Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-27-2017 Council PacketAgenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, November 27, 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 November 13, 2017 3. Council Work Session Minutes of November 13, 2017 4. Claims/Bills 5. Appointment of Accountant 6. 2018 Liquor License Renewals 7. #17-3970 — Paul Vogstrom o/b/o William & Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane, Variances — 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. Public Works/City Engineer Report 8. Old Crystal Bay Road (CSAH 112-CSAH 6) Design Proposal 9. Parks Capital Improvement Plan Planning Department Report 10. Approval Temporary Site Plan for River Valley Sports Use of a Tent for Sales Display Mayor/Council Report 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, November 27, 2017, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us City Administrator Report 11. Non -Waiver of Tort Limits 12. Fund Balance Transfer City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events A 2017 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. 12-11-17 - Truth in Taxation Meeting, 6:30 p.m. 12-11-17 - City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 12-22-17 - Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 12-25-17 - Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 01-01-18 - Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 01-02-18 - Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 01-08-18 - City Council Meeting, Monday 7:00 p.m. 01-15-18 - Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 01-16-18 - Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. (Richard Crosby) 01-22-18 - City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 01-22-18 - 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, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following people present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Wendy Dankey, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Engineer/Public Works Director Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 1. CONSENT AGENDA Item No. 20 was added to the Consent Agenda. Item No. 5 was removed from the Consent Agenda. 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2017 3. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF OCTOBER 23, 2017 4. CLAIMSBILLS 5. PROPOSED 2018 OFFICIAL CALENDAR This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 6. PROPOSED 2018 COUNCIL LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS IN 2018 7. RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR 2018 STATE PRIMARY AND STATE GENERAL ELECTION — RESOLUTION NO. 6803 8. PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE WORKER APPOINTMENT 9. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN ADOPTION 10. PAY REQUEST NO.6 FOR WELL NO.4 — FINAL 11. #17-3966 — LDK BUILDERS ON BEHALF OF LINDA TAMOSUINAS, 1525 LONG LAKE BOULEVARD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6804 12. #17-3972 — JAN GASTERLAND,1920 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 6805 13. #17-3974 — SML ELECTRIC ON BEHALF OF BRIDGEWATER BANK, 2445 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6806 Page 1 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 14. #17-3975 — KELLY HANSON, 1284 WILDHURST TRAIL, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT — RESOLUTION NO. 6807 15. #17-3978 — ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF TRAVIS HANSBERGER, 1720 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE — RESOLUTION NO. 6808 20. #17-3985 — CITY OF ORONO — TEXT AMENDMENT: PERSONAL WATERCRAFT REGULATIONS ON LONG LAKE, ORDINANCE NO. 201, THIRD SERIES Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None 5. PROPOSED 2018 OFFICIAL CALENDAR Walsh stated he would like to move the City Council meeting from March 26, 2018, to March 20, 2018, due to spring break. Seals moved, Dankey seconded, to approve the 2018 Official Calendar, with the March 26, 2018, City Council meeting being rescheduled to March 20, 2018. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARING 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION Barnhart stated at the City Council meeting last month, the Council directed Staff to draft a preliminary draft ordinance relating to vacation rentals. The purpose of this item tonight is to gather public comment from residents relative to possible changes to the City Code that would require licensing for rental properties and to require a minimum 30 -day rental term. Prior to developing a full draft of the ordinance, Staff had recommended a public hearing be held at the City Council level to obtain residents' input on any possible changes. Staff has identified 16 different property owners that advertise their properties on vacation rental sites. A postcard was sent to those residents asking for public comments, with five letters being received. Three additional letters were received earlier today and are before the City Council tonight. Barnhart requested Mayor Walsh open the public hearing. Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 7:10 p.m. Bill Anderson, 1408 Baldur Park Road, stated he appreciates the City Council discussing this item but noted that the City did not notify the neighbors next to the rental properties about tonight's hearing. Anderson noted he lives next to a rental property. Page 2 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued Anderson stated he understands the City has received some letters regarding short-term rentals and that some of the letters speak to maintaining control over their renters, maintaining good relationships with the neighbors, which would be very appreciative but, unfortunately, he is not sure if that will happen with an absentee owner. Anderson stated he has experienced issues with speeding, strangers in the neighborhood, lewd comments, parties, and animals off leash. Katherine Kent stated her rental property is located at 3635 North Shore Drive, and that she submitted a letter earlier today, along with her actual rental agreement and the rules that go along with the rental. Kent stated she has been a Vrbo manager for four years and that she has had wonderful guests stay at the property. Kent indicated she screens all the potential guests at the time of their inquiry as to the purpose of their visit and the number of guests that they will have at the property. At that time it is explained to the prospective renter that the property is located in a residential neighborhood and that there is to be no noise or other disturbances after 9 p.m. that can be heard by a neighbor and that the property is not rentable for events, parties, receptions, weddings, or bachelor/bachelorette parties, etc. After the screening, if the prospective renter does not seem to be an appropriate fit for the property, a reply is sent stating that the property is unavailable for rental. Most of the guests are couples or a family with one or two children. Kent indicated she also has a rental agreement stating the rules of the property that is signed by the tenant prior to their arrival. Kent stated she does not have a problem adding additional rules of conduct or stronger language to the rental agreement if necessary but that she does have a problem being told what she can and cannot do responsibly with the property that she pays taxes on. Kent stated she agrees with the previous speaker and that it is definitely the responsibility of the owner of the property to make sure that issues do not happen. Kent stated she lives approximately five minutes from the rental property and that she manages and maintains it. Kent stated she is interested in seeing what the City drafts. Walsh asked how many properties she has in Orono that she rents out. Kent indicated it is one. Walsh asked if it is homesteaded or non -homesteaded. Kent stated it is non -homesteaded. Jeff Uklu, 1416 Baldur Park Road, stated he lives two doors down from the rental property and that the primary issues are noise, dogs defecating in their yard, scaring children, and increased traffic. Baldur Park Road is a small road, with parking being at a premium, and when cars are packed alongside the road, it would be difficult to get emergency vehicles in there as well as a great inconvenience for the residents. Uklu stated the crux of the problem is the owner of the property needs to be held accountable to make it absolutely clear what the rules of the situation are and that it is located in a quiet residential neighborhood. Uklu commented common courtesy seems often to be lacking in a lot of the renters and that a lot could be done to encourage more responsible renting. Page 3 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, noted this is the first public hearing on this issue but that he would relate it back to the public hearing the City Council held on sexual predators, which is somewhat similar to this situation. Anderson noted he heard at the last City Council meeting how a young teenager goes out in her yard and gets harassed by the renters with lewd comments and how another neighbor does not like to go outside. Anderson stated that could happen at any number of rental properties and that the neighbors do not know who is renting the house. Anderson stated rental properties are similar to renting dock slips in the City of Orono. Anderson questioned whether the rental homes are getting taxed properly as an Airbnb, and that he would guess the properties are not being taxed the same as a residential homesteaded property. Anderson stated arguments can be made pro and con, but that when it is in your back yard, it is quite a different story. Anderson stated when he purchased his house, if he could not afford the taxes, he would not buy it. Anderson noted there was a letter that was sent to Staff that talks about there being no places to rent for their guests in the nearby vicinity. Anderson stated that has changed and that there is a hotel in Wayzata. Orono is not a rental community or a destination community. Anderson stated the person can rent a room at the hotel and have all the conveniences of that and that it should not be a way to help pay for the taxes on the house. Anderson stated in his view a rental house should be taxed more. Anderson stated he is not sure how Staff identified the properties that are for rent, but that they should be in a different tax bracket. In addition, the Council talked earlier this year about conditional use permits and how they do not have any teeth. If the Council decides not to do what Shorewood, Greenwood and a few other communities have done, it should be a conditional use permit with the teeth in it to enforce it. Anderson noted the neighbors are afraid to call the cops due to fear of retribution, which does happen, and that the City Council should not pass the buck. Anderson commented it is too bad one person can spoil it for everybody else