some of the practical issues that are concerning for my clients. I would like to elaborate on the practical issues and set forth the legal issues facing the developer in their attempt to gain approval of this re -plat. Mr. Gaffron indicates in his letter that the developer should address his intentions for handling Mr. and Mrs. White's objections. It must be noted that my clients have attempted to open communication with Curt Frethem of Lake West Development, LLC to notify him of their concerns. There efforts have not been fruitful and Mr. Frethem has not indicated a willingness to consider these concerns. Below are. the legal and practical issues that are of concern for my client and will need to be addressed by the developer: 1) Access. There is an easement crossing Mr. and Mrs. White's property as set forth in document'No. 922012. However, it is quite likely that at the time of creation of the easement, it was not contemplated that the property benefitting from the easement was buildable. Nor may it have been contemplated that there would be significant activity involving large construction equipment creating a large nuisance for Mr. and Mrs. White (nor ,the owners of White's property at the time the easement was created): Mr. Gaffron does a nice job setting forth the impact a two lot development would have on the neighborhood, and I DSON HNSON, PA 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsrv�&,amundsonlaw cam wwwamundsonlaw com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger particularly the disruption that such a project would have on Mr. and Mrs. White. He also sets forth the difficulty emergency vehicles may encounter in attempting to respond to an emergency at these locations. The sketch drawing shows that turning emergency vehicles around may not be possible on an 8 foot road with no specified turnaround. Although Mr. Gaffron appears to identify the access area behind White's residence as an easement in the Memo, he has referred to this easement area as a public right of way orally. To White's knowledge, this easement area has never been dedicated to the public and remains private property. Mr. Gaffron sets forth the obvious challenges in providing access to these lots, but the Whites could also make a legal claim that the scope of the easement is being enlarged. "The language of the deed expresses the final, binding agreement between the grantor and grantee. Hubachek v. Brown, 126 Minn. 359, 362-63, 148 N.W. 121, 122 (1914)... The scope of an easement created by express grant depends entirely upon the construction of the terms of the grant. Highway 7 Embers, Inc. v. Northwestern National Bank, 256 N.W.2d 271, 275 ('Minn. 1977). The extent of an easement should not be enlarged by legal construction beyond the objects originally contemplated or expressly agreed upon by the parties. Minneapolis Athletic Club v. Cohier, 287 Minn. 254, 258, 177 N.W.2d 786, 789-90 (1970)." Additional discovery would need to be made concerning the intent of the original easement, but the developer needs to know that Whites are prepared to apply for an injunction against a two lot development in the event a suitable compromise cannot be .. reached. It should be noted in this regard that White's lot is non- conforming to the setback requirements. It tliust be researched, but allowing White's home to be built so close to the boundary line indicates that it was unforeseen that a neighbor would build on the adjacent lot. 2) Encroachments. As set forth in the ,Memo prepared by Mr. Gaffron, the Whites' deck, driveway, and septic system appear to encroach onto the adjacent lot proposed for re -development. There is also a gas line and a water main servicing White's home that encroach onto the subject property. Again, Mr. and Mrs. White have attempted to communicate these issues with Mr. Frethem but there has been very little response. MUNDSON HNSON, PA. 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsry ,amundsonlaw. com www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K Buermann Debra K. Stanger In the event a compromise cannot be reached regarding these issues, Mr. and Mrs. White are again prepared to initiate a legal proceeding for adverse possession regarding the driveway and deck encroachments, and a claim for a prescriptive or implied easement regarding septic system, water main and gas line encroachments. The legal elements necessary to prove these claims are that Whites or their predecessors in interest occupied the property in an actual, open, continuous, exclusive and hostile manner for 15 years. The facts surrounding these encroachments appear to indicate that Whites will be able to prove these elements. At the very least, a legal proceeding would delay final approval of the re -plat because ownership of a portion of the subject property is legally disputed. I don't expect that the City of Orono Planning Commission would recommend approval of a final re -plat for property with unsettled ownership. 3) Drainage and Proximity (Legal Nuisance). The submitted sketch plan indicates that the developer intends to fill the lots to an elevation of 933.5 feet. That is above the White's elevation and could potentially create serious water drainage issues for Whites. (Please see enclosed survey indicating Whites home and garage are at 933 feet. White's lakeside yard is at 932 feet). Building a residence so near White's residence (as the sketch plan indicates) and at an elevation above that of Whites means that water can only run toward White's residence. A home built further away from Whites would allow for a more gradual slope and room to divert water away from Whites. The developer must address how this storm water runoff will not create a legal nuisance for Whites. In addition, building a home so close to Whites will create dust and noise also to the extent of creating a legal nuisance. 4) Utilities. Enclosed are two preliminary surveys created for the Barbara Lupient Revocable Trust. You will notice a demarcation for a "G" line servicing White's house which encroaches on the subject property. The Legend of the survey indicates that this is a buried gas line. The survey also indicates that a water main "W" and sanitary sewer lines "S" servicing the White's home encroach onto the subject property. These are some of the encroachments referred to in paragraph 2 above. Mr. Gaffron referred to the septic encroachment in his Memo and suggested that the system be moved, or an easement granted by the owners of the subject property. He did not comment on the gas line encroachment or the water main encroachment and these issues I DSON OHNSON, PA. 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsrv� amundsonl aw. cam www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sherr L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger must be addressed as well. To relocate these utilities so there is no encroachment on the subject would be very burdensome on Whites and perhaps not even feasible. The Whites have a significant interest at stake which is severely impacted by this proposed development. They love this home and area and hope to remain living there for many years. They feet that they have been represented well by Mr. Gaffron and the City of Orono and appreciate the efforts of all involved. They hope that the replacement for Mr. Gaffon, who I understand is soon retiring, will understand their concerns and provide continuing support and assistance. Whites are prepared to initiate litigation to protect their interest. However it is not their preference to do so and ask that the city rejects this re -plat as proposed. As previously stated, Whites initiated contact with the developer but their concerns were essentially ignored. Perhaps the City of Orono will protect their interest and reject the redevelopment, or delay action on the development until Whites' concerns have been met. The proposed re -plat would significantly affect Whites' use and enjoyment of their home if approved as proposed. Thank you. CC: Jay and Tera White CC: Lake West Development, LLC ours Ve Truly id T. J son Attorney At Law Timothy J. Nolan Attorney At Law, PLLC 4725 Excelsior Boulevard Suite 402 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 www.timnolanlaw.com Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 275o Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Ivy Place Preliminary Plat File # 17-3962 Dear Mr. Barnhart: Office (952) 746-0040 Cell (612) 226-8218 Fax (952) 285-2881 tim (&timnolanlaw. com August 4, 2017 Via Email Only jbarnhart@ci.orono, mn.us I represent Curt Fretham and Lake West Development, LLC, in connection with Lake West's application for plat approval. This letter is in response to your email of July 27, 2017, concerning the May 1, 2017, letter the City received from the attorney for Jay and Tera White, David T. Johnson. Mr. Johnson outlines concerns of the Whites related to access, alleged encroachments, drainage/proximity, and utilities. I would like to address each of those concerns. I note for the record that Mr. Johnson's suggestion that Curt Fretham had not been in touch with the Whites is inaccurate. Mr. Fretham met with Mr. White in person on December 26, 2016, and discussed the Whites' desire to purchase from Lake West, at well below market rate, a strip of land to alleviate the encroachment of their deck, driveway, and utilities. Mr. Fretham remains willing to discuss these issues with the Whites, while observing that the Whites are the encroaching parties, and Lake West, in the absence of some other agreement, has the right to demand that the Whites remove these encroachments. Mr. Fretham does not intend to take that action, but would be within his rights to do so. Neither the Whites nor their attorney appeared at the sketch plan review meeting before the Council on May 8, 2017. The Whites have taken no action to enforce their alleged rights as claimed in the May 1, 2017, letter from their attorney. Two factors legally prevent the Whites from taking the actions suggested by Mr. Johnson in his letter. First, in 2012 the Whites entered into an agreement with the Lupients by which the Whites stated that "we are not now and will not in the future be making any claim of rights to the Lupient Property." To the extent any of the issues in the attorney's letter relate to claims of adverse possession or prescriptive easements, the Whites have disclaimed their interest in the Agreement with the Lupients. The Agreement with the Lupients is attached as Exhibit A. Second, and more importantly, as a matter of law the Whites cannot make any claims for adverse possession or prescriptive easements. This property is registered Torrens. As such, title to registered property cannot be gained by adverse possession or prescriptive easement. Minn.Stat.§ 508.25 ("Every person receiving a certificate of title ... shall hold it free from all encumbrances and adverse claims..."). The Certificate of Title for this property is attached as Exhibit B. As you can see, neither the Whites nor their predecessors have asserted any title interest of record on the Certificate of Title. On the specific issues raised by Mr. Johnson, Lake West has the following responses: 1. Access The Easement dated September 6, 1968, and filed as Doc. No. 922012 grants a perpetual 30400t wide access easement for roadway purposes over the White property and for the purpose of access to and egress from the Lupient property. A copy of the Easement is attached as Exhibit C. The Easement contains no restrictions limiting access for any particular type of ingress or egress. Ingress and egress for construction purposed on the benefitted lots could clearly be contemplated under the Easement. The Lupient property is two acres and contains sufficient space for construction worker and equipment parking. The Easement area will only be used for ingress and egress, and not for parking. Attached as Exhibit D is drawing that shows the roadway easement at the bottom of the page adjoining Ivy Place. 2. Encroachments The encroachments by the Whites on the Lupient property are admitted by Mr. Johnson in his May 1, 2017, letter. These encroachments are not an impediment to Lake West's development of the property, but rather are a problem for the Whites to reasonably resolve with their neighbor. In the absence of any agreement, Lake West would be within its rights to demand that the Whites remove these encroachments, which include their deck, driveway, and utilities. Lake West is willing to reach an accommodation with the Whites on these issues, but the parties have not yet reached an agreement. Lake West is willing to allow these encroachments for the time being. 3. Drainage and Proximity Lake West will not create a nuisance with its planned development and construction. Lake West as designed a grading plan that actually benefits the Whites' property by raising the common property line to prevent drainage to the Whites' property. Attached as Exhibit E is the grading plan showing these remedies. Because the Lupient property is two acres, the creation of dust or construction noise will largely be limited to the property itself. 