but that homestead is homestead and not a rental. If it is a rental, it should be non - homesteaded. Natalie Whitaz Spring Park, stated her boyfriend started renting his property out in March of this year and that their biggest fear was short-term renters would not respect the neighbors or the property. Whitaz indicated they have an elderly couple who lives next door. Whitaz stated one nice thing about Vrbo is that it allows the property owner to set a lot of controls for screening the guest. Whitaz stated some of the things they have done are to require a minimum age limit and minimum night stays. Whitaz indicated one-night stays will be the bachelor/bachelorette parties. Whitaz stated they have found that a lot of the renters are people returning to the area for weddings and other events. Whitaz stated it also helps that they are nearby, which allows them to ensure the rules are being followed. Whitaz stated they also ask for a large damage deposit and that most bachelor/bachelorette parties do not want to pay another $300 to $500. Whitaz noted she recently stayed at a Vrbo in Seattle where the owner did not live in the City, but they said if they get one phone call from their next-door neighbor, they are out of there since the owner has the authority to kick the people out. Whitaz stated in her view there should be some accountability and that there should be someone watching the property. It should not be a situation where the neighbors have to call the police and fear the blowback from that. Whitaz stated with their rules, they have found that they have zero problems and that Page 4 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued it has been nice to see people enjoying the area. Whitaz stated in her view Orono is kind of a destination place and that the renters do spend their money at the local businesses. Seals asked what their minimum number of nights stay is. Whitaz indicated it is two. Whitaz stated it is a one -bedroom home but that it does sleep six people. Seals commented it is helpful that she is not an absent property owner. Whitaz stated there should be someone nearby monitoring the property. Seals asked if they are required to obtain a rental license or a permit from Spring Park. Whitaz stated they do not. Printup asked how she heard about this issue in Orono. Whitaz stated they were contacted by other vacation rental owners. Jeanne Carter, 2780 Shadywood Road, noted she addressed the City Council earlier on this issue approximately a year ago. Carter stated in her view there might be problems based on individual properties but to enact kind of an overreaching type of policy might not be the best way to address those individual problems. Carter indicated she and her husband moved to Orono a few years ago but that she used to run a traditional bed and breakfast in Excelsior. Carter stated she enjoys hosting and welcoming people to the community and that there is a real shortage of places for people to stay in this area. Being an Airbnb host is a way to welcome people to the community. Carter noted they are an owner -occupied rental property, and that when they have guests, they are there and have good control over the situation. Carter stated she does it on a limited basis and that the types of people that have stayed with them are people who are coming into the area for a wedding, a funeral, a reunion, or perhaps an anniversary, etc. Carter stated they are not getting large groups of party individuals and that she is particular about how she screens the guests. Carter stated she gets stressed out about a 30 -day minimum because then the person is becoming more of a landlord. The longer someone stays at a property, the more comfortable they get, and that's when the problems start. Carter stated she does not feel the City should be looking at a 30 -day guideline. Carter indicated she also has no problem with being licensed or paying some sort of registration fee. Carter stated she would question jumping on this as a huge issue when the issue is rather small and concentrated on one or two properties in the city. Dankey asked if her guests sign a contract. Page 5 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued Carter indicated she does not require a contract since her rentals are short-term but that Vrbo might require a contract. Carter stated she also has a list of house rules that the guest has to sign off on and that she always meets her guests and talks to them about any particulars. Crosby asked what the average compensation is for the evening. Carter stated it depends on the season but that it ranges from $89 to $119 a night. Richard Rohrer, 1424 Baldur Park Road, stated the Council heard from some very responsible property owners but, unfortunately, they are not all like that. Rohrer stated there are some standards of conduct that they should expect from visitors to the Orono community, and that the property owners should bear the responsibility for that. Rohrer stated there has to be a way to hold people accountable when they create a property that creates a nuisance for the neighborhood whether that is done through ordinances or licensing. Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at 7:33 p.m. Walsh commented there is no silver bullet to solve this issue and that a number of communities have tackled this situation in different ways. Seals stated she has been talking with a number of people in the community and that the Council spends a fair amount of time talking about how property owners have rights. Seals stated the Council also has to take into consideration those property owners that are not responsible and look at ways to address this issue that will cause minimum collateral damage. Seals noted what they heard from the group is that problems seem to arise when a few things happen, such as absentee landlords, unruly tenants, a large number of guests, people who park on the street, no penalty when things go wrong and the neighbors do not know who is there. Seals stated the Council's discussion tonight is to give some direction to Staff on how to draft an ordinance and that they could start by requiring a license, a house inspection, and then requiring certain rules. One rule could be if the City or police department receives a call that there are unruly guests, the property owner could lose their rental license after a certain number of calls. Seals noted she did own rental properties and that she would tell her renters that if she receives a phone call, they are done, which was written in the contract. Seals stated she has no problem with two strikes and you are out. Seals commented they have to have a starting point, which is the license and inspection. Seals stated she is not sure if the City's online permitting system can track who is staying there, but in her view there has to be some kind of middle ground. Seals stated in her view the majority of the people in the room do not have the kind of problems expressed tonight. Walsh stated he would like to look at Orono as a whole, and that in his view Orono is not a rental community. Walsh stated the Council hears over and over again that the residents do not want increased density and that they live here for the schools and the rural community. Walsh stated he does not see Orono as a transient community and that he does not want to help promote that. Walsh stated Orono is Page 6 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued not a destination area such as Florida or Arizona and that it is a bedroom community of people who have lived here for a long time and who want to stay here to raise their kids. Walsh indicated he does not have any problem with requiring 30 -day rentals, which gets rid of the short-term issues. Walsh stated he would like to have a little carve out in the ordinance to allow for people who have owner -occupied homesteaded homes like the Carters who rent out a room here and there. Walsh stated in his view that would help alleviate those issues. Walsh stated if someone is going to have a non -homesteaded rental house to make money, Orono is not a destination rental community and that he would like to require a license and a 30 -day minimum stay. Crosby commented everybody has the right to enjoy their property and not be infringed upon. Crosby stated he would like to see something in the 30 -day range and that he would not have a problem carving something out for the owner -occupied rentals. Seals stated if they think about where the problems arise, it is when the property owner is out of state or otherwise absent regardless if the property is homesteaded or not. Seals questioned whether they would be overcomplicating it with the carve out. Seals stated in her view they can have a short-term rental for less than 30 days if the property owner lives in the state and has a manager for the property, but the moment they or the renters break the rules, they are gone. Walsh noted in Minnesota, in order to kick somebody out, the landlord needs to go to court, and that the renter has certain legal rights. Seals stated the person who is renting the property can lose their rental license. Walsh concurred that a rental license should be a requirement and that their contact information or that of a manager needs to be on file with the City. Walsh stated when things happen on the weekend, the City Hall is closed and that information has to be in the hands of City Staff and the Police Department. Walsh agreed there also has to be some type of strike system and that the landlord should lose their ability to rent for, say, 12 months, but then can reapply. Seals stated the type of people and the amount of people would change drastically if the property owner knew they were at risk of losing their ability to rent. Walsh stated in order to not promote Orono as a transient community, he would like to see 30 days for a minimum stay. Seals stated she struggles with the 30 days because most people do not rent a place for 30 days and they are more likely to rent a place for a week. Walsh stated the people who rent for 30 days are people who might be here for a job versus a party, a family reunion, etc. Dankey indicated she has stayed in Vrbos and that she has always had a good experience. Dankey noted there are a couple of people on Casco Point that have Vrbos and that she has talked to the neighbors and Page 7of17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued they have not noticed any problems. Dankey stated she would hate to tell people they cannot do this because it is a very popular thing. Dankey stated in her view Orono is a destination area, and that when she got married, she wanted people to stay close by but there were no places to stay. As a result, she got married downtown instead and not in Orono. Dankey noted she has had problems with neighbors in the past that are not weekend renters. Dankey commented short-term rentals are in and out of the