4. Utilities The encroachment by the White's utilities, again, is not a problem for the development and construction on the subject property, but rather it is for the White's to resolve, by either relocating the utilities or compensating Lake West for the encroachment. Mr. Fretham is willing, for the time being, to allow these encroachments and to work with the Whites if it becomes necessary to move or pay for the relocation of the Whites' utilities. Lake West remains willing to work with the Whites to reasonably resolve any remaining issues. Enclosures cc: Curt Fretham (w/encs.) 3 Very tr yours Timothy J. n James C. White, Jr. Tera R. White 3560 Ivy Place Orono, Minnesota 55391 James W. Lupient Irrevocable Trust for the benefit of Richard Lupient 750 Pennsylvania Avenue South Minneapolis, Minnesota 55426 Re: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Casco Point Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota —the "Lupient Property" 3560 Ivy Place, Orono, Minnesota —the "White Property" This will acknowledge that our rent-free use of a portion of the Lupient Property located next to our home at 3560 Ivy Place, Orono, Minnesota is being done with your express consent and that we are not now and will not in the future be making any claim of rights to the Lupient Property. We understand that you may ask us at any time to relinquish our use of the Lupient Property and we agree to do so immediately upon your request. We understand that the areas where we store and dock a boat, plant a garden, play volleyball and make general use of "green space" are, in fact, on your land or lakefront access. We agree that we will not make use of any additional Lupient Property without first obtaining your consent. We understand that you have no obligation to grant your consent to any such request. Finally, we agree to maintain the portion of the Lupient Property we are using to keep it in an attractive, safe condition, and acknowledge that we are carrying general liability insurance covering damages for death or injury to people which could result from our use of the Lupient Property. This agreement and understand shall automatically terminate if any of the following occur: (a) our sale or transfer of the White Property or (b) the sale or transfer of the Lupient Property. Date: May `i, 2012 J geC. White, Jr. Tera R. White EXHIBIT A Certificate of Title Certificate Number: 1425215 Created by Document Number: 5356750 Transfer from: 1380487 Originally registered May 21, 1904 Volume: 1, Certificate No: 313, District Court No: 193 Also originally registered October 14, 1937, Volume: 196, Certificate No: 61799, District Court No: 4506 State of Minnesota County of Hennepin S.S. Registration This is to certify that Barbara Lupient, Trustee, and successor Trustees, of the Barbara Lupient Revocable Trust u/a/d April 13, 2000 , whose address is 5004 Arden Avenue, Edina, Minnesota, 55424; Richard Lupient, whose address is 20 Second Street NE, #2801, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 55413; are now the owners of an estate in fee simple In the following described land situated in the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota: Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1, Casco Point Addition Subject to building restriction contained in deed Doc No. 478968, as referred to in deed Doc No. 524728; (now as to that part of above lots embraced within Tracts W & X, Registered Land Survey No. 461) Subject to a perpetual easement for purposes of a water route to Lake Minnetonka and for purposes of construction and maintaining a dock and boathouse as shown in deed Doc No. 480430; (now as to that part of above lots embraced within Tract B, RegisteredLand Survey No. 477) Subject to the restrictions contained in Document No. 1160211; (See Order Doc No. 1160209) Subject to the interests shown by the following memorials and to the following rights or encumbrances set forth in Minnesota statutes chapter 508, namely: 1. Liens, claims, or rights arising under the laws or the Constitution of the United States, which the statutes of this state cannot require to appear of record; 2. Any real property tax or special assessment; 3. Any lease for a period not exceeding three years, when there is actual occupation of the premises under the lease; 4. All rights in public highways upon the land; 5. Such right of appeal or right to appear and contest the application as is allowed by law; 6. The rights of any person in possession under deed or contract for deed from the owner of the certificate of title; 7. Any outstanding mechanics lien rights which may exist under sections 514.01 to 514.17. Memorials Document Date of FilingMonth Day, Number Document Type Year Time Amount Running in Favor Of T855727 Easement Aug 22, 1966 11:20 AM The City of Orono. Granting a perpetual underground utility easement now over part of Lots 1, 2 & 3 T862192 Easement Nov 9, 1966 10:45 AM The City of Orono. Granting a perpetual underground utility easement now over pt of Lots 1, 2 & 3 T1023891 Easement Feb 29, 1972 1:15 PM Creating a perpetual easement for private driveway purposes & for ingress & egress over pt of Lots 1, 2 & 3 for the benefit of said lots Regarding the estate of James W Lupient aka James Wallace Lupient. T5006928 Letters Oct 26. 2012 12:06 PM Appointing Barbara Lupient and/or Ralph Strangis as personal representatives. Re-entered July 9, 2013 Certificate Number: 1425215 This is a non -certified copy Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT B Indexes Verified through 8/25/2016 In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and • affixed the seal of my office this 21st day of June, 2016. Martin McCormick Registrar of Titles, In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. Certificate Number: 1425215 This is a non -certified copy Page 2 of 2 City of Orono, (a MN municipal corp). Granting an easement for T5010662 Easement Oct 30, 2012 12:00 PM public drainage and shoreline stabilization purposes over part of above land. Creating covenants, restrictions, easements, charges and liens on T5036119 Declaration Dec 31, 2012 4:00 PM land Re-entered July 9, 2013 T5142636 Certificate of Trust and Dec 30, 2013 3:50 PM James W Lupient creates Trust. Affidavit of Trustee Date of Trust: March 18, 1999 Barbara Lupient Revocable Trust creates Trust. T5356749 Certificate of Trust and Jun 21, 2016 3:26 PM Date of Trust: April 13, 2000 Affidavit of Trustee Indexes Verified through 8/25/2016 In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto subscribed my name and • affixed the seal of my office this 21st day of June, 2016. Martin McCormick Registrar of Titles, In and for the County of Hennepin and State of Minnesota. Certificate Number: 1425215 This is a non -certified copy Page 2 of 2 JI �J2l Oi2 a 7 Form No. 27-MN1111-1), Uniform C.—Y 92-20.12, Tbfig3nbenture, Alade this._._-._.-- . 6.th ................... clay of .............. 79-m. between_ ------- Ch-ar.l.er,...A....-Cox..an-d-.Marv..H.e-le-n.,C-o.x-....hu.s.b.and.. and -wife., ......... .... .... . .... .. . ....... .... .. ....... . . .. . .... .. .. .... . .. ...... .... ... ... . . ....... ..................... of the-cou-n-ty of.....Hennepin...................................... ....and State of ---------- Minnesota_ ------- ------------- part_ ...ie6f the Just port, anal ..-.. ............. UsItard. .... Nic-ola:y .......................................... .......... I ......... ....................... ...........•-.I......._._ ................. •.........................I.,........................................ ........ I ...... I ..............I.,......._...... of OW 0011.7ity Of .......... _49!!ARPiP .............. .............. aud State. of ------------------------------------------- Minnesota ....... nart ... Y. of the second part, Mitnef;getf), That the said parAPP.... of the Itrst part, in consideration ofthe-sunt. of ---one dollar and other valuable consideration----, ---------------- --------------- .................................. ....... ------------------------------------- - ---- 7 ........... ......................... li to ........ ..... 01AR-An hand paid by the said part. -y.... of the second part, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, do:......:.. hereby Grant, Bargain, Quitclaim, and CO?I.Vey UntO the said the second part` . .......... heirs and assigns, Forever, all the. tract or parcel_ op.lan`dYl iLg and being in the County of ............. HenneTxin .....................and State of Minnesota, described as follows, :to -tvlt;, f A non-exclusi;ve-pe*rpeival.easement for roadway purposes over that part of Lot 185, Taylor's Subdivision, Spring Park, Minnesota_-. described as follows: Beginning at a point on the Southeast line of said Lot 185 distant'' i%; 45 feet Northeasterly of themost South I aidt: li Southerly corner of a 0 . thence Northeasterly along said Southeasterly -line 30*.feet;, thence Northwesterly. at right angles 5 fe6t;'thence Norihweaterlyi deflecting to the right; ght along a tangentialcurvehaving a radius of 130'feet'to the intersection with the Northwesterly line,of said Lot 185; thence . Southwesterly al ong said Northwesterly -line to.a point therein distant 45 feet Northeasterly 5. from the most Westerly corner of said Lot 1:85; thence Southeas'terly to ti the point of beginning, Said easement is for access to -and egress from and for the benefit of Lots W and X, Registered Land Survey 461, and any parcels thereof. Grantors reserve the right (a) to dedicate the property subject to the easement created by this instrument for a public street and (b) to create an easement for public utilities in the property subject to. .'.,.-the easement created by this instrument, 7/0 PTA',7E, 06 rzL i, -d i . TAX.ki 2 DEED:,. z.0 STANAP SE1125'G5 TAX (aX piekw ] xj;� f. Cc Jbabc aub to 3[)o1b rhe 0aine, Together with, all the hereditanzents and appurtenances thereunto belonging or imaiegivise appertaiiiia-g, to the said part Y ofthe second part _his. ............ heirs anal assigns, Porever. lit Mcotinionp M, ficreof, wtv said part-Aawf the first part ha ve heren-hio • .....their------------- haizds. the day and year first. above writ tru. lit. 11re.ven ce of ......... . .... ............... ................ Charles ?t Q x - 71, ........................ .......... . Mary Itel Cox .......... I ...... ......... ..... ..........................................••--................ . ..... ..... ..... . ... ..... .......... I ............. ......... ....... ............... . .................. EM EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EROSION CONTROL NOTES GROUNDWATER INFORMATION: CITY OF ORONO GRADING NOTES: GENERAL GRADING NOTES: GRADING PLAN LEGEND -- EXHIBIT ivilSite LAKE W—EST OEVELOPM ENT. LLC PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAIN 4MUNDSON OHNSON, PA. 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsrv@amundsonlaw.com www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger August 31, 2017 Timothy J. Nolan Attorney at Law, PLLC 4725 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 402 St. Louis Park, MN 55416 RE: Lots 1, 2, and 3 Casco Point Addition, PID 201172320001, 20117232002, and 201172320003 Dear Mr. Nolan: I have reviewed your letter to the City of Orono dated August 4, 2017. That letter was drafted in response to the May 1, 2017 which I drafted to address concerns of Jay and Tera White regarding the Lake West Development project happening on the lot adjacent to the Whites. You seem to dismiss the ability of the Whites to bring a lawsuit because of the 2012 Agreement signed by the Whites, and because adverse possession is not an available remedy on Torrens property. I agree with you that an adverse possession claim is not available to the Whites. (When I wrote the May 1 letter, I did not realize these were Torrens properties). But Whites certainly can bring a Proceeding Subsequent action to determine boundaries. Also, regarding the 2012 agreement signed by the Whites, they certainly did not waive their rights to bring a boundary line action. This waiver did not address encroachments. It only addressed Whites ability to make a claim on the Lupient property for use of dock space, garden, and green space. It doesn't address utility encroachments, or the driveway encroachment and it is not likely that any of the parties even knew of these encroachments when the 2012 agreement was signed. So I disagree with your characterization to the City of Orono that the Whites cannot bring a legal claim to determine the above issue, and the issues relating to the easement. I also disagree with your aggressive statement that these issues are only White's problems, and that by the goodness of the developer they are not requiring the Whites to remove the encroachments. I can assure you that any action to attempt to force the Whites to remove these encroachments would be met with a counterclaim concerning the above-mentioned issues. I expect that if either party initiated a lawsuit, the delays in your client's project would be significant and the fees and costs would be excessive. You indicated in your August 4, 2017 letter that Mr. Frethem has N DSON OHNSON, PA. 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsry@amundsonlaw com www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys.: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals; Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger been in communication with the Whites to resolve these issues, but my clients state that there has been no real effort by your client to resolve the issues. However, instead of immediately filing a lawsuit, my client would like to make another effort to resolve the following issues; 1) Driveway Easement. Whites acknowledge that there is a right of access through their property. However, they are concerned that the amount of fill necessary and the weight and size of the trucks will damage their property. They are also concerned that the trucks and equipment will also encroach onto their property outside of the described easement area. Whites propose that a new easement agreement be drafted that would require any damage incurred during the development be restored and completely paid for by the developer. And that any future maintenance/improvements (as agreed upon by the Whites) to the easement area be split equally between the owner of White's property and the owners of the two properties being developed. (Each party will pay 1/3 of these costs). 2) Driveway Encroachment. Whites require an easement or a lot line adjustment for the encroaching driveway so they do not lose any part of their driveway surface. 3) Utility Encroachments. Whites require that Lupients sign a utility easement for the septic and gas line encroachments. 4) Septic System or Utility Damage. In the course of the development, Whites are concerned that excavation and tree removal may result in damage to the utilities (natural gas and septic lines) serving their house. White require an agreement that the developer or landowner pay for any such damage. 5) Side Line Lot Adjustment. Whites have no space on the side of their home to accommodate necessary maintenance to the home. For instance, if scaffolding was needed for repairs, or a lift for an entrance to the upstairs living area was necessary, there is no space available to set up. Whites would like to obtain land necessary to do this either through a lot line adjustment or an easement. Please discuss this with your client and respond within one week. The parties have never had any meaningful discussions to resolve these issues, but Whites would once again like to invite your client to address them. Please respond with your client's position on all of the above N DSON OHNSON, PA. 217 West James Street P.O. Box 241 Paynesville, Minnesota 56362 320-243-3878 320-243-4956 [Fax] legalsrv@amundsonlaw.com www.amundsonlaw.com Attorneys: Ross M. Amundson David T. Johnson Paralegals: Sheri L. Blonigen Edith K. Buermann Debra K. Stanger issues. Thank you. CC: Soren Mattrick CC: Jay and Tera White IU rs Very ruly c id T. JohS on Attorney At Law AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 17 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: #17-3932 — YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Road North, Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The property owner requested preliminary, non-binding comment on the proposed 15 lot, single family development. 2. 