property, but if someone is an absentee owner, they need to have a manager that is within five minutes of the property so they can deal with the issue right away. In addition, the landlords need a management plan. Dankey stated in her view that is how you can get rid of 90 percent of the problems. Seals stated in her view the 30 days is kind of arbitrary, and while the Council is saying they are not shutting short-term rentals down, they in essence will by requiring a minimum 30 -day stay. Printup stated the City Council should look at what Orono wants, and that Orono is not a destination spot, not a transient community, but people come here to live, not to vacation. Orono does not have resorts in different areas on the lake. The City also has rules that require a principal structure in order to have a dock. Printup stated he wants to protect the residents, let them live their normal, everyday lives, and not have strangers come and go. Crosby stated Orono stands for great schools and quality lake water, and that he does not think Orono needs to have a lot of people coming in and renting and disserving the people who live here. Crosby noted the City Council works for the taxpayers and that it is unfortunate a small group has ruined it, but that is what has happened, and the Council needs to be responsible to the people who live here. Dankey commented 15 percent of Orono consists of rental properties. Crosby noted they are not short-term rentals. Seals asked what problem the City Council is trying to solve. Seals stated the only true problem that needs to be solved is how to deal with problem renters and a property owner that is not a good neighbor. Seals stated if those things were already in place, the City Council would not be aware of these issues, and that the City does not have to go that far to solve the problem. Seals stated the problem is not becoming a transient community or a surging use of Vrbos. Seals stated the City currently does not have a mechanism in place to know who is renting and that the only recourse is to send them nasty citations. Seals stated she is trying to identify the problem, which is when things go bad, the City has no way to fix it. Seals stated if somebody is going to have a rental, they need to have certain mechanisms in place, and if the City receives X number of phone calls about the property, they are going to lose their rental license. Seals stated in her view that would prompt the property owner to address the issues. Dankey stated she also has lived next to a long-term rental and it was a problem. Dankey stated long-term renters are harder to get rid of. Page 8 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued Printup noted Orono is also a low service community, which helps keep taxes low. Printup stated the answer to the primary problem has an easy solution, which is not to allow it. Walsh stated in his view transient is an issue, because once it is allowed, the word will get out there and people will buy homes on the lake so they can rent them out. Walsh stated long-term rentals tend to be more stable. Dankey commented there a lot of people who used to live in this area that come back here for the weekend to attend weddings and other events or just to see people. Seals asked what will happen with the current rentals. Mattick stated they would not be grandfathered in and that he would encourage the City Council to deal with it through licensing. Mattick stated the concept of grandfathering is more of a zoning issue and this would be more akin to a business license. Crosby stated in his view there should be some time before the new rules take effect so the current rental properties can make the transition. Walsh stated it will be at least January before something gets approved. Seals asked why it needs to be 30 days. Crosby stated if someone has to come here to relocate for a job, that would be a reasonable thing since they would eventually become entrenched in the community. Crosby stated someone who comes her for the weekend or a day is not going to become part of the community. Walsh stated other communities have gone with 30 days and that it appears to be working pretty well for them. Walsh stated the City can get the new ordinance on the books and then tweak it. Crosby commented he would be okay with the exception on the homestead properties renting out a room. Printup noted this is not unique to Orono and that it is happening across the nation. It was the consensus of the City Council that some type of license be required and that the property owner should be allowed two strikes before they lose their license for a period of time. Seals stated a violation call could also result in another charge and the fee could be based on the number of rooms being rented out. Walsh stated he does not want to get into the weeds on the specific rules but that they can get a basic structure in place. Walsh stated he does not want to tell the rental property owners what to do but that they need a license. Crosby stated the licensing fee would also help cover some of the City's costs. Page 9 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 16. #17-3984 — CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT: RENTAL LICENSING, VACATION RENTAL PROHIBITION — Continued Seals suggested Staff look at other cities to see exactly what they are doing. Barnhart stated in his view 30 days is overstepping what the original concern was. Walsh recommended the City Council go with 30 days with the carve out for homesteaded properties, two strikes and you are out. Walsh stated contact information should also be required. Barnhart indicated he will come back with some options for the Council to look at. Barnhart stated in Prior Lake, non -homesteaded required another level of review and a conditional use permit. If the City Council wants to go less than 30, it could require a higher level of review. Barnhart stated the challenge he has is that the City already has regulations in place for noise and parking but that they are not getting the calls or complaints. Barnhart noted a new ordinance will not solve the late-night noise, and if people are not willing to call the police, it will not do any good. Seals asked what the current consequence is for a noise violation. Barnhart stated there is a fine. Walsh noted there are also a number of conditions that need to be met before a noise citation is given. Seals stated if the fine is a couple hundred bucks, it is not going to break the bank if the property owner is making a few thousand dollars a week, and that the fine needs to be higher in order to help deter the behavior. Barnhart stated the primary concern he heard in 2015 and today is unresponsive landlords and who can be contacted to stop the action. Barnhart stated a registration process or license would give the City some mechanism to address issues. Barnhart noted in 2015 he sent out a request to the residents to report what they think is a violation of a vacation rental and the City received two phone calls. In both of those situations the person actually lived there and was not renting. Barnhart stated regardless of what is done by the City Council, it will require action by the police. The City Council directed Staff to draft a preliminary ordinance based on tonight's discussion. (Recess taken from 8:08 p.m. to 8:20 p.m.) PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 17. BIG ISLAND PLANNING Edwards stated this item is to gain approval to proceed with the preparation of a Big Island Park planning document to assist with future capital improvements and facilitate grant opportunities. The plan would Page 10 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 17. BIG ISLAND PLANNING — Continued also allow Orono to coordinate with sister agencies who have an interest on the park so the City can have adequate communicate with those agencies. Bolton and Menk has provided a proposal to complete a concept plan for Big Island Park for a fee not to exceed $12,000. Seals stated the mini master plan will take a lot of what is talked about in the Big Island Management Plan and will look at the feasibility of different improvements. Seals stated in her view this is a good way to get the sister agencies involved in the process early and to get everyone on the same page. Seals stated this is a good example of what was done with the golf course and also helps everyone look at the whole picture and allows grants to be applied for. Walsh concurred that it would be helpful to have a plan so everyone is on the same page. Seals stated it is also a good way to be transparent and get people involved in the planning process from the beginning. Seals noted there will also be a public hearing to discuss the plan once it is created and that the plan is intended to be a guiding document and does not mean that everything will be done. Printup questioned whether the document will set up expectations for future purchases or improvements. Edwards stated the plan would allow for different options that could be pursued with some anticipated costs. Edwards stated the real purpose of the document is to help guide the planning. Walsh commented it is a starting point. Printup stated he has a concern with doing improvements given the past vandalism on Big Island and that he does not want taxpayers' dollars getting thrown down a black hole. Seals stated security risks, maintenance, septic issues, pipes freezing, etc., will all be looked at prior to any specific project going forward. Seals stated there are a number of people that want things out there and that this helps everyone look at it in a thorough and comprehensive manner. Walsh stated the City and Big Island Committee will need to manage people's expectations and also limit the amount of money spent. Walsh commented the City should make use of volunteers and donations to do some of this. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to accept Bolton and Menk's proposal to complete a concept plan for Big Island Park for a fee not to exceed $12,000. Printup asked if the plan looks at perhaps installing a flag or a marker of some type for the veterans' camp. Seals stated at the committee meetings she will be talking about ADA accessible trails, whether structures make sense, security and maintenance issues with those structures, and possible activities. Rief noted there are also restrictions on what can be done based on the easements. Page 11 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 17. BIG ISLAND PLANNING — Continued Printup commented he likes hearing what the committee will be doing but that he will not be voting in favor of the plan because of the history of vandalism on Big Island. Seals noted there are a number of people, companies, associations and foundations that are willing to volunteer and donate but that they need to have a plan in place before they can go ahead and do it. Seals stated the goal is to get more people involved and any improvements will be brought back before the City Council for approval. Printup indicated he will vote for the motion based on what Council Member Seals just stated. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. McCULLEY ROAD BRUSH SITE FENCING Edwards stated the City of Orono provides a site for residents to drop of brush on McCulley Road. The site has become quite popular over the last two years since year-round brush drop off has been allowed. The issue is that the site has started to collect concrete, refrigerators, and rocks in addition to brush and a number of contractors dumping brush in there. The proposal before the Council tonight looks to establish hours of operation and man the site during those hours. Edwards recommended establishing a brush fee in order to offset the cost of providing an employee to manage the site and installing 380 feet of fence with a gate and guard booth. The anticipated cost is $25,400. Edwards indicated he did look at the option of having an automated gate but felt it would be too cumbersome. Walsh asked if the grinder can rip apart the stumps. Edwards indicated it can. Walsh asked what the City's annual cost is to dispose of the other items. Edwards indicated it is probably several thousand dollars yearly just in labor. Walsh stated the grinding of the brush and stumps does not cost the City anything. Walsh stated if they assume the cost to get rid of the other debris is approximately $5,000 a year and the cost of the employee is approximately $12,000, the question is whether $8 a cubic foot for nonresidents and contractors will cover the cost. Walsh stated he is worried about adding more costs to the site. Edwards stated approximately 5,000 cubic yards of brush is brought to the site each year and that in his view the majority comes from nonresidents. Walsh commented it is likely not as much brush will be brought there if a fee is charged and that the question is whether the City wants to spend $25,000 to install fencing, a gate, an attendant shack, and then pay an employee to man it. Walsh stated the only inconvenience to the residents is that the site will be closed during the wintertime and the limited hours of operation. Page 12 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 18. McCULLEY ROAD BRUSH SITE FENCING — Continued Edwards stated the hours of operation could be changed based on the season. Walsh stated he likes the idea of keeping it free to the residents but that contractors should have to pay. Edwards noted most contractors charge a tipping fee and then dump at the site for free. Printup stated when the site first opened up, it was very popular, and that this will help finetune the operation. Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, suggested the City consider installing video cameras at the site so they can find out who is dumping there. Anderson commented it would also be nice to retain the access to the trail. Edwards stated that is part of the reason for only 380 feet of fencing. Edwards noted this is not an official access site for the Luce Line trail but that it is regularly used by the people accessing the trail. Edwards indicated he did talk to the DNR and they said they would not mind if it is shut down but a lot of people use it. Rief stated it is kind of a liability issue if they can access the whole site and that it would be better to limit access. Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to authorize the city engineer to install fencing, gate and attendance shack at the brush site for a cost not to exceed $25,400, and to implement a brush drop- off fee of $8 per cubic yard for nonresidents and contractors, and to hire a seasonal employee(s) to man the facility in 2018. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 9. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 19. #17-3987 JOHN KRAEMER & SONS ON BEHALF OF ELLEN REDMOND, 2625 KELLY AVENUE, AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (GRADING) — RESOLUTION NO. 6809 Curtis reviewed her November 13, 2017, Staff memorandum regarding a request to waive Planning Commission review of the application and a request to approve a conditional use permit for removal of approximately 4,500 cubic yards of fill material. This amount of fill was not identified at the time the application was initially reviewed and approved. The need for the conditional use permit to address the removal was not realized until late October. Due to the timing of the discovery for a grading CUP, the weather, and the limited opportunity for a Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant is requesting that the City Council hold the public hearing. Staff recommends approval of the requests. Walsh asked how this application got to this point. Curtis indicated it was a series of things. Curtis stated sometimes plans are reviewed piecemeal and that Planning Staff looks at the zoning issues but do not calculate the cubic yards. In this application, the consulting city engineer reviewed the project and not the City Engineer and that issue was not identified Page 13 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 19. #17-3987 JOHN KRAEMER & SONS ON BEHALF OF ELLEN REDMOND, 2625 KELLY AVENUE, AFTER -THE -FACT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (GRADING) — RESOLUTION NO. 6809 — Continued for Staff. When the application was looked at as a whole, the grading did not raise any red flags. When the house was demolished, the contractor started to clear the site and prepare the building envelope. Curtis noted the contractor did a good job with the site and no complaints were received. Crosby asked if the new foundation will be in line with setback requirements. Curtis indicated it will be and that the only issue is the removal of the fill. Seals asked how often the review by the Planning Commission is waived. Curtis indicated it has been done in the past and that it typically happens at the end of the year when there is no December Planning Commission meeting. Barnhart noted the public hearing will be held tonight if the City Council waives the review by the Planning Commission. Seals stated she does not want to set a precedent for skipping the Planning Commission. Rief stated this is the second one this year and both were unique exceptions. Curtis stated one of the concerns addressed is the cleanup of the silt off the street and the contractor has done a good job with that. Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to waive review by the Planning Commission of Application No. 17-3987, John Kraemer & Sons on behalf of Ellen Redmond, 2625 Kelly Avenue, and to hold the public hearing at the City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m. Mike Sharratt, Sharratt Design, stated the reason for the amount of fill was that the original house on the site was a two-story home with no basement. With the house that was designed, the owner did not want the house to appear that large and so a basement was built. Sharratt stated in that basement is a sport court, which generated a lot of the fill. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6809 , a Resolution granting a conditional use permit to allow removal of material in excess of 500 cubic yards for the property located at 2625 Kelly Avenue. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 14 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. 21. #17-3977 — BRIAN BENSON AND CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF JIM AND MARY JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, SKETCH PLAN Barnhart stated this is a sketch plan proposal for a 5 -lot subdivision of 400 Bracketts Point. The existing house will remain but the other structures will be removed. The project is proposed to meet all minimum development standards, including lot size, width, etc. The plan also proposes to relocate Bracketts Point Road from the edge of the water on the west side of the parcel and run it along the interior of the site. The public Bracketts Point Road will terminate in a cul-de- sac at the south end of the site. A private drive will then connect to the existing private rackets Point Road to serve the three lots at the southern end of the point. The existing sanitary sewer easement within the road will remain and be protected by an easement. Staff prefers this option over the option that was presented at the Planning Commission meeting. The property is subject to the Conservation Design ordinance. Printup asked if the City would want to keep the road private or public. Barnhart stated since the road would serve five homes, it would be preferred that the road be public. Chuck Alcon, Developer, stated at the recommendation of the Planning Commission, they have contacted the neighbors in the area. There are eight PIDs involved, and five of those property owners have been contacted and are not opposed to the project. The other three will be contacted in the near future. In addition, they have also met with the Watershed District, the LMCD, and the fire chief. Alcon stated the two major improvements they are looking to accomplish is to move the road away from the lakeshore, which removes the hardcover in that area, and eliminating the hammerhead in favor of the cul-de-sac, which meets the requirements of the fire chief. Walsh stated relocating the road away from the water is a positive improvement. Walsh commented they did a great job when they renovated the house and that he assumes they will do a great job on this project. Crosby asked what the rule of thumb is for having the road become a private road. Barnhart stated the Code outlines when a road should be private or public and it is usually determined by the number of homes on it. The road will serve eight or nine different properties, which supports the need for a public road. Walsh asked what the preference of the owner is. Alcon indicated they are proposing it as a public road and that there will be four new lots and one existing. Each lot will have their own well. Alcon noted they will be having a series of meetings with Staff and that they are still at the sketch plan phase. Dankey asked if it would be very expensive to relocate the sewer line. Barnhart indicated it would be not be a cost the City would bear and that the applicant would need to assume those costs. Barnhart stated when you look at the challenges of accessing a sewer pipe in 21. Page 15 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. #17-3977 — BRIAN BENSON AND CHUCK ALCON ON BEHALF OF JIM AND MARY JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETTS POINT ROAD, SKETCH PLAN — Continued someone's lake yard, it might be better from a salability standpoint to have a property unencumbered by an easement and Staff's recommendation is to relocate it. Edwards stated the Public Works Department would need to access the manhole annually to clean the pipes out and whoever owned that property would not want the City driving through their yard each year. Alcon stated they have not looked at the engineering at this point but the objective would be to connect further up the private road and then gravity feed down to the existing lift station. Dankey asked about access onto County Road 15. Alcon indicated they will be discussing that with Hennepin County. The City Council took no formal action on this item. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals stated Staff has been working really well with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and that she is excited to see what the Big Island Committee and the Watershed District can do together. Seals stated the next step is developing the mini master plan. Printup noted Bracketts Point used to be called Starvation Point 100 years ago. Dankey wished everyone a happy Thanksgiving. Crosby thanked the veterans and their families for their sacrifices. Walsh stated he would echo Council Members Dankey's and Crosby's comments. Walsh noted the Park Commission will be bringing a number of items before the City Council in the near future and that the City will continue to improve the parks. CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 22. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING ORONO PARKS, GREEN SPACES, PLAYGROUNDS AND TRAILS IN PERPETUITY — RESOLUTION NO. 6810 Rief stated he would recommend approval of the resolution and that it shows a commitment by the City to the 456 acres of city parks and the land on Big Island. Rief stated the parks help improve the quality of life in Orono. Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO., a Resolution Supporting Orono Parks, Green Spaces, Playgrounds, and Trails in Perpetuity. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Page 16 of 17 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, November 13, 2017 7:00 o'clock p.m. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Mattick stated he had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:18 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 17 of 17 Minutes of the Orono City Council Work Session Monday, November 13, 2017 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Aaron Printup, Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals and Wendy Dankey. Representing staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Director of Public Works Adam Edwards and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Printup joined the meeting at 5:35 p.m. Dankey joined the meeting at 6:43 p.m. Meeting Start Time: 5:20 p.m. 2. Enterprise Fund Finance Director Ron Olson presented the Enterprise Fund item. Olson began discussion about the Water Fund. The fund has historically been operating at a loss but the loss has been covered by revenue received from antenna leases and changing technologies. Olson mentioned that water rates have been increased by 11 % each year for the past four years and with the present 5% increase for 2018 in the budget, the future increases are projected to be in the 3% range. Olson also noted that the operating budget as presented for 2018 will break even. Mayor Dennis Walsh mentioned that he would like to see the antenna revenues transferred out of the Water Fund and put into the General Fund. Discussion regarding the Water Fund budget followed. Olson stated that the Sewer Fund has also been operating at a loss. The 2018 budget is presented with a rate increase of 4%. The Met Council disposal charges are the single largest expense in the Sewer Fund. The past two years we have seen approximately 9.5%-9.6% increases from the Met Council for disposal charges and 4% has typically been the rate increase used annually. Olson noted that we typically do not match the Met Council increases due to the differing Inflow & Infiltration totals annually. Walsh pointed out that in the next six years we will be at a significant loss unless we begin to plan now. Walsh asked how we can solve this. Olson mentioned that the only way to compensate this would be by either raising rates or gaining more users. City Administrator Dustin Rief mentioned that we fell behind due to the combination of the Met Council's disposal charges increase and depreciation. We should be raising our rates enough to compensate for both. Council Member Aaron Printup noted that everybody pays the same rate for Met Council disposal charges. Council Member Richard Crosby also stated that the charges are based on total use versus individual use. Walsh reiterated that he would like to focus on this and make sure that we are keeping an eye on it as we proceed. Olson presented the Storm Water budget and stated that it does not have a lot of operating budget. We have been increasing it 10% every year for cleaning the ponds and also we anticipate the significant projects that are in need. Walsh noted that it appears that at least this has a profit which will get us through the year 2026. Olson noted that we have been increasing rates to decrease need for special assessments. Discussion followed regarding possible future plans to create an equipment fund for things such as street sweepers and other equipment used to maintain the Storm Water system. Walsh would like to revisit this again. Walsh noted it would be nice if we are 6-7 years ahead of the curb every time. Olson presented the Recycling fund. He stated that the biggest expense is collection of recycling and that we won't be needing an increase for this fund at this time. Olson also noted that we receive grants annually that help out to some degree and are only used for Recycling. Olson presented the Cable Fund and noted that the only revenue gained in this fund is the cable franchise fees. The cable franchise fees are steady and regular. Discussion followed regarding the Cable Fund. 1. Open Meeting Law City Attorney Soren Mattick presented a Power Point presentation of the Open Meeting Law item. Council member Victoria Seals asked a question regarding the meaning of a Committee. 2 Mattick mentioned that some committees should be treated as if they are governed by the Open Meeting Law. Notices of meetings should be posted and minutes should be taken. Especially if the committee is conducting business and/or sending recommendations to City Council. Mattick discussed the email Open Meeting Law standards for technology use and social gatherings as well. Discussion followed regarding Open Meeting Law standards. Meeting End: 6:45 p.m. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 3 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 4 Item Description: Claims/Bills Date: November 27, 2017 Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda Consent Agenda Finance Director 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 108532 to 108603, totaling $350,890.38. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #108534 Duininck Inc $12,800.00 Payment for a drainage project on hole #9 of the Orono Public Golf Course #108535 Mark J Traut Wells $56,003.49 Final payment for the construction of well #4 #108590 Park Construction $58,740.25 Payment #1 for the 2017 Storm Sewer Project 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: qJV Reviewed By: 5b)X Approved By: 5b)X City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Invoice Amount Central Services 117.44 Police Department 117.44 Sewer 58.72 Central Services 1,679.01 Police Department 340.40 Special Projects -Contingencies 10,597.50 Police Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Advanced Imaging Solutions 11/27/2017 108535 149834 101-41900-401 PRINTERS 11/10/17-12/09/17 Advanced Imaging Solutions 11/27/2017 108535 149834 101-42110-401 PRINTERS 11/10/17-12/09/17 Advanced Imaging Solutions 11/27/2017 108535 149834 602-49450-401 PRINTERS 11/10/17-12/09/17 Total 108535: ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/27/2017 108536 342726668 101-41900-413 CH Copiers 10/20/17 - 11/20/17 Total 108536: ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/27/2017 108537 342750171 101-42110-413 Police Copier 10/20-11/20/2017 Total 108537: AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LL 11/27/2017 108538 388007 101-43290-800 2016 Audit Preparation Total 108538: ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 11/27/2017 108539 14966448 101-42110-321 Phone service ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 11/27/2017 108539 14966448 101-41900-321 Phone Service ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 11/27/2017 108539 14966448 601-49400-321 Phone Service ALLSTREAM/INTEGRATELECO 11/27/2017 108539 14966448 602-49450-321 Phone Service Total 108539: AMERICAN TIRE DISTRIBUTOR 11/27/2017 108540 S099663507 101-42110-402 #242 tires Total 108540: ANNA CARLSON 11/27/2017 108541 10092017 101-41110-439 cookies 10/9 cc mtg ANNA CARLSON 11/27/2017 108541 10092017 101-41300-489 flowers funeral Total 108541: AVENET WEB SOLUTIONS 11/27/2017 108542 41536 101-41900-401 GovOffice Annual Support Total 108542: AWWA 11/27/2017 108543 7001428549 601-49400-433 01/18 -12/18 -Membership D.Goman Department Invoice Amount Central Services 117.44 Police Department 117.44 Sewer 58.72 Central Services 1,679.01 Police Department 340.40 Special Projects -Contingencies 10,597.50 Police Department 299.71 Central Services 419.59 Water 69.93 Sewer 209.80 Police Department Mayor & Council 21.96 Administration 68.60 Central Services Water 202.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 108543: 202.00 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659015 101-45200-415 Bederwood Park Parks 57.14 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659016 101-45200-415 Hackberry Park Parks 44.65 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659017 101-45210-415 Orono Golf Course Golf Course 22.42 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659018 101-45200-415 Crystal Bay Playground Parks 22.32 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659019 101-45200-415 Navarre Playground Parks 57.14 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659020 101-45200-415 French Creek Preserve Parks 22.32 BIFFS INC 11/27/2017 108544 W659021 101-45200-415 Lurton Park biff Parks 62.50 Total 108544: 288.49 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/27/2017 108545 0208707 651-49910-304 Misc Engineering Storm Water 2,680.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/27/2017 108545 0208707 602-49450-304 Misc Engineering Sewer 2,020.00 BOLTON & MENK INC. 11/27/2017 108545 0208707 101-43170-304 Misc Engineering Engineering 189.00 Total 108545: 4,889.00 BUDGET PRINTING 11/27/2017 108546 5931 601-49400-322 UPS package Sent Water 12.50 Total 108546: 12.50 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 AC10092017 101-41110-439 cc ws food 10/09/2017 Mayor & Council 38.70 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 AC11032017 101-41900-311 Com plan survey boost Central Services 75.