15.99 Deadline Not applicable 3. Background/ Summary. The Rydell's owned the property, then donated it to the YMCA of Greater Twin Cities. The YMCA retained Gordon James Homes to develop a concept sketch plan, to better understand the development potential of the property. The property is 39.4 acres and includes 19 acres of wetlands, 3.1 acres of wetland buffers (per the MCWD), and 2 acres of conservation area, resulting in 15.3 acres of buildable area. Long Lake Creek runs along the North and West sides of property. The Luce Line Trail runs along the southern boundary of the property. The concept proposes 15 single family lots ranging in size from 3/4 to 1 t/2 acres. All lots access off a new road (TBD if public or private) that terminates in a cul de sac. A trail connection to the Luce Line is proposed. The current zoning requires 2 acres of dry buildable land area for each lot. The attached staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit B), and the applicant's narrative (Exhibit C) provide additional detail on the application. To develop the project, a number of actions are necessary: Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan MUSA Boundary Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Rural/ Urban Area Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan from Rural Residential to Low Density Residential Amendment of the Zoning Map (from RR -1B to RPUD) Extension of Water service from Long Lake Preliminary and Final Plat. 4. Planning Commission vote and comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan at their meeting on August 211t. No formal vote was taken, but the Commission felt uncomfortable with deviating from the Community Management Plan, felt that the proposal was too dense, that the proposal was inconsistent with the openness value of Orono. Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting of August 21St are attached as Exhibit D. 5. Public Comment. Many residents spoke at the Planning Commission meeting, with the exception of the applicant, all in opposition to the proposed development. Those speaking asked to enforce the guided density and MUSA designation of the property. Resident comments received are provided as Exhibit E. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff has no recommendation and seeks Council feedback on a proposed land use policy change for the area. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: -Sb) AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No formal action is requested, only Council comment on the proposed project. Exhibits Exhibit A. Plans Exhibit B. PC Staff report dated August 21, 2017 Exhibit C. Narrative and House Plans Exhibit D. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit E. Resident Comment References A. PC Exhibits A. Application D. Rural -Urban Map E. Comp Plan Excerpts F. Staff Sketch G. RPUD Excerpt Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: �`1 I% A. Council Exhibit A 17-3932 F—.."IVED ' '122017 JRON C�3p.1 ,ray Lon-qLake C cone Proposed - ,`y.ryS ra\(• .� r:. Conservation Area - - Wetlands 1 - 1-00 14 if 4 13 i yl - ✓�, 12 •i Wetlands a Wetlands _ ! -: �� 1 �• ; "rim _ �s ��, r • � : • / _ �; I — ► < ,� , •, /'mss � sl I�,,:[. ,, .. ` , 2 `�. .. .s 00000 Wetlands a�- .ElVa�etlw�nd j 1 � SKETCH PLAN �I We ands A- Q Orono Public Golf Course 03.22.17 cordon •Sambatek �. ames the �� C� P ORCHARD ;-MILL OF ORONO - NET DENSIT'I' COMPUTATION YMCA 4 CaORDON JAME5 MAR 2 2 2017 CITY OF ORONO C.OL. l NET DEN&T'- G OI"1FUT,4TION GR055 AREA: 39.4 AC - WETLAND AREA: 19,0 AS. WETLAND BUFFER ARREA: 3.1 AC. WETLAND BUFFER 5ETSAC< O.SAC, CONSERVATION AREA: 2.0 AG NET AREA: 143 AC. FF-OF05ED UNITS: 15.0 UNITS NET AREA: 14.5 AC. NET DENefTY 1.03 U/AC, ON THIS EXHIBIT ARE ARE JD ARE SUBJECT CHANGE 3932 I I SCALE: 1" . 100' 02.16.2011 a r I r o J ..... - - - - - 4(f,-.. 7 VL L CR R41 A LONG L-4KF ti7 W. C'J Rf -11B JL� Z_ 4- 'T F Ft LE Rtl 'F E: L R s7URBS BAY L Lim.::T L I L 1-7 RR -1 7 _4 L J Lft-:4 7' f WAST tR41 LRO K!\139\139MAP\GISDATANProjects\Zoning.mxd CRYISTAL BAY Yoter A, ,V_is 17ARMAN BAY R. RR -18 LR -1A uaw-vs B41 S L4KF MINWETONAA A. Bridgewater Dr B. Boulder Dr C.Sandstone La D. Stonebay Dr E. Cascade la F. Sandstone Ct G. Cobblestone Ct 0111 (01*!P 44%\_N City of Orono �� ZONING MAP Vl ZONING DISTRICTS Rural Residential Business RR -IA- One Family Rural Residential - 5Acms 131 -Retell Sales RR -1 EJ -One Family Rural Residential - 2 Acres 132 - Lakeshore Lakeshore Residential B3 - Shopping Center J LR -1A- One Family Lakeshore Residential -2 Acres B4 - Of ice/Profewilonal LRA B - One Farrily Lakeshore Residential -1 Acre B5 - Limited Neighborhood LRAC - One Family Lakeshore Residential - 1/2 Acre B6 - Highway Commercial LRIC-1 - One Family Lakeshore Residential Subdistrict- 112 Acre B-6 PUD - Highway Commercia; PUD Residential Industrial 7' R -IA- One FarrilyResidential- 1 Acre 1 -Industrial - __J R-1 B - One Family Residential -112 Acre Recreational Planned Unit Development RS - Seasonal Recreational RPUD - Residential Planned Unit Development RR -1 B PUD PRD - Planned Residents[ Development Other The Zoning Designations on this map are a representation of a combination OfmPa. Parcel Boundary ordinariances and City Code requirements which rnake up the complete city ofOrono Zoning Regulations, Information on Planned Development is available at City Hall. All Sector, Boundary Zoning requirements and Zoning designations on specific properties are subject to change. Water Body For updated Zoning Information, please contact the City of Orono Planning & Zoning Department at Planning@ci.orono.mn.us of call (952) 249-4620. Cily Boundary INSET I INSET 2 Miles 0.5 0.25 0 0.6 Feet 3000 1500 0 3000 --7T tV WE B I B-1 B-3 LR -19 80, PI*: - LR.18 # 3932 MARCH 2011 2030 Land Use Plan City of Orono Minnesota Future Land Use Categories Rural (1 unit/5 ac) Rural Residential (1 unit/2 ac) Low Density Residential (0.5-2 units/ac) Low -Medium Density Residential (2-3 units/ac) Medium Density Residential (3-7 units/ac) Medium -High Density Residential (7-10 units/ac) Ls High Density Residential (10-15 units/ac) Mixed Use Residential (6-15 units/ac) Commercial Office Industrial Park, Recreational, and Open Space Institutional - Proposed MUSA Open Water Parcel —� Railroad City Limits N W E S 0 4,000 8,0!30 Feet MCI MYfRYYIYyYgSi1YY0 CtlNaY;-ANYY, FN$ - Source: Bonestroo, Northwest Associated Consultants. Date: June 16, 2010. MAP 3B-6 C.C_ 39%E5R M-- LONG LAKE . 0000 000 LONG LAKE nd Sanitary Sewer System City of Orono Minnesota Manhole Lift Station Sanitary Sewer -------- Forcemain - City -------- Forcemain - Met Council — City Limits Area within the 2008 MUSA Proposed Additions to the 2008 MUSA PUBLIC ROADS Private Roads W E 0 1000 2000 Scale in feet 1 y Bonestroo MAP 4C -4f # 3 9 3 � .Ro oo }--y Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tiers Tier I Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 r -- 1 Tier 5 Exempt C,& -, 77n-1-12*7 Date Application Received: 3/22/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/22/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: NA To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: August 21, 2017 Council Exhibit B 17-3932 Subject: #17-3932, YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Road North - Sketch Plan Review Zoning District: RR -1B, One Family Rural Residential District (2 acres/200' width) Property Area: 39.4 acres total (19 acres wetland, 2 acres conservation) Application Summary: This is a sketch plan for a 39 -acre property abutting the Luce Line Trail proposed to be developed into 15 single-family residential lots ranging in size from 3/4 acre to 1-1/2 acres, averaging approximately 1 acre in dry -buildable area. All lots are proposed to be served by municipal sewer and water and an internal road. The proposed plan would require rezoning and an amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, as the property is within Orono's defined Rural Area in which the minimum lot size for new development is two dry buildable acres. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the Planning Commission's discussion with the applicants to illustrate issues for discussion prior to submission of a formal Preliminary Plat application. Background The applicant is working on behalf of the YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities, who acquired the land in donation from the previous owner. The property under review includes a single tax parcel on the west side of Orono Orchard Road North, north of the Luce Line Trail, east of Long Lake Creek. The property is zoned RR -1B, One Family Rural Residential, requiring a minimum lot size of 2.0 dry buildable acres and 200' lot width, if unsewered. The property has been zoned for 2 - acre lots, is guided in the Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) for Rural Residential Use (1 unit per 2 acres) and is within the defined Rural Area (See Map 3B-1). The property is outside of the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate serving this area with municipal sewer or water. Due in part to increased interest in development potential for this property, and the requested changes from the city Comprehensive Plan, Staff encouraged the developer to host an informational meeting for the public. Staff understands a meeting is scheduled for August 17th, after this report is filed. The Commission may wish to ask for a verbal report on the results or findings from this meeting. Sketch Plan Review Parameters The goal of this review is to provide the developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The "Summary of Issues for Consideration" at the conclusion of this report notes reveals a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding the proposal. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 2 of 8 which the developer should pay special attention. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding but will be extremely helpful as the applicants move forward. The City Council will also provide comment at a future meeting. Conformity with the Orono 2030 Community Management Plan There are three main issues with respect to the proposal and the Community Management Plan. 1. Overall guided density, 2. Rural versus urban development patterns, and 3. MUSA boundary adjustment. The project requires amendment in all three areas. Guided Density. The property is guided for Rural Residential, with a density of 1 unit per 2 acres. The 2008-2030 Comprehensive Plan requires lots at a minimum size of 2 dry -buildable acres if the lots are not served by municipal sewer. The proposed re -guiding to Low -Density Residential with a range of 0.5-2.0 units per acre (1/2 -acre to 2 -acre lots) is a departure from these goals. The proposed 15 unit subdivision will occur on 39.4 gross acres. 24.1 of the acres (wetlands, wetland buffers, and conservation areas*) are excluded from the calculation as they are in -eligible for development, based on the Met Council calculations. The adjusted, net density is 1.02 units per acre (15 units on 15.3 net acres). *if in Fed, State, or Local control and subject to a perpetual easement Rural versus urban development. The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City (CMP Map 313-1) in which new development is expected to occur with lot sizes of 2 to 5 acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was established in the 1980 Community Management Plan, at that time being consistent with the MUSA line. It has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the defined Rural Area. Is it appropriate to introduce higher density to this area? MUSA. The project requires the expansion of the MUSA line and extension of water and sanitary services to accommodate development. The expansion of the MUSA into the subject parcel was not contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan, but the Planning Commission and Council could determine that the project satisfies one of the priority statements outlined in the CMP: Priority 1 Properties that abut the shoreline of Lake Minnetonka and all other Orono lakes. Priority 2 Properties that abut City -protected tributaries, and all other properties within the Shoreland Overlay District. Priority 3 Existing substandard developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 4 New development using clustering that permanently preserves blocks of open space. Priority 5 Conforming developed lots not covered by Priorities 1 and 2 and developed prior to 1985 that have failing septic systems and do not have an alternative site available to replace said system. Priority 6 New or existing development not covered by Priorities 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5. The Met Council has stated they will not support the expansion of the MUSA boundary for prof ects with densities less than 3 units per acre. 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 3 of 8 Expansion of the MUSA boundary is done infrequently, the last expansions were completed in 2008 as part of the last update. In expansion of the MUSA Boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? Conformity with Zoning District Lot Requirements The property is currently zoned RR -1B, Rural Residential District, which allows for single family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 2 dry buildable acres. Under the current zoning and a standard plat process, the property could likely be developed with no more than 8 total lots, or perhaps 10 via a PRD process. The applicants anticipate a rezoning to the RPUD zone. Additionally, portions of the property are within 300 feet of the OHWL of Long Lake Creek (OHWL being defined as the streambank). These areas, plus additional areas of wetland mapped as floodplain, are within the designated Shoreland Overlay District. The Shoreland District has specific standards for development, the most pertinent for this site being the 75' required setback from the creek. There are also setback requirements from the wetlands per the standards of the Wetland Overlay District, predicated on MCWD-required wetland buffers. The entire property is within the Stormwater Quality Overlay District, designated as Hardcover Tier 1 which limits each lot to 25% hardcover. An RPUD zone could introduce additional hard cover, as hardcover limits for an RPUD are automatically 50%. Proposed RPUD Rezoning. The applicants' are proposing to rezone the site to Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) District. An issue here is that no portion of a property within 250 feet of the OHWL of a Protected Tributary is allowed to be rezoned to RPUD [Zoning Code Section 78-626(1)]. The northerly 3 lots of applicants proposed development are within 250 feet of the creek OHWL, a waiver is necessary. Excerpt from 78-626(1): "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." In relation to the RPUD standards, there are specific guidelines for detached single family development in Zoning Code Section 78-626(8). Section 78-626(16) provides for flexibility in RPUD standards. A cursory review of the 15 lots confirms that minimal if any flexibility with respect to lot areas, widths or setbacks would be required under an RPUD rezoning. Relationship to Surrounding Development The neighborhoods surrounding the proposed development are all single-family residential in nature, yet quite diverse in character and density. This is in part due to the fact that the properties north and northwest of the site are within the City of Long Lake, where lot sizes along the creek range from less than one-half acre to more than 2 acres. The surrounding property in Orono, however, has been developed with lots based on a density of 1 unit per two dry buildable acres. To the south is the Luce Line Trail with undeveloped wooded wetlands south of the Trail. To the southeast is the Orono Golf Course. To the immediate east are three homes along the west side of Orono Orchard Road on large lots, and east of Orono Orchard Road is the Orono Oaks subdivision of 2 -acre lots. North of Orono Oaks in the City of Long Lake is the Stoneridge Colony development of half -acre lots. 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 4 of 8 Surrounding Land Uses Summar Long Lake neighborhoods north of creek Lot sizes: 1/2 acre — 2 -plus acres Creekside In Orono Lot sizes 0.8 acre; Density 1 unit per 2 dry acres South of Luce Line Trail Undeveloped — 2 -acre zoning Orono Golf Course 2 -acre zoning Homes to immediate east along Orono Orchard Rd 2 -acre zoning Orono Oaks 2 -acre zoning Stoneridge Colony (N of Orono Oaks in LL) Lot sizes: 1/2 acre Lot Layout and Lot Standards The proposed layout of the site is dictated by the nature and orientation of the uplands and wetlands. With the proposed road closely following the existing driveway route, homesites along either side of the road in the southerly half of the site are placed midway down steep slopes ranging from 20% to 40%. This would likely result in the need for substantial site re -grading, filling and retaining walls on many lots in order to create usable yard areas. On the flatter slopes at the northerly end of the site, some lots will require additional fill in order to create the depicted walkout configuration. The 2 -acre RR -113 standards include a lot width minimum of 200 feet and minimum yard requirements of 50' front and rear and 30' sides. These standards are intended to create separation between homes to maintain the rural character. The proposed rezoning to RPUD would establish a very different set of required lot area, width and setback standards as follows: Minimum lot area: 15,000 s.f. (1/3 acre) Minimum lot width: 90 feet Minimum lot depth: 125 feet Front setback: 25' Rear setback: Lesser of 40' or 20% of lot depth Interior side setback: 10' Whether developed under RR -1B standards or per RPUD standards, the required setback to the creek is 75 feet. Preliminary plat submittals would have to verify the location of the creek bank. Minimum City -required setback from wetland boundaries is 35', or if MCWD-required wetland buffer exceeds 25', minimum City -required wetland setback is buffer width plus 10 feet. Conceptual house pads depicted under the RPUD proposal range from approximately 5500 s.£ to 8500 s.f. In each case the separation between homes is depicted at 60 feet, minimum. Although the steep hillsides in certain areas have slopes averaging more than 30% and rise more than 25 feet above the floodplain, they are not subject to bluff regulations because those slopes are outside the defined boundaries of the Shoreland Overlay District. Site Grading At this sketch plan stage no grading plans have been submitted. However, the submitted conceptual road layout and house floor elevations suggest that the top 15-20' of the hill would be removed and placed to create the house pads depicted. The impact on existing trees would likely be substantial. 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 5 of 8 Road Layout and Standards The proposed road is depicted as being a private road. While this is consistent with the RR -113 District 2 -acre zoning, a question for discussion is whether the road system serving the proposed development should be public or private if developed as RPUD. The CMP Transportation Plan in Urban Transportation Policies states: 1. Local streets in the urban area will be owned and maintained by the City (i.e. public streets). Because the land use and street use density of the urban neighborhoods is relatively high, the City will provide public street access to all urban properties. City responsibility for proper maintenance levels will ensure passable, all-weather streets available at all times for emergency vehicles and for general public ingress and egress. At the urban density proposed, it can be argued this should be a public street. The applicants are prepared for the road system to be private. As proposed, the road system will serve only this development and has no potential to be extended to serve other neighboring properties in the future. At this sketch plan stage, road designs have yet to be established. The City's minimum paved width standard for a private road system serving the number of dwellings proposed is 28'; for a public road, the minimum paved width would be 32'. The City's standard for maximum length of a cul-de-sac road is 1000 feet. The depicted sketch plan shows a private road with cul-de-sac approximately 1500 feet in total length, not including the loop segment at the north end of the site. A variance or waiver of this requirement would be required. Waivers of the cul de sac length are not uncommon. In the current plan, curb and gutter would likely be required in order to manage stormwater for some portion of the internal road system. Street design and grading information is required at the time of preliminary plat for City Engineer and Fire Marshal review. Sight distance at the entrance to Orono Orchard Road should also be reviewed. Road Improvements and/or Easements Needed Assuming the road would be private, the City will require a Road, Drainage and Utilities Easement over the private road, which should be platted as an outlot and designed and built to City private road standards. Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries as well as conservation and flowage easements over the delineated wetlands will be required. At the time of preliminary plat review, the City Engineer will determine whether any improvements to Orono Orchard Road, such as turn lanes, might be necessary. Parks, Trails, Sidewalks The property abuts the Luce Line Trail, and the sketch plan suggests a private trail connection from the Luce Line to the cul-de-sac. This connection would require some type of wetland/drainage ditch crossing structure subject to City and MCWD approval, and may require approval from the DNR. RPUD standards require that 10% of the development site be provided as a private recreation area or open space to serve the residents of the development. The site as designed would appear to have sufficient open space to meet this objective. Park Dedication In addition to the RPUD requirement for creation of a private recreation area to serve the development residents, the City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The Orono Park, Open Space and Trail Plan in CMP 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 6 of 8 Map 4E-3 indicates a future trail connection along Orono Orchard Road from the Luce Line to the Long Lake border. The applicants should plan to dedicate a 10' trail easement along the Orono Orchard Road frontage, regardless of how the site develops. Assuming the City Council finds no need for a public park at this site, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee of $5,550 per each new building lot (credit for one existing home) would be due at final plat approval. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees The applicants are proposing a stormwater management system incorporating a variety of methods intended to manage runoff rate and nutrient control including phosphorus and total suspended solids reduction. Storm sewers would be convey runoff to ponding areas prior to discharge to the wetlands. Ponding areas will require the establishment of easements and the ponding areas will not be creditable as dry buildable area. Stormwater management will be subject to City and MCWD review and approval. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee). Final calculation of the fee would be based on the final lot count and density. If for example the subdivision results in 15 lots averaging one acre each, the SW&DT Fee would be 15 lots x $5,000 per lot = $75,000 per the 2017 Orono Fee Schedule. If the subdivision results in eight 2 -acre lots, the SW&DT Fee would be 8 lots x $7,680/lot = $61,440. Utility Locations/Availability The property is not within the MUSA and municipal sewer and water utility mains owned and controlled by Orono are not available to serve the property. While a Met Council sewer interceptor is located within Orono Orchard Road, there are no current connection points dedicated for service to this property. Municipal sewer and water potentially could come from the City of Long Lake systems near the NE corner of the property, but staff has not attempted to ascertain whether there is adequate capacity or a desire by Long Lake to allow extension of its services to the property, nor at what cost in terms of assessments or connection fees. This is left to the developer to research with the City of Long Lake. It is unknown, but unlikely, that Met Council would allow a connection directly to its interceptor for this development at the proposed density of approximately 1 unit per acre. Absent the ability to connect to municipal sewer, the property cannot be developed as proposed. In that case, a plan for the use of septic systems would have to be prepared. Due to the steep slopes and wetlands, it is unlikely that the property could support more than a small number of lots using septic systems. If City water becomes available from Long Lake, water system looping and capacity for fire protection are factors that will have to be addressed in the preliminary plat. The applicants would be responsible for all utility construction costs. It is assumed that all other utilities will be underground and located within the right-of-ways. Wetlands on Site and/or Impacted The property contains 19 acres of delineated wetlands, the boundaries of which have been confirmed by the MCWD. In addition to the major wetland surrounding the site, which will not be directly impacted, two very small wetlands exist at the north end of the property. These are anticipated to be filled, with mitigation via purchase of wetland credits. The major wetland basin would be protected subject to MCWD buffer requirements and City of Orono conservation and 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 7 of 8 flowage easements. The MCWD would be involved in establishment of any wetland mitigation requirements. The City will require a minimum structure setback of 35' from the wetland boundary, or 10 feet in addition to a MCWD required buffer. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts Approximately half of the upland area of the property is wooded, with most of that growth occurring in the past 50-60 years. A tree survey will be required as part of the conservation design process. Substantial woods on the steep slopes is likely to be lost based on the road and house pad conceptual designs submitted. Conservation Design The developer is advised that this subdivision will be subject to the City's Conservation Design Ordinance. The property will be reviewed in terms of the Rural Oasis goals and policies which have been approved by the City Council and are supported within the ordinance. The preliminary plat application should include a complete conservation design analysis of the entire site for review. Archaeological Site Proximity Staff is unaware of any archaeological sites within the property; the applicant should contact the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to confirm. Summary of Issues for Consideration Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning Commission should include the following topics: Is this property a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding, and allow higher density development? 2. If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. Applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. Does Planning Commission support this flexibility? 4. The property is not in the MUSA, and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for the reduction of density buffer? 5. The steep slopes surrounding the existing homesite are heavily wooded. Development of new homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and vision of the Comprehensive Plan? 6. Should the internal road be public or private? 7. Can Planning Commission identify any issues that should be addressed regarding this concept plan review? 17-3932 August 21, 2017 Page 8 of 8 Staff Recommendation Staff notes the project: ■ requires a departure from the City's vision for the Rural Area. ■ is proposed at a density that requires municipal sewer but is not in the MUSA and doesn't meet Met Council standards for expanding the MUSA. ■ if added to the MUSA, would likely require guiding other properties for higher density; such properties are scarce, and are needed to offset future expected low-density developments already in the MUSA. ■ As proposed, would likely result in significant changes to existing vegetation and topography. While staff would view development of this site as a candidate for a 10 -lot clustered PRD development based on underlying RR -113 2 -acre standards (similar to the Creekside In Orono subdivision) there is still the issue of bringing sewer to an even lesser number of lots and the likelihood of Met Council denial of MUSA expansion for the resulting low density. Development of the site with septic systems will be difficult due to the extreme topography; it is likely that only a small number of homes can be supported with the use of septic systems. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Applicants' Cover Letter / Narrative, house renderings Exhibit C. Applicable Exhibits: a. Sketch Plan b. Orono Zoning Map c. Orono CMP Land Use Plan Map d. Orono Sanitary Sewer & MUSA Map e. Stormwater Quality Overlay District — Hardcover Tier Map f. Conceptual Depictions: Proposed Homes Exhibit D. Comp Plan Map 3B-1 — Defined Urban and Rural Areas Exhibit E. Comprehensive Plan Excerpts Exhibit F. Staff Sketch: Shoreland District; 250' RPUD Prohibited Area; Existing House Location Exhibit G. Planned Residential Development (PRD) Standards Council Exhibit C 17-3932 0/��VIV Y'WAOK4 q1w VC otiaoi,�7 Sketch Plan Application Narrative to the City of Orono, Minnesota June 27, 2017 ` R CEIVE® �.,Sambatek JUL 0 5 2011 CITY OF ORONO Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative Background The YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities is pleased to present a concept sketch plan to the City of Orono for their consideration. The proposal is for a high-end single-family home subdivision with fifteen (15) buildable lots. The property is currently occupied by a two-story single-family home which has been the family home of Ed and Phyllis Rydell since the early 1980s. The family donated the property to the YMCA in 2005 as a charitable gesture. The Rydell's continued to occupy the homestead until shortly after Ed Rydell's death, at which time Phyllis relinquished her right to occupy the home. At this time, the YMCA is seeking to obtain all required land use and subdivision approvals necessary to develop the subdivision. In conjunction with the development, the YMCA, in cooperation with Gordon James Construction, intends to sell fifteen lots for the development of custom built, executive -style homes. The property is a 39 -acre parcel located within the City of Orono at 135 Orono Orchard Road. The parcel is bordered by other single-family subdivisions on the north (Orchard Meadow, Meadow Creek, Bollum Ridge and Creekside of Long Lake), west (Creekside of Orono), and easterly (Stoneridge Colony) sides of the property. The Luce Line Regional Trail borders the southerly edge, and the Orono Golf Course lies to the southeast. The parcel has access to Orono Orchard Road through an existing lengthy gravel driveway which connects to the home on the southern portion of the site. The property has an existing septic system and private well; both of which will be removed/capped concurrent with demolition of the existing house. The property's ecological diversity includes Long Lake Creek — connecting Long Lake to Lake Minnetonka, significant wetlands, areas of extensive tree cover, and sloping topography; all of which are recognized as exceptional natural assets that will help to make this a wonderful neighborhood for generations to come. The development proposal has been carefully tailored to help preserve these amenities while allowing for low to medium density single-family residential development with MCES sanitary sewer. Proposal Overview The attached sketch plan illustrates the proposed subdivision of the parent parcel into 15 single-family lots. The proposal utilizes the existing driveway's access point onto Orono Orchard Road, and includes the construction of a new urban -section city street within a 50 foot right of way. The street features a full cul-de-sac at its terminus along with an additional turn -around at the north portion of the site. The development is seeking to extend MCES sanitary sewer within the proposed street right of way to service all of the proposed homes. Sewer is available in Orono Orchard Road - immediately adjacent to the site in the City of Long Lake. The City of Orono has a worked with its neighbor in the past to accommodate urban style growth by providing utilities through joint powers agreements, and that would be our desire in this instance. In addition, the sanitary sewer line is a regional interceptor under Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The MCES operates and maintains the large inter -community wastewater sewer system which transports sewage from community systems to regional treatment facilities. Separate approvals from both the MCES and the Metropolitan Council will be needed to connect to the regional system to move this project forward. The development is proposed to drill well(s) to serve the development's water needs. The proposed lots will range in size from just under an acre to over one and one half acres. All but one of the homes is configured as a walk -out residential structure in order to take full advantage of the topography of the site. Lot 15, located at the entry to the site, is configured as a look -out home to preserve the grading profile in this area. All of the homes will have between approximately 4,000 to 6,000 square feet in finished floor area and include multi -car, attached garages. It is anticipated that the property's rich environmental amenities and desirable location along with the builder's high-end custom home credentials will provide strong marketing features which position this project in the approximately $1.4M to $3.5M range. City Approvals Comprehensive Plan Amendment In order for the project to proceed, the YMCA and Gordon James Construction are seeking comprehensive plan and zoning classification amendments from the City. Currently the property is guided as "Rural -Residential" in the City's 2030 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (see attached 2030 Land Use Plan). This classification is a low density single-family classification which limits development to not more than one unit per two -acres. The proposed development will require a reclassification to "Low -Density Residential" (LDR), which allows from 0.5 to 2.0 units per acre. The City's MUSA line (Metropolitan Urban Service Area) will also need to be amended to include the subject property so that the proposed neighborhood has access the regional sewer main which abuts the property. The MUSA reclassification is consistent with current Comprehensive Plan identification of the subject parcel as "potentially furthersub-dividablefor residential use" (see Map 313-4). The adjacent Metropolitan trunk sewer line located in the Orono Orchard Road right-of-way has more than sufficient capacity to facilitate this connection. The requested comprehensive plan amendment includes the addition of the subject parcel to the city's MUSA which we recognize will require Metropolitan Council authorization. We are also aware that the Metropolitan Council seeks to have a reasonable amount of density in each development it allows to enter into the MUSA and to connect to regional sewer system. In the City of Orono, the Met Council has sought to require an average density of three -units per acre or more within the MUSA. There are currently two higher density project proposals being considered by the city. These projects would have a positive impact on the city's goal of maintaining an average density of three -units per acre or more within the MUSA area. Combined with said proposed developments, the Orchard Hill of Orono development would maintain this future density threshold above the desired average density of three -units per acre within the MUSA area. The proposed development's density of one unit per acre Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 is twice that currently allowed by the city's comprehensive plan and zoning district standards. While we recognize the need to consider future regional growth in allocating regional sewer usage, we also recognize that good planning also requires both environmental and neighborhood sensitive land use decision making. We feel our proposal is a good balance between these often competing objectives and would meet the spirit and the law of the requirement. Zoning District Amendment In addition to the comprehensive plan amendments, the development also seeks to rezone the property to allow for the proposed density and greater design flexibility which the city's planned unit development provisions are designed to achieve. The current zoning for the site is RR -1113, "One -Family Rural Residential", which requires a two- acre minimum lot size (see attached City Zoning Map). In order to facilitate the proposed subdivision, (consistent with the comprehensive plan amendment), we are requesting a zoning amendment for the property. We are eager to follow the City's lead as to the category which best suits both our proposal and the City's overall zoning framework. Based on our preliminary review, we would like to consider a planned unit development approach such as the City's RPUD, "Residential Planned Unit Development." The planned unit development district appears to be desirable for a number of reasons. First, along with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, it allows for the project's proposed density of one unit per net developable acres. Also importantly, as outlined in the ordinance, it allows for greater flexibility in land development in order to protect and preserve sensitive natural environmental features. Additionally, the planned unit development approach provides the opportunity for increased tax revenue for fifteen new single family homes versus one existing single family home or seven two -acre lots as suggested within the RR -113 zoning district requirements. As a result, the increased tax revenue would have a positive impact on the City's ability for public improvements. It is our belief that this proposal strikes a balance between the City's need for good planning and the Met Council's need for density. Furthermore, given the properties natural characteristics including significant slopes, tree cover and soil limitations; it is apparent that individual septic systems would not be a reasonable approach to developing this parcel. We feel that this form of medium density, single- family type development, facilitated by municipal sewer (as opposed to septic system type development), provides the best development solution for this environmentally sensitive site. In addition to the current RR -1B zoning, the property is also partially in the City's Shoreland Management district. The Shoreland district is an overlay district which impacts the portion of the site lying within 300 feet of the ordinary high-water (OHW) level of the Long Lake Creek tributary which flows along the north and westerly perimeters of the site. The buildable portion of the property affected by these regulations is limited to the northerly 300 feet of the subject parcel. The Shoreland regulations require a 75 foot building setback from the OHW in this area. The sketch plan layout meets or exceeds this standard. In addition, we recognize that the hardcover limitations of the district are applied to the entire site; which is limited to 25 percent of the parcel's gross area. The sketch plan is well below this impervious surface threshold. Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 05/27/2017 The City's Floodplain Management regulations have also been considered in the subdivision layout. The plan recognizes and avoids any development in the Flood Hazard areas as depicted on the official Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) maps for the City. RPUD Development Standards The RPUD district standards are designed to promote high quality carefully planned residential developments in environmentally sensitive areas. The district allows for a variety of uses including single-family detached residential development. The standards include a minimum lot area requirement of five acres of net developable land (gross area - less wetlands, floodways and right of ways). The subject property includes 39 acres of total land area with 17.9 acres of net developable (dry -buildable) land area. The district's density allowance is established by reference to the designation in the City's comprehensive plan. For this proposal, the requested classification of "Low Density Residential," would allow for 0.5 to 2.0 units per acre. The proposal's density is roughly one unit per net developable acre, which (in accordance with Met Council standards) may exclude arterial right of way, floodplain, wetlands, wetland buffers, wetland buffer setbacks, and other conservation dedications. The proposal also includes a conservation easement area along the northerly edge of the site abutting Long Lake Creek consistent with the City's environmental objectives. As depicted on the attached Conservation Master Plan Dedication diagram, the total reductions from easement requirements and conservation dedications reduce the net developable area of the property, as defined by the Met Council, to approximately 14.5 acres. The minimum development standards specified for an RPUD development are as follows: RPUD Minimum Standards Lot Size 15,000 s.f. (0.35ac) Lot Width 90 ft. Lot Depth 125 ft. Front S.B. 25 ft. Side S.B. 15 ft. Rear S.B. 40 ft. The proposed lots and building pads within the project proposal meet or exceed all the above noted minimum requirements. Individual lot areas will vary from 0.75 to over 1.5 acres. In keeping with the upscale nature of the project, the front and side yards have been designed with generous 40 and 30 foot setbacks respectively. Rear yards would vary in depth with most well in excess of 100 feet in addition to abutting wetlands. Recreational Set Aside. The RPUD requires that ten percent of the gross site area be designated as private recreational land; dedicated for use by the residents of the project. This provision is in addition to the City's general park dedication requirements. The set aside area may be intended for either active Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 or passive use as is suited to the needs of the residents. The Orchard Hill of Orono project will include roughly 24 acres of set aside including natural wetland areas, wetland buffers (as required by watershed and city standards), and conservation dedications. These areas will be protected by both easement and protective covenant restrictions. In addition, the proposal includes a trail dedication which will connect the cul-de-sac within the new public right of way with the Luce Line Regional Trail along the property's southern edge. In total, the recreational area set aside will exceed 60 percent of the gross land area and will include both active and passive provisions. Ownership/Control. The RPUD district addresses the need for unified ownership and control to ensure that the project is implemented as approved by the City. As stated, the owner and land developer for the project will be the YMCA of the Greater Twin Cities. The YMCA will be responsible for all submissions and approvals required from the City and other local jurisdictions, as well as the Metropolitan Council. The YMCA will further be the responsible party for implementing all subdivision improvements necessary to carry the land development phase of the project through to successful completion. Gordon James Construction is assisting the YMCA with the development process, architectural and builder standards and the sale of lots. Gordon James will be the lead builder of a small group of premium builders allowed to build within the development. Neighborhood Impacts. The developer and builder will manage the development process to minimize impact to adjacent properties. All construction related parking, equipment and material will be handled on-site to minimize impacts to Orono Orchard Road and the surrounding area. In addition, a rock construction driveway and periodic street sweeping will be utilized to control soils being carried onto Orono Orchard Road. City regulations regarding hours of operation will be adhered to for all construction activity. Long term traffic impacts on Orono Orchard Road are expected to be minimal. The City's transportation component of the Comprehensive Plan denotes Orono Orchard Road as a "local road" with about 2,500 vehicles per day. The development is anticipated to add approximately 120 to 150 total new trips per day. Home and Landscape Architectural Standards. The home and landscape architectural quality of the project will be in keeping with the high standards established by Gordon James Construction. The company's attention to careful planning and detailed design orientation results in homes of exceptional quality with elegant interiors and refined exteriors. Each home will be a custom design project resulting in floor plans with approximately 4,000 to 6,000 square feet of finished floor area plus multi -car attached garages. The overall effect is intended to be an upscale