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 AC11062017 101-41300-489 retirement card-rs Administration 4.29 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 AC11132017 101-41110-439 cookies for cc mtg 11-13/17 Mayor & Council 7.52 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 AC11132017 101-41110-439 dominos ws food Mayor & Council 64.09 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 DJ11142017 101-43000-221 LAMINATOR FOR PW Public Works Department 44.09 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 DJ11142017 601-49400-201 LAMINATOR FOR PW Water 44.09 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 DJ11142017 602-49450-201 LAMINATOR FOR PW Sewer 44.10 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/27/2017 108547 DK11152017 101-41900-201 monitors f/Dustin & Ron Central Services 688.07 Total 108547: 1,009.95 CEMSTONE 11/27/2017 108548 C1853904 602-49450-406 LS#7 Sewer 379.74 Total 108548: 379.74 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/27/2017 108549 14865-1 OCT 601-49400-381 oct/17-Gas-09/21/17-10/19/17 Water 447.67 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number 870.53 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/27/2017 108549 14865-1 OCT 602-49450-381 oct/17-Gas-09/21/17-10/19/17 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/27/2017 108549 14865-1 OCT 101-41900-381 oct/17-Gas-09/21/17-10/19/17 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/27/2017 108549 14865-1 OCT 101-42110-381 oct/17-Gas-09/21/17-10/19/17 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/27/2017 108549 14865-1 OCT 101-45210-381 oct/17-Gas-09/21/17-10/19/17 Total 108549: CENTURY LINK 11/27/2017 108550 9524717766 101-45210-321 GC phone 09/19 - 10/18/2017 CENTURY LINK 11/27/2017 108550 9524717766 601-49400-321 internet navarre plant Total 108550: CHRIS FISCHER 11/27/2017 108551 11052017 101-42110-226 Remiburse-clothing Total 108551: CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 11/27/2017 108552 0015221 101-42110-402 #242 tire mount f/2 Total 108552: DELTA DENTAL 11/27/2017 108553 7099101 101-21709 0037220072 Dec/2017 Dental Total 108553: Duininck Inc. MN 11/16/2017 108534 109650 651-16500 GC Drainage Project - Hole 9 Total 108534: DUSTIN RIEF 11/27/2017 108554 DEC 2017 101-41300-135 cobra coverge-D.Rief Total 108554: E. H. Renner & Sons 11/27/2017 108555 159180000 601-16500 Well #2 Rehab Project Total 108555: EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 11/27/2017 108556 0116077 -IN 101-43000-224 sign posts EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 11/27/2017 108556 016027 -IN 101-43000-224 curb markers Department Invoice Amount Sewer 202.27 Central Services 133.32 Police Department 58.09 Golf Course 29.18 870.53 Golf Course 33.63 Water 96.82 Police Department Police Department 80.55 2,412.00 2,412.00 12,800.00 12,800.00 Administration 1,125.00 Public Works Department 422.89 Public Works Department 268.90 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Page: 4 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Police Department 27.50 Police Department 27.50 Total 108556: ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/27/2017 108557 542145 101-42400-340 ph add ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/27/2017 108557 544142 101-42400-340 ph add -land use apllications ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/27/2017 108557 741146 101-41900-352 hra publish ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/27/2017 108557 746219 101-42110-340 pd ad --coloring contest ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/27/2017 108557 746220 101-42110-340 pd ad --coloring contest Total 108557: FILEONQ INC 11/27/2017 108558 6660 101-42110-311 software support 2018 Total 108558: G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006749825 101-41900-404 mats G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006749826 101-41900-404 mats G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006769506 101-43000-226 unifomrs G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006769506 101-43000-226 unifomrs G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006780594 101-43000-226 unifomrs G & K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108559 6006780594 101-43000-221 Shop towels Total 108559: GENERAL SERVICE 11/27/2017 108560 11042017 101-41900-404 irrigation system blow out Total 108560: GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/27/2017 108561 3270-384171 101-43000-221 Shop Supplies GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/27/2017 108561 3270-384223 101-43000-240 replacement parts GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/27/2017 108561 3270-384230 101-45210-223 Wiper Blade #430 Total 108561: GRANICUS INC. 11/27/2017 108562 89942 614-49840-329 web service Sept -Nov Total 108562: H & L MESABI 11/27/2017 108563 99334 101-43000-224 Snow Plow Blades Page: 4 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Invoice Amount Central Services 691.79 Building & Zoning 71.52 Building & Zoning 149.00 Central Services 53.64 Police Department 27.50 Police Department 27.50 Police Department 1,300.67 Central Services 10.80 Central Services 21.92 Public Works Department 51.26 Public Works Department 17.03 Public Works Department 53.89 Public Works Department 2.63 157.53 Central Services 110.00 110.00 Public Works Department 14.38 Public Works Department 298.92 Golf Course 19.47 Cable Franchise Public Works Department 296.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Page: 5 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Invoice Amount 296.00 Police Department 591.50 5,826.50 35,498.50 41,916.50 Central Services Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Sewer 10.00 10.00 Administration 405.00 Building & Zoning 240.00 Total 108563: 645.00 Police Department 15.59 15.59 HEALTH PARTNERS 11/27/2017 108564 76693494 101-42110-135 healthpartners Dec 2017 HEALTH PARTNERS 11/27/2017 108564 76693494 101-15998 healthpartners Dec 2017 HEALTH PARTNERS 11/27/2017 108564 76693494 101-21706 healthpartners Dec 2017 Total 108564: HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 11/27/2017 108565 1000010038 101-41900-319 network support -11/2017 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 11/27/2017 108565 11111100506 101-43000-414 radio Communication -11/2017 Total 108565: HERC U LIFT 11/27/2017 108566 R044465 101-43000-415 install flags veterns day Total 108566: J & J GLASS AND GLAZING INC 11/27/2017 108567 12164 602-49450-406 silicone Total 108567: JACKIE YOUNG 11/27/2017 108568 10312017 101-41300-319 CC meeting& Hra JACKIE YOUNG 11/27/2017 108568 10312017 101-42400-319 pc meeting 10/16/17 Total 108568: KENNETH BECK 11/27/2017 108569 11162017 101-42110-437 reimburse 1st responder training Total 108569: KENNETH N POTTS PA 11/27/2017 108570 11142017 231-45650-307 2017 Escalade -attorney fees Total 108570: KODAK ALARIS INC 11/27/2017 108571 USP0001149 101-41900-401 service agreement 11/10/17-11/09/2018 Total 108571: LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DI 11/27/2017 108572 4TH QTR 101-41110-433 4th qtr levy payment Page: 5 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Invoice Amount 296.00 Police Department 591.50 5,826.50 35,498.50 41,916.50 Central Services 51.00 Public Works Department 95.30 146.30 Public Works Department 790.00 790.00 Sewer 10.00 10.00 Administration 405.00 Building & Zoning 240.00 645.00 Police Department 15.59 15.59 2,250.00 2,250.00 Central Services 381.00 381.00 Mayor & Council 13,229.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Page: 6 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Payee Issue Date Number Number Golf Course 29.99 Public Works Department 12.49 46.97 Central Services 376.50 Total 108572: 376.50 Police Department 3,137.69 Public Works Department 553.73 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 11/27/2017 108573 MMA 17-18 101-41110-433 MMA Membership Total 108573: 35,995.14 35,995.14 Police Department 95.71 LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/27/2017 108574 B425046 101-43000-221 phone jack LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/27/2017 108574 B429808 101-45210-223 heater for well pit LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/27/2017 108574 B431280 101-43000-224 snow plow parts Total 108574: MAILFINANCE 11/27/2017 108575 N6855471 101-41900-401 Meter Rental 12/16/17-3/15/18 Total 108575: MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/27/2017 108576 20499791 101-42110-212 Fuel MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/27/2017 108576 20499792 101-43000-212 Diesel Total 108576: MARK J TRAUT WELLS INC 11/16/2017 108535 RFP #6 601-16500 RFP # 6 - Final Total 108535: MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/27/2017 108577 1073823 602-49450-383 Wastewater Charges 12/17 Total 108577: MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 11/27/2017 108578 20044714 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Total 108578: MINT ROOFING 11/27/2017 108579 595604 101-41900-404 Roof Repairs =Crystal bay PO Total 108579: MINUTEMAN PRESS 11/27/2017 108580 20690 101-41900-352 fall newsletter Page: 6 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Department Invoice Amount 13,229.25 Mayor & Council 30.00 30.00 Public Works Department 4.49 Golf Course 29.99 Public Works Department 12.49 46.97 Central Services 376.50 376.50 Police Department 3,137.69 Public Works Department 553.73 3,691.42 56,003.49 56,003.49 Sewer 35,995.14 35,995.14 Police Department 95.71 95.71 Central Services 178.98 178.98 Central Services 1,545.27 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 108580: 1,545.27 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-34210 Sales Tax 10/17 1.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 601-39610 Sales Tax 10/17 36.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 601-20806 Sales Tax 10/17 1,263.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-37910 Sales Tax 10/17 217.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-37920 Sales Tax 10/17 216.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-37930 Sales Tax 10/17 37.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-37940 Sales Tax 10/17 76.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE -WIRE 11/27/2017 108581 10-2017 101-37970 Sales Tax 10/17 6.00 Total 108581: 1,852.00 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATIO 11/27/2017 108582 P00008514 435-48967-404 fox street poject material testing 171.14 Total 108582: 171.14 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 11/27/2017 108583 16451 234-45680-404 Lurton Park-seed&hydro mulch 8,945.60 Total 108583: 8,945.60 MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/27/2017 108584 148548 101-42110-228 tacker & brad nailer Police Department 28.