neighborhood with homes of compatible size, quality, and outstanding design characteristics. The market approach for the project is to deliver turn -key, custom homes in the price range of approximately $1.4M and $3.5M and up. Please see Architectural Exhibits provided as part of this sketch plan submittal package. The over-all site design concept, consistent with our project's name, is a neighborhood of fine -homes nestled in a lovely orchard -like setting. In addition to quality boulevard tree plantings , project designers will focus on common -area and supplemental tree stands which will emphasize flowering ornamental Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 trees such as flowering crabapples, hawthorns and other native varieties including flowering fruit trees, etc. Our goal is to imbue the neighborhood with an atmosphere which celebrates the best the Minnesota landscape has to offer year -around, (especially the spring -time). Plantings will also be carefully chosen to attract and support wildlife in the area. Conservation Design The developer is aware of the strong emphasis the City places on ecological considerations in all of its planning and land development efforts. The standards, values, and procedural requirements which are incorporated into the City's Conservation Design Ordinance will be carefully adhered to. We share these values and consider the natural features of the site including its wetlands, topography, and tree cover to be unique and valuable assets. The preparation of a Conservation Design Masterplan is a top priority in moving forward with the planning for this property. Much of this effort is already under way, and the City can be assured that the project is being carefully planned to preserve and protect these natural amenities to the fullest extent practical. Wetland Preservation. Wetland preservation is a core value in preserving the ecological integrity of the site. To date, we have completed a wetland inventory which has been approved by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD). The complex of wetlands which surrounds the upland portion of the site on three sides comprises nearly 50 percent of the total site area. Careful planning of the subdivision has resulted in no adverse impact or fill of these larger wetland structures. Two smaller wetlands on the north end of the site are proposed to be filled and mitigated through the acquisition of wetland credits through the Minnesota Board of Water Resource Management (BWSR) wetland bank program. These two isolated areas are considered perched and only seasonally flooded basins, which are of less significance than the site's larger wetland bodies. The total fill area of both small areas is 5,080 square feet. Typically a 2 to 1 ratio of replacement to filled area is required. The developer will comply with all requirements of the MCWD and the City in mitigating the filled areas. Wetland Buffers & Conservation Easements. In addition to preservation of the surrounding wetlands, the proposal includes the dedication of wetland buffer areas which will border most of the adjacent buildable areas of the site. The MCWD requires a 30 or 40 foot buffer strip (depending on wetland type) coterminous with the wetland edge. The MCWD buffer is required to be a No -Mow zone, and will be placed under protective easement and covenant. The City has an added requirement of an additional 10 foot building setback strip which restrains buildings from being placed directly adjacent to the wetland buffer area. The project further proposes to establish a conservation easement along the northerly edge of the site as it abuts Long Lake Creek. The easement will provide added protection of this important ecological feature by preserving native vegetation and establishing a permanent wildlife corridor. All totaled, the buffer and conservation dedications will exceed 4.5 acres, which when added to the wetland easement area, brings the total Conservation Master Plan dedications for the project to over 24 acres. Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Stormwater Management. Stormwater management for the development is being designed consistent with the City's Local Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP), the City's Stormwater Overlay District, and the Construction Site Runoff Control Ordinance requirements. The official map of the City of Orono Stormwater Quality Districts classifies the subject property as a Tier 1 area due to its proximity to the Long Lake Creek tributary. As such, it is subject to a limitation of not greater than 25 percent hard surfacing. The project proposal is well under this threshold. In addition, the grading and stormwater plans for the site are subject to rigorous regulations including a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) incorporating best management practices (BMP's) as prescribed by the MPCA. The grading and drainage plan includes the use of multi -cell treatment principles and methods designed for both rate and nutrient control including phosphorous and total suspended solids reduction. The management plan also uses storm sewer to convey runoff to ponding areas prior to collection in abutting wetlands. The proposed detention ponds will be included in the common area maintenance declarations under the HOA covenants. Tree Preservation. Tree preservation will be a priority. A comprehensive tree inventory will be completed as part of the preliminary plat and PUD submittal phase. As with most development, tree loss will be inevitable; however, the developer is committed to aggressive measures to save significant tree cover and individual trees where possible. Trees located within the No -Mow zone will be preserved and protected with securely anchored, heavy-duty fencing during construction. The developer is also committed to preserving individual trees around building pads on each lot where feasible. Construction fencing will be used to protect trees them from root compaction and damage from construction equipment. A professional certified arborist will be employed to help identify trees which can and should be saved and to prescribe the best management practices to ensure their protection and health going forward. Tree Replacement. In addition to professional landscape treatments on each individual lot, the developer is committed to designing and providing a common area landscape which compliments the premier quality of the proposed neighborhood. Consistent with the project's namesake, Orchard Hill of Orono, we are planning for a leafy and verdant streetscape. To that end, we are proposing that the boulevard and other common areas be planted with a variety of oak, maple, linden, evergreens and other flowering ornamental trees. A generous budget of is proposed for common area tree planting. All common areas will be placed under the ownership and management of the future home owner's association. Cnnclusinn In summary, we are very excited for the opportunity to present this proposal to the City of Orono and we hope that City officials will give this project a satisfactory concept review based on its many fine attributes. We believe the project's high-quality, and medium density, single-family orientation, provides the best practical design solution for this unique property. The increase in allowable density that is being requested through the proposed comprehensive plan and zoning district classification amendments is a component that the Metropolitan Council and the City of Orchard Hill of Orono - Project Narrative 06/27/2017 Orono are working together to come to an agreement on. While this proposed density may still fall below the desired density sought by the Metropolitan Council for sewered development in this area, the city's overall average density within the MUSA area will be maintained at or above the required three - units per acre, when other recently proposed projects are taken into consideration. We feel the project's density as presented is in keeping with the environmental characteristics of the property and will further prove to be compatible with, and welcomed by, the surrounding neighborhoods. We look forward to presenting our concept plan to the Planning Commission and to beginning a constructive dialogue with the City and the Metropolitan Council in the near future. We greatly appreciate and welcome the City's feedback on this exciting project! Please do not hesitate to contact me at 763.746.1608, or clark sambatek.com, should you have any questions or need any additional information regarding this proposal. Sincerely, Kevin Clark Client Service Manager, Residential UA LIP #I V71 El cz TO 41 fill ry A& q. WRL bI&I-HrAm MINUTES OF THE Council Exhibit D ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 17-3932 Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. 17-3932 YMCA OF GREATER TWIN CITIES, 135 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD NORTH, SKETCH PLAN, 8:40 P.M. — 9:15 P.M. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Homes, was present. Barnhart stated the developer on behalf of the YMCA is seeking comment on a sketch plan proposing a 39 -acre property abutting the Luce Line Trail be developed into 15 single-family residential lots. Of the 39 acres, 24.1 acres comprise wetlands, wetland buffers and a conservation easement. The adjusted net density is 1.02 units per acre. Most of the lots back up to an existing wetland. All lots would be accessed via a new private road through the property. The road could be public based on urban densities and the City Code. The project as designed will require municipal utilities, which will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. This property is not located within the MUSA boundary. The guidance for the property is low residential density but the applicant is proposing a slightly higher density. The Metropolitan Council will need to approve any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Barnhart stated based on previous conversation, the Metropolitan Council likely will not approve a revision of the MUSA line. Utilities will likely come from Long Lake into Orono Orchard Road. Staff has not conferred with Long Lake on whether or not utilities are available to serve the site since that is a responsibility of the applicant. The proposed development will require a zoning change to RPUD. An RPUD does allow certain flexibility with regard to lot sizes and setbacks. At the suggestion of Staff, the applicant did hold a public meeting last Thursday and he can comment on that. The developer is proposing a trail connection at the end of the cul-de-sac to the Luce Line, which will likely require DNR approval. The 15 lots range from three-quarters of an acre to 1.5 acres, which is below the required lot size for this zoning district. This zoning district has a 2 -acre dry buildable minimum. Barnhart indicated some of the lots could be extended into the wetlands but that will not get Page 1 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. them to the 2 -acre dry buildable. In order to meet the 2 -acre minimum lot size, the number of lots will need to be reduced and the remaining lots made bigger, which is partly why the applicant is proposing this as a sketch plan. Barnhart stated the yellow on the overhead depicts the wetland, the green is the wetland buffer, and the pinkish color is the wetland setback. Barnhart noted the City has an additional ten feet of setback in addition to the Watershed District's requirements. The area in blue is a proposed conservation easement and the MUSA boundary is depicted in pink. The property is adjacent to the MUSA but not included within that boundary and would require a Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The developer has submitted four different house styles which were included in the Planning Commission packet. The property is within the defined Rural Area of the City in which new development is expected to occur with lot sizes of two to five acres. The boundary between the defined Urban and Rural Areas was established in the 1980 Community Management Plan. At that time the boundary was consistent with the USA line and it has been the City's intent to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within the defined Rural Area. Issues for discussion by the Planning Commission include the following: 1. Is the property in a location where the City should depart from the current zoning and Comprehensive Plan guiding and allow higher density development? 2 If so, what are appropriate standards for such a development? 3. Portions of the property located less than 250 feet from the creek are not eligible to be rezoned to RPUD and therefore would not benefit from flexibility in terms of lot standards. The applicants are requesting that these areas be included in the RPUD rezoning. 4. The property is not in the MUSA and therefore is not eligible to be provided with municipal sewer. Is expansion of the MUSA boundary appropriate for this project and this parcel? If so, Page 2 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. what other parcels should be identified for higher density to compensate for reduction of density buffer? Barnhart noted development of the site with septic systems would be difficult given the extreme topography and it is likely only a small number of homes can be supported with the use of septic systems. The steep slopes surrounding the existing home site are heavily wooded. Development of new homes on the property will likely result in significant and substantial impacts to the topography and vegetation of the site. Would this be consistent with the rural residential goals and visions of the Comprehensive Plan? 6. Should the internal road be public or private? Barnhart stated the project would be a departure from the City's vision for the Rural Area. The proposed density requires municipal sewer but it does not meet the Metropolitan Council's standards for expanding the MUSA. If added to the MUSA, it would likely require guiding other properties for higher density. Such properties are scarce in Orono and they are needed to offset future expected low density developments already in the MUSA. Barnhart requested the Planning Commission provide direction to the applicant on the sketch plan. Schoenzeit asked what the dry buildable acreage is for this site. Barnhart indicated it is approximately 17 acres. Lemke asked what the length of the cul-de-sac is. Barnhart stated to his understanding it is 1,500 feet. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction, stated this is nearly a 40 -acre site and that they considered three options: One, leave the site as is with the existing house; two, create equestrian sites; and three, develop it within the existing zoning today. Quinlivan stated the challenge with the property is that it is a Page 3 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. peninsula surrounded by sensitive wetlands. Quinlivan indicated they can put septic sites in and have a little more than half of the site for building but that there is sewer and water sitting in the street at the mouth of this property. Quinlivan stated the extra lots are needed in large part to pay for the city water and sewer. Quinlivan stated they did have a neighborhood meeting on Thursday and that he can understand the reluctance of the residents in wanting this lot developed. Quinliven stated he is here today to get guidance from the City on what makes sense for this site. Quinlivan stated if they stick with the current zoning, they can either install septic and wells on the sites where it can be done or they can bring in city water and sewer, which is also a challenging prospect. Lemke asked if all the lots can be developed without city sewer and water. Quinlivan stated they would not be able to develop 15 sites with septic and well. Lemke asked if the cul-de-sac could be pulled down a little bit. Quinlivan pointed out there is some ponding in that area which would likely prevent that. Lemke asked if this site was donated to the YMCA. Quinlivan indicated it was. Lemke asked if there is any stipulation on what the YMCA should do with the land. Quinlivan indicated there is not. Quinlivan stated at the time the Rydells moved to Orono in the 1970s, their intent was to develop this property, but it was never developed. At that time Ed Rydell simply decided to build his home and that was it. Chair Thiesse opened the meeting for public comments at 8:55 p.m. Page 4 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Kelly Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, noted she did submit a letter to the City. Lowe stated she is not anti -building but that she is a rule follower. Lowe stated she is not opposed to a development that is in the rural area with septic and water, but that does not mean they can get 15 lots. Lowe stated they might be able to get four or five homes. Lowe stated the land in back of the site is pristine, gorgeous, and hilly. Lowe stated the thought that any builder would come in and rip 10 to 15 feet off of the topography and put something like what has been proposed makes her ill. Lowe stated there are a number of violations going on with the proposed plan, which is what she is going to speak to. Lowe stated the top three northern lots are within 250 feet of the creek and they are not eligible for an RPUD unless there is a waiver. Lowe stated she does not want the City to grant a waiver in this case. Lowe stated she remodeled her home and stuck substantial money into it and followed the rules. Lowe noted she was not allowed to tap into the MUSA system. Lowe stated she anticipates that everyone around her in Orono should also follow the rules. Lowe stated the property is not in MUSA for a reason. The City's intent at the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed was to avoid creating new pockets of higher density within defined rural areas and she is asking the City to stick to that. Lowe stated the site also has steep slopes and that she would encourage the Planning Commissioners to visit the site. Any development on this site would significantly impact the topography, the vegetation, and the wildlife. Lowe requested the Planning Commission keep the zoning rural, and that if they want to put lovely homes with private septic sewers and wells, they can do that. Judy Wood, 1230 Woodhill Road, encouraged the Planning Commission to follow the Comprehensive Plan since it is a very important guiding document for Orono. Marsha Rokke, 180 Orono Orchard Road, stated the 2 -acre zoning should remain as it is and that they need to keep Orono rural. Samantha Muldoon, 1801 West Farm Road, stated she is against changing the zoning since it is a departure from a historical standpoint and from the current plan. Muldoon stated the residents rely upon consistency and transparency from their government and also rely on them being fair to everyone. Page 5 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Muldoon stated they are all equal under the law and in her view this is changing the rules after the fact for someone who does not live in Orono. Muldoon stated they should play by the same rules the residents do and that they likely will find no shortage of people who would buy a lot. Muldoon stated she would like the site to stay as beautiful as it is now. Jamie Lowe, 105 Orono Orchard Road, stated the site is beautiful and reflects the best of Orono. Lowe commented he can appreciate that it will be developed someday but that it should be developed within the rules. Lowe noted there is no hardship and that what is being proposed is a substantial deviation from multiple government bodies. Lowe stated to allow development within the current framework is the best and most appropriate option. Lowe stated of the 15 people that were at the neighborhood meeting, not one single person was in support of the proposal, and that it would be a sad day when the rules are changed for no reasonable purpose. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 9:06 p.m. Quinlivan stated the reason they considered 15 lots is to tie into the MUSA system to avoid the need for private systems. Quinlivan stated he is looking for guidance from the City. Schoenzeit asked if any market studies have been done, especially given the new developments at Lakeview and other areas. Quinlivan stated this location in Orono far outweighs the location of Lakeview, Kintyre and some of the other developments. Quinlivan noted the property is right next to the Luce Line and that in his view these lots would be chosen over them. Leskinen stated her first impression when she read the report was that she does not want to see the City deviate from the underlying zoning. This area is a rural area and it does not need to have an urban feel. Leskinen stated she is not opposed to an RPUD as long as the individual lots are smaller and as long as the overall size of the development conforms to existing zoning. Leskinen stated if there are 17 acres, the maximum number of sites would be eight lots but it might be less depending on the viability of the septic. Leskinen indicated she is not in favor of changing the underlying zoning. Page 6 of 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, August 21, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Schoenzeit stated it would nice to see a development require less of a topographical change. Schoenzeit stated the take -away from tonight's meeting is that eight is the upper limit for this property Lemke stated his concern is that the number of units proposed does not work without city sewer and from that standpoint it is not a viable plan. Lemke stated he likes the two acres per unit and that he does not agree with what has been proposed. Schwingler stated he is not in favor of deviating from the Community Management Plan and that the developer should look at creating the number of lots that are allowed under the current zoning. Thiesse noted this property is not dense enough to be included in the MUSA, and if it was allowed, it would require the City to find higher density elsewhere in the community. Thiesse stated the site is located in a very rural area and that he is having some difficulty with the density. Landgraver stated this Planning Commission has been very true to the Comprehensive Plan and have attempted to preserve the openness of Orono. The Planning Commission also unanimoously voted against the increase in structural coverage. Landgraver stated what is unique about Orono is the sense of openness and the rural character, which the Planning Commission has been consistent with. Landgraver stated in his view it is too much density for this area. Landgraver stated he recognizes that Long Lake has some denser developments nearby, but that Orono is responsible for Orono. Landgraver stated to the extent they can develop this property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that is what should be done. Thiesse asked if the City would have authority over view shed or tree removal. Barnhart stated development of this site would likely trigger the Conservation Design criteria. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Thiesse, Chair Page 7 of 7 Council Exhibit E 17-3932 From: Kelly.Lowe2@sanofi.com To: ibthiesse(ftotmail.com; Bruce Lemke (bruce(@aplantscapeinc.com); Kevin Landgraver (klandgraverC'0omail. com); Denise Leskinen (deniseleskinen(obgmail.com1; olsonc116Ca)gmail.com; Loren Schoenzeit (lorens(ob3dlake.com); ]on Schwinaler (ionschwina(a)aol.com); Mike Gaffron; Denny Walsh; Jeremy Barnhart; Richard Crosbv; Wendv Dankev; Victoria Seals; Aaron H. Printuo Cc: irlowethird(algmail.com Subject: 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan and Revised documents. Date: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:44:29 PM Attachments: Revised narrative 7-5-17.odf Dear Council Members and Zoning Committee Members, Regarding YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan- Revised document. I cannot express in language strong enough my complete disappointment at the revised document dated July 5th 2017. The builder's plan is still moving forward with a zoning change request and 15 homes. Many of the neighbors and I have spoken and we are in complete agreement this DOES NOT fit into the current rural theme and beauty of Orono. This builder and the YMCA is completely disrespecting all zoning and existing desires of the current residents. AGAIN I would like the record to reflect my strongest objection to the current sketch plan regarding the land at 135 Orono Orchard Rd. First and foremost they are looking to change the current zoning from one family rural residential. They can rename it low density and residential planned combined changes, but it is essentially a medium density rating as they state further into the revision " this medium density with city sewer provides the best development solution". My question best for who? Certainly not the current neighborhood who are vehemently opposed. Rural zoning was set about to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the historic character of the rural area with land and parcels. Certain restrictions were set in place many years ago to protect the wetlands and natural characteristics of beautiful Orono while allowing for single family development that does NOT overload or adversely affect the natural wetlands and storm water filtration. This development will also strong change traffic patterns for this neighborhood. The plan states "The city of City of Orono has worked with its neighbors in the past to accommodate urban style growth". We are not Urban, this is a rural residential zoning area, and current Orono residences directly across from Long Lake Sewer are on septic and have followed the rules. We each have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in our property and residences with the understanding we chose to live here in this RURAL setting. The Gordon James Builder states that this would benefit the city in tax revenue for public improvements. What they really mean is they will line their pockets with cash as they leave the neighborhood completely changed of its current vision and lower the value of existing homes and increase traffic. The city, last I was informed, was not interested in becoming the next Plymouth development for increased tax revenue. Additionally they state they will set aside 24 acers including natural wetland area. This is a farce of the largest order. Of the 39 acres and after following rules and Met council they are down to around 14 buildable acres therefore leaving 25 acers including wetlands. They are setting aside nothing. Under current zoning no more than 6 homes could possible fit into this space and based on mound, septic and well requirements, it would most likely fit 5 homes on this land due to the beautiful natural topography and all while leaving the wetlands alone.. or "set aside"! They are wrong when they state individual septic would not be a reasonable approach... it is for RURAL development! however it is not for medium density! • This development is a 200% increase in size over what the city planners envisioned for Orono. Unacceptable! • The plan states that long term impact on Orono Orchard Road is to be minimal. They couldn't be more wrong. The development will bring its own strain to our system and neighborhood for the duration of building and then the 200% increase of multi drivers in these sized homes will be another long term issue. • There is no need in Orono currently for additional homes in this price range with such an medium density development concept. • Notably in Gordon James Home first submission to the city he stated "this is the best practical solution and one that would be welcomed by the surrounding neighborhood." They have now removed this statement in the revision, knowing this project is in no way a reflection the views of the surrounding neighborhood and we are all still very disturbed to read their revised proposal, and completely object to their development project put forth and any future project that require rezoning from rural development. They continue to push forward despite strong objection from existing neighbors. • As current Orono Orchard Rd residents we have complied with zoning laws on any property upgrades. There is no hardship or lack of development reason for a change to zoning. There are many homes for sale in the marketplace in this area. • Again they are looking to push long lake sewer and city water where current Orono property residents all have wells and septic as in line with our rural Orono zoning. We are opposed to having long lake city sewer and water pushed through and changing the zoning of this property. • They are looking to fill in some of the wetland area (north side) , plow down current topography, add multiple retaining walls, and completely change the beautiful sweeping landscape that has been offered naturally. • The project proposed would cause significant disruption to our property as the only entrance to and from this site would be next to our home. • We are completely opposed to the smaller lots sizes with large homes ranging from 4000- 6000 sqft. The development they have suggested does not at all fit with the three homes to the east of the project on Orono Orchard Rd, where there is substantial distance between each of our homes in keeping with the rural theme. • This plan completely disrespects current zoning, disrespects current distance between the existing Orono homes, disrespects the current topography, and disrespects the rural feel and beauty we as Orono residents enjoy, and why we continue to make substantial $$ investments in maintaining our homes and properties Thank you for reading my views on the property development proposed directly behind my home. Kelly and Jamie Lowe 105 Orono Orchard Rd N, ORONO, MN 55356 From: Kelly.Lowe2@sanofi.com To: ibthiesse(a)hotmail.com; Bruce Lemke lbruce(c�glantscapeinc.com); Kevin Landgraver (klandgraver(coomail.com); Denise Leskinen (deniseleskinen(abamail.coM; olsonc116(@gmail.com; Loren Schoenzeit (lorens(@3dlake.com); Jon Schwingler Cionschwing(caol.com); Denny Walsh; Jeremy Barnhart; Richard Crosby; Wendy Dankev; Victoria Seals; Aaron H. Printuo Cc: irlowethird(dgmail.com Subject: RE: 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan and Revised documents. Date: Sunday, September 10, 2017 8:06:24 PM Attachments: exhibit D.odf Dear City Council Members, Tomorrow item 17 is regarding 135 Orono Orchard Rd North. This is in follow up to the planning commission meeting of August 21st- That the builder is moving this issue forward for city council feedback and additionally that staff has no recommendations is shocking as this proposed project violates current comprehensive MUSA Boundary, violates current city zoning, violates current planned land use, violates current rural planning, violates current septic and well requirements, violates the current zoning for RPUD. Additionally as noted in exhibit D minutes of the meeting the builder hosted a meeting on the project and has zero support from the community. All those who spoke at the meeting are opposed to any changes in any zoning and rural comprehensive plans. We are also aware that many residents of both Orono and Long Lake sent in emails opposed to this project. I am asking that the city council please with a firm unified voice vote NO to any departure from current zoning and comprehensive planning guide. I am asking that the property within 135 Orono Orchard located 250 feet from the creek which is NOT eligible to be rezoned not be included in any RPUD rezoning requests. I am asking that the city not move forward on any MUSA expansion as this is not MUSA. I am asking the city continue the septic and well for this property as the neighboring ORONO residences are septic and well. NO long lake sewer or water. I am begging that any future rural development respect the current topography and be included in any future plans. (ripping down 10-15 feet off the current topography would substantially change and damage the existing ecosystem and beauty.) Thank you for reading my note. Kelly Lowe 105 Orono Orchard Rd, Orono MN 55356 From: Lowe, Kelly /US Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2017 10:44 PM To: 'jbthiesse@hotmail.com'; 'brucedlemke@gmail.com'; 'klandgraver@gmail.com'; Deirdre Kvale 58 Creekside Drive Long Lake, MN 55356 Via email —April 16, 2017 Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner for the City of Orono Re: Proposed Development of 135 Orono Orchard Road, North My name is Deirdre Kvale and I am an adjacent property owner to 135 Orono Orchard Road, North. I am concerned about the proposed development and rezoning of the one family rural residential use of the property to a high density development. As acknowledged by the Applicants, Gordon James and the YMCA, the property is an exceptional natural asset with significant wetlands, extensive tree cover and rolling topography, and I have the following questions or concerns regarding the proposal. • The building site includes a swath of land surrounded by a steep incline or hill and wetlands. Has there been a detailed environment impact study done to determine the amount of erosion and impact to the surrounding wetlands? • The Applicants propose large houses 4,000 — 6,000 square feet on 0.8-1.5 acre lots. Lots 4-11 appear to have minimal flat buildable area to support a 4,000-6,OOOft2 house. It is presumed that in order to build houses on lots 4-11, significant grading will be necessary to alter the topography of the land to provide a large enough building pad. What is the magnitude of the impact of altering the topography of the landscape to the surrounding wetlands and will this impact be the subject of intensive study and review? • The development plans include lots 1-3 that encroach the wetlands. As understood at least lots 1-2 are prohibited by RPUD zoning regulations unless waived. Has there been a study of the water table and impact the development of lots 1-3 will have on the wetlands and watershed? • The Applicants assert that the development will be "welcomed by" the surrounding neighborhoods. Do the Applicants have evidence to support this statement and if so, could the Applicants identify neighbors or neighborhoods in support of their proposed development? • Have alternate proposals been considered by the property owner that would preserve this natural asset? In particular, has the YMCA considered use of the property as a nature preserve or sale of the property as a single family residence consistent with its current condition? -z - As set forth in the City's response to the Applicants' plan, development of this site as proposed would result in significant, negative changes to the existing vegetation and topography. As an adjacent property owner, I would urge the city to consider non-destructive alternatives and maintain the original zoning designation for this property. Regards, /Deirdre Kvale/ Mike 4, - From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kelly.Lowe2@sanofi.com Sunday, April 16, 2017 9:07 AM Mike Gaffron jrlowethird@gmail.com; mdbenedict@frana.com #17-3932 YMCA, 135 Orono Orchard Rd North Sketch Plan Review Mike Gaffron, Senior Planner Regarding #17-2932 YMCA of Greater Twin Cities, 135 Orono Orchard Rd North- Sketch Plan Dear Sirs and committee members, We would like the record to reflect our objection to the current sketch plan regarding the land at 135 Orono Orchard Rd. First and foremost they are looking to change the current zoning from rural to medium density development. Rural zoning was set about to maintain, to the greatest extent possible, the historic character of the rural area with land and parcels. Certain restrictions were set in place many years ago to protect the wetlands and natural characteristics of beautiful Orono while allowing for single family development that does NOT overload or adversely affect the natural wetlands and storm water filtration. Gordon James Homes states "this is the best practical solution and one that would be welcomed by the surrounding neighborhood." They couldn't be more wrong. This project in no way reflects our views we were very disturbed to read their proposal, and completely object to their development project put forth and any rezoning from rural development. As current Orono Orchard Rd residents we have complied with zoning laws on any property upgrades. They are looking to push long lake sewer and city water where current Orono property residents all have wells and septic as in line with our rural Orono zoning. We are opposed to having long lake city sewer and water pushed through and changing the zoning of this property. They are looking to fill in some of the wetland area (north side) , plow down current topography, add multiple retaining walls, and completely change the beautiful sweeping landscape that has been offered naturally. The project proposed would cause significant disruption to our property as the only entrance to and from this site would be next to our home. • We are completely opposed to the small lots sizes with large homes ranging from 4000-6000 sqft. The homes/lots sizes they have suggested do not at all fit with the three homes to the east of the project on Orono Orchard Rd, where there is substantial distance between each of our homes in keeping with the rural theme. + This plan completely disrespects current zoning, disrespects current distance between the existing Orono homes, disrespects the current topography, and disrespects the rural feel and beauty we as Orono residents enjoy, and why we continue to make substantial $$ investments in maintaining our homes and properties. Kelly and Jamie Lowe 105 Orono Orchard Rd N CC: Mike Benedict 25 Orono Orchard Rd N 1 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 18 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Navarre Area Plan — Initial City Meeting Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to initiate a dialogue between the City Council and the City's consultant, to confirm the objectives. 2. Background. WSB proposal identified a number of issued to be evaluated. WSB staff will be present to discuss the following: A. Can the Navarre neighborhood be expanded to actual touch and interact with Lake Minnetonka? B. Develop strategies that can build on the success of the Dakota Rail Trail. C. Encourage trail users to be customers of the Navarre businesses. D. Examine and determine the commercial and multi -family markets for Navarre and the surrounding are to determine the appropriate redevelopment opportunities. E. Design guidelines, zoning tools, and/or regulations for the remodels and tear -downs of the existing single family homes. F. Engagement of the residents, business owners, and elected official to determine the feasibility of any redevelopment strategies. G. Clear and appropriate redevelopment strategies with stages and timelines for implementation. Also included in the proposal was the use of a 7-9 member Advisory Committee, made up of residents and business owners. The Council is asked to appoint this committee by motion. Notice was posted on Facebook and the City website, and shared with neighborhood members. In an effort to afford as many people to nominate themselves, a list of those interested will be distributed Monday, September 11, 2017. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Discuss the above listed issues By motion, appoint the Advisory Committee. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: _sb`bJ City of Orono Decision Resources, Ltd. Quality of Life Rating EXCONad 61% Good S/% Decision Resources, Ltd. Like Most about City Open Space 29 The Lake 16 Large Lots 14 Small Town Feel 11 QuWPeaceful 10 Convenient Location 5 Schools 4 Safe �} Sense of Community 4 Scattered 3 ; 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 a Response Decision Resources, Ltd. Yp v Most Serious Issue High Taxes �y Too Much Growth Quality of Schools Poor Street Repair 7 Traffic Congestion 6 Highway 12 5 Lack of Afford Housing 5 Uneven Code Enforce d Lack Water/Sewer 4 Lack Grocery Store 3 ; Scattered 3 NOTHING 8 Unsure 8 ; 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 :.Response Decision Resources, Ltd City Service Ratings Police Protection 37 56 4:; Fire Protection Sanitary Sewer Service Municipal Water Service Storm Water Run -Off City Street Maintenance " 10 Snowplowing City Streets Street Lighting m• 5 Street Sweeping 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 ®Excellent wGood WOnly Fair MPoor Decision Resources, Ltd. Value of City Services Excellent 9% Unsure my Fair 21% Good 66% > Decision Resources, Ltd. Tax Increase to Enhance Services Favor 10% Oppose 81% Unsure 9% Decision Resources, Ltd Navarre Redevelopment High Priority 24% I' —Top Priority 10% i Unsure 2% No Priority 5% Medium Priority 46% Low Priority 13% Decision Resources, Ltd. Current Development Pattern Strongly Support 23% Support 56% Unsure 7% i Strongly Oppose 2% Oppose 12% Decision Resources, Ltd. More Large SFH along Lakeshore Support 35% Strongly Support 3% Oppose \ 30% Unsure 11% Strongly Oppose 22% Decision Resources, Ltd. Environmental Concerns Preserve Open Space Quality Surface Water Protect Natural Areas Storm Water Run -Off Wildlife Management Air Quality Lakeshore Prop Mgmnt Noise Pollution Climate Change Light Pollution 0 20 40 60 80 100 ®VerySerious .Somewhat Serious Decision Resources, Ltd. Require Buffer Zone Support 38% Strongly Support 17% Unsure 8% Oppose 18% Strongly Oppose 20% Decision Resources, Ltd. Household Recreation Patterns Exercise Walking/Jogging Gardening Bird Watching Nature Walks Bicycling Hiking Motor Boating Swimming in Lakes Picnicking 0 20 40 60 80 Daily OWeekly Decision Resources, Ltd. Adequacy of Parks & Facilities Yes 950/0 -C No 5% Decision Resources, Ltd. More Extensive Park System More Extensive 16% Unsure 2% Current Adequate 82% Decision Resources, Ltd. Priority Recreation Development 70 62 60 ----------------------------------------------------- 50 ----------------------------------------------------- 40 ----------------------------------------------------- 30 --------------------------27------------------------- 20 ------------------- ------------------ 10 --------- 9 --------- ------------------ 3 0 Preserve Natural Areas Develop Passive Facilities Develop Active FacMes Unsure ®PflOrlty Decision Resources, Ltd. Trails/Sidewalks System y Somewhat Important 26% Very Important 22% \ Unsure 2% Not Too ImportantNot At All Important 30% 21% Decision Resources, Ltd. Construct Neighborhood Sidewalks Support 18% Already Have 7% Inure 2% Oppgse 41 73% Decision Resources, Ltd. Use of Big Island Park Somewhat Likely 39% Very Likely 15% Unsure 5% Not Too Likelyl �'— - Not AtAll 23% Decision Resources, Ltd. Expanded Auto Traffic Corridors Support 49% Strongly Support 3% Unsure 11% Oppose 21% Strongly Oppose 17% Decision Resources, Ltd. Expanded Park -and -Ride Lot Support Strongly Support 64% 12% Unsure 8% Strongly Oppose 8% Oppose 8% Decision Resources, Ltd. Orono City Hall Yes 25% City Hep Haas Waking The/Service Courtesy of Stab No 75% Responsiveness of Staff Contact City Hall o zo 40 eo w loo oP09Mve ®Negafte Customer Service Dimensions Decision Resources, Ltd City Communications Good 57% cellent 7% T � Unsure 3% Kx. , oor 3% Only Fair 30% Decision Resources, Ltd. Comprehensive Plan Input Even Pbl Mtg City Hall Even Pbl Mtg Nghbrhd E -Mail Discussion Blog Complete Mail -Out Comment Website Post 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 A Very Likely wSomewhat Likely Decision Resources, Ltd AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 19 Date: September 11, 2017 Item Description: Resident Survey Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to discuss completing a Resident Survey. 2. Background. In 2008, in preparation for the Comprehensive Plan update at that time, the City hired Decision Resources, LTD to complete a phone survey of residents to collect their responses to a number of questions related to Quality of Life, Image, City services, taxes, environment, Parks and recreational activities, etc. The city spent about $21,000 at that time. At the Park Commission meeting on September 5th, the Commission discussed updating the survey, in particular the areas related to parks, and trails and approved a motion recommending a survey be completed. To complete a survey, the City could retain the services of an outside consultant. A safe estimate at this stage is about 20,000, based on 2008 costs. This amount was not budgeted, but would yield the most confident results. Alternatively, city staff could adapt the survey completed in 2008 to an online version, and promote that through the city website and social media. The promotion charges can be incorporated in the professional services line items in the Community Development Budget. The summary of the 2008 Survey responses are attached as Exhibit A. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to adapt the 2008 survey to an online version and promote through social media. Exhibits Exhibit A. 2008 Survey response summary. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -191 Approved By: -Sb)