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/27/2017 108584 148552 101-42110-240 25" retract cord & supplies for garage Police Department 57.48 Total 108584: 86.47 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/27/2017 108585 306226 101-43000-221 Hose Public Works Department 10.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/27/2017 108585 306544 601-49400-227 heater Water 29.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/27/2017 108585 306700 101-45200-223 trail marker pounder Parks 14.28 Total 108585: 55.26 NEWEGG INC 11/27/2017 108586 1300696901 101-41900-221 battery for laptop Central Services 29.99 NEWEGG INC 11/27/2017 108586 1300717693 101-43000-221 converter cable Public Works Department 22.49 NEWEGG INC 11/27/2017 108586 1300717693 101-41900-221 converter cable Central Services 22.49 NEWEGG INC 11/27/2017 108586 1300719968 101-43000-221 laptop- pw emp Public Works Department 159.99 NEWEGG INC 11/27/2017 108586 1300719968 101-41900-221 laptop- pw emp Central Services 159.99 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Page: 8 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount Total 108586: 394.95 NORTHERN CAPITAL INSURAN 11/27/2017 108587 157324 703-49960-370 2018 insurance agent fee 8,000.00 Total 108587: 8,000.00 NORTHERN STAR COUNCIL 11/27/2017 108588 CREN16D V 101-42110-437 Explorer training Police Department 304.00 Total 108588: 304.00 OFFICE DEPOT 11/27/2017 108589 9506535100 101-41900-201 Office Supplies- Central Services 88.80 OFFICE DEPOT 11/27/2017 108589 9759618480 101-41900-201 business card hold Central Services 2.49 OFFICE DEPOT 11/27/2017 108589 9759618870 101-41900-201 supplies Central Services 64.63 OFFICE DEPOT 11/27/2017 108589 9762327200 101-41900-201 kitchen supplies Central Services 121.38 OFFICE DEPOT 11/27/2017 108589 9778329000 101-41900-201 supplies Central Services 66.74 Total 108589: 344.04 PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPA 11/27/2017 108590 PAY EST1 651-16500 2017 Storm Sewer Replacement 58,740.25 Total 108590: 58,740.25 PEMBER COMPANIES 11/16/2017 108536 RFP 4 - FINA 602-16500 Generator Lift Station #2 17,251.13 Total 108536: 17,251.13 PIRTEK 11/27/2017 108591 52599488.00 651-49910-402 flail mower parts Storm Water 265.66 Total 108591: 265.66 RYAN ALNESS 11/27/2017 108592 10312017 602-49450-406 REPLACEMENT OF RUG FROM SWR BACKUP Sewer 42.90 Total 108592: 42.90 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 11/27/2017 108593 79789824 101-41900-404 annual fire alarm monitoring & sprinkler test Central Services 777.09 SIMPLEX GRINNELL 11/27/2017 108593 79790666 101-42110-404 annual fire alarm monitoring & sprinkler test Police Department 1,713.52 Total 108593: 2.490.61 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 11/27/2017 108594 237745DEC 101-21713 LTD- dec2017 1,624.33 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 11/27/2017 108594 237745DEC 101-21710 Life Ins-Dec/2017 1,040.70 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 11/27/2017 108594 237745DEC 101-15998 Life Ins-Dec/2017 190.00 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 11/27/2017 108594 237745DEC 101-21714 STD-dec/2017 499.70 Total 108594: 3,354.73 THE HOME DEPOT 11/27/2017 108595 2808000102 101-43000-224 material Public Works Department 60.64 THE HOME DEPOT 11/27/2017 108595 2808000102 602-49450-404 material Sewer 35.90 THE HOME DEPOT 11/27/2017 108595 2808000102 101-45200-223 material Parks 121.28 THE HOME DEPOT 11/27/2017 108595 2808000102 101-45200-223 material Parks 188.00 Total 108595: 405.82 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 11/27/2017 108596 40073066 101-43000-415 cylinder & Demurrage Public Works Department 11.04 Total 108596: 11.04 TRI K SERVICES 11/27/2017 108597 7617 601-49400-405 water dig/3800 casco ave Water 66.00 Total 108597: 66.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 11/27/2017 108598 0033432-280 603-49500-316 Recycling 11/2017 8,972.62 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 11/27/2017 108598 0033432-280 603-39610 Recycling 11/2017 333.90 - Total 108598: 8,638.72 WEILANDS ALL SEASONS CLINI 11/27/2017 108599 24037 101-43000-403 service CH & Maint bldg furnace Public Works Department 229.67 WEILANDS ALL SEASONS CLINI 11/27/2017 108599 24037 101-41900-403 service CH & Maint bldg furnace Central Services 229.68 Total 108599: 459.35 WILDTHREADS 11/27/2017 108600 23789 101-45210-095 Golf Course apparel Golf Course 159.47 Total 108600: 159.47 WILLIAMS TOWING 11/27/2017 108601 146077 231-45650-436 2007 vehicle -tow 155.00 Total 108601: 155.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 11/14/2017 - 11/27/2017 Nov 21, 2017 01:26PM Payee Check Issue Date Check Number Invoice Number Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Amount WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 11/27/2017 108602 3502597969 101-43000-386 Electrical Service /oct 17 Public Works Department 128.81 WRIGHT HENNEPIN ELECTRIC 11/27/2017 108602 3502597969 602-49450-381 Electrical Service /oct 17 Sewer 51.11 Total 108602: 179.92 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-41900-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Central Services 1,627.01 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-42110-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Police Department 1,102.10 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-42110-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Police Department 103.83 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-43000-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Public Works Department 177.32 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-43000-386 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Public Works Department 2,092.35 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-45200-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Parks 33.78 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 601-49400-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Water 5,334.69 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 602-49450-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Sewer 2,482.13 XCEL ENERGY 11/27/2017 108603 568125024 101-45210-381 Electric 10/21-11/20/17 Golf Course 521.30 Total 108603: 13,474.51 Grand Totals: 350,890.38 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 4 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: Authorize the return of escrows for certain building projects. Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain authorization for the Finance Department to issue checks to 6 property owners who have completed the requirements of their building permit. 2. Background. The City Council must authorize checks to reimburse property owners who deposit an escrow for building permits. With the short week due to the Thanksgiving holiday, these checks were not able to be processes in advance of the Council's information packet being distributed. Without authorization, the property owners would have to wait until December 1 ltn Staff seeks authorization for the Finance Department to issue the reimbursement checks once processed for the following projects. Charles Cudd David Gutermuth Gina Paulucci Adam Nafstad Swanson Homes *Greg Blasko 3546 Ivy Place $2,500 2656 Casco Pt Rd $2,500 320 Woodhill Rd $4,500 145 Manor Circle $2,500 4765 Augusta St $2,500 3295 Crystal Bay $5,000 * This is a partial release. The city retains funds to ensure road repairs are made in the spring. 3. Funding. The city received these funds in escrow from the project applicant. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to authorize Finance Staff to issue escrow reimbursement checks once processed Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By:D. Rief AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 5 Item Description: Appointment of Accountant Date: November 27, 2017 Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda Consent Agenda Finance Director Section: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to appoint Kelly Horn to the position of Accountant with a starting date of 1/2/2017. 2. Background. The selection process for the Accountant position has been completed. A total of 12 applications were received. After an initial review of the applications, four applicants were selected to be interviewed. The top candidate for the position is Kelly Horn. Kelly has a Bachelor's of Science in Business from the University of Minnesota. She also has a Master's of Financial Management from Keller Graduate School of Management in Accounting as well as a Master's of Business Arts from Augsburg College in Business. Kelly is currently working for the CPA firm of MMKR as a Senior Associate. Her duties include auditing of both cities and school districts. Her education and experience as an auditor will be invaluable to the City. 3. Cost. Kelly will be compensated at step 5 of level 10 ($66,391.74) of the City's pay scale. This is a full time position and is eligible for full city benefits including enrollment in the Coordinated Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). 4. Funding. This position is funded through the Finance Department in the General Fund. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the hiring of Kelly Horn at step 5 of level 10 of the City's pay scale. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the appointment of Kelly Horn to the position of Accountant at step 5 of level 10 of the pay scale with a starting date of January 2, 2018. Prepared By: -%1W Reviewed By: JqY0 Approved By: -T)2 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 6 Date: November 23, 2017 Item Description: Approval of 2018 Liquor Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, Agenda City Administrator's City Clerk Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the 2018 Liquor License Renewals. 2018 ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSE RENEWALS — APPLICANTS • Orono Public Golf Course 265 Orono Orchard Road South Orono, MN 55391 • O'Sullivans HolidayNoyageur Service Centers 2420 Shadywood Road Navarre, MN 55392 • Spring Hill Golf Club 725 County Road 6 Wayzata, MN 55391 • Wayzata Country Club 200 Wayzata Blvd. Wayzata, N1N 55391 • Wood & Associates Inc. DBA Navarre Liquors 3421 Shoreline Drive Navarre, MN 55392 • Woodhill Country Club, Inc. 200 Woodhill Road Orono, MN 55391 The 2018 Liquor License Applicants have submitted all the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the above listed liquor license renewals for 2018. Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: j1V AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 7 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: #17-3970, Paul Vogstrom o/b/o William & Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane, Variances — Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Consent Agenda Planner Section: Purpose. This application is regarding variances in order construct an addition to the existing home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on August 29,2017; and was considered as complete on September 27th. The 60 -Day review period was extended on October 19th for an additional 60 days; a decision must now be made by January 25, 2018. 3. Background. Applications were before the Planning Commission in October relating to a lot line adjustment and a number of improvements to the subject property and the adjacent property (2710 Pence Lane). Since that time the applicants have decided to withdraw their plans for 2710 Pence Lane and combine 2709 Walters Port Lane with 2710 Pence Lane in order to construct the desired addition to their home. The applications for the lot line rearrangement, and other variances for 2710 Pence have been formally withdrawn. At this time the applicants are requesting variances for lake setback, average lakeshore setback, and hardcover within the 75 -foot setback which support their proposed addition. The hot tub deck area will become enclosed and roofed and incorporated into the new addition within the 75 -foot setback. Because of the location of the existing home on the lot, the connection will be within the 75 -foot setback area resulting in 130 square feet of new structural and hardcover improvements within the 75 -foot setback where neither are permitted. An average lakeshore setback variance is also requested in order to construct the addition to the home. The existing home is situated entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; portions of the addition will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line established by the homes at 2707 Walters Port Lane and 2715 Pence Lane. 4. Planning Commission Comment. On October 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following the public hearing the Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion deny the variances. Primarily the Planning Commission's recommendation was based on the request, at that time, for new retaining walls and a driving path within the 75 -foot setback. The applicants have since withdrawn that portion of the request. Please refer to the Minutes from the Planning Commission meeting for the discussion. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the public were received regarding this application and were included as part of the planning commission packet. Prepared By: MOO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 5bV AGENDA ITEM 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the lake setback, average lakeshore setback and 75 -foot hardcover variances supporting the proposed addition. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Survey - Revised Exhibit C. Proposed Plans Exhibit D. PC Minutes Exhibit E. 60 -Day Extension Letter Exhibit F. Email to Hennepin County — Combination Request Exhibit G. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 10/16/17 Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit E. Proposed Landscape Plans Exhibit F. Proposed House Plans and Elevations Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Site Photos Exhibit J. Property Owners List & Map Prepared By: MOO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 5bV CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279 & 78-1680 FILE NO. 17-3970 WHEREAS, on August 29, 2017, William Dunkley and Susan Dunkley, a married couple, (hereinafter the "Applicants"), are the owners of 2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710 Pence Lane, legally described as: 2079 Walters Port Lane: Lot 4, Block 3, Walters Port, Hennepin County, Minnesota And 2710 Pence Lane: Lot 1, Block 1, Carman Bay Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter collectively the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono combine 2709 Walters Port and 2710 Pence Lane into one buildable lot through the Subdivision Exception process; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an addition to the existing home 57 feet from the OHWL where a 75 -foot setback is required, and entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback established by 2707 Walters Port and 2715 Pence Lane; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an addition to the existing home resulting in approximately 130 square feet of additional hardcover and structure within the 75 -foot setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of retaining walls and a driving path to the lake within the 75 -foot setback; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. WHEREAS, on October 16, 2017, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the variances primarily due to the fact that the original request included the retaining walls within the 75 -foot setback which has since been removed from the request; and WHEREAS, on November 27, 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 variances 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 #17-3970. 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. A request has been submitted by the City at the Applicants' request to Hennepin County to combine the two separately addressed properties into one tax ID resulting in the combined Property. This request does not create any new non -conformities and will be approved. The Variance analysis has been completed assuming the lots have been combined. 3. The Property is located in the LR -1 B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 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[s]: a. Lake Setback Variance b. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance c. 0-75 foot Hardcover Variance 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ANALYSIS: NO. "Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance ...." The existing home on the Property is situated entirely within the 75 -foot setback. The proposed addition by nature of the connection will encroach approximately 20 feet into the 75 -foot setback, the balance of the addition will be beyond the 75 -foot setback. The addition will be connected to the existing home in the location of the open hot tub deck area which will also become enclosed. Likewise the addition will encroach entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line based on the homes at 2707 Walters Port Lane and 2715 Pence Lane. The configuration of the Property and the adjacent properties functions like a peninsula. This criterion is met regarding the addition. 2. "Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan." The proposal to construct additions to the existing home in the most conforming manner possible is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This criterion is met. 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. The proposed addition will increase the bulk and massing on the Property which is already non -conforming. The location of the existing home and adjacent homes offer limited opportunity to construct additions to the Applicants' home without variances. This criterion is met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Property is configured as a peninsula creating an average lakeshore setback line which cuts through the Property. The house was constructed within the 75 - foot setback because the Property did not have the depth to construct a conforming home. This criterion is met. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. " The majority of the additions will be toward the rear of the Property; the visual massing of structure and additional hardcover within the 75 foot setback is minimal and will not alter the character of the locality, particularly when viewed from the lake. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 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 a residential home addition is an allowed use in the LR -1 B 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 2709 Walters Port Lane property is substandard with respect to area and width for the district, and is oriented similarly to a peninsula. The existing home is situated as close as 25 feet to the OHWL. These conditions are unique to the property. This criterion is met. 9. "The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located." The existing property where the house is located is substandard with respect to area and width for the district, and is oriented similarly to a peninsula. The existing home is situated as close as 25 feet to the OHWL. These conditions are unique to the property. This criterion is met. 10. "The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant." There are very limited areas where a conforming addition to the home can be constructed. The variances are necessary for the preservation of a property right of the Applicants. 11. "The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter." The intent of the zoning ordinance is to provide an opportunity for development and reinvestment in neighborhoods while reinforcing Orono's goals of lake and natural resource protection, while preserving the unique neighborhood character. The Applicants are proposing to construct additions to the home which are designed to limit the impact to the lake and the neighborhood. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 12. "The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty." There are no legal expansion opportunities for the Applicants to improve the existing home on this newly combined 4.57 acre Property. 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 an addition to the existing home 57 feet from the OHWL where a 75 -foot setback is required, and lakeward of the average lakeshore setback; and grants a variance to Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an addition to the existing home resulting in approximately 130 square feet of additional hardcover and structure within the 75 -foot 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 October 25, 2017 and building 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. Construction shall not commence until the lot combination for the Property has been received and processed by Hennepin County. 5. 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 the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 27, 2018). 6. 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 27th day of November 2017. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor r N NORTH ELEVATION l - - SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" 1 W Z Q J W U Z W n rr 0 n 00 rr W I- J Q ►: W N Q � co 0o N LAKE VIEW SOUTH ELEVATION SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" w z Q w U z W n rr 0 n !02 W N Q � " 17'-3 66' 0 FOUNDATION PLAN 1856 sq ft SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" m W Z J W U Z W n rr 0 0- 00 rr W Q !02 W N Q � SCALE SCALE 1/8" = 1'-0" W Z Q W U Z W n rr 0 n C) rr W I- J Q W N Q OIN MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Staff finds the requested variances to be reasonable and recommends approval contingent on submittal of an updated grading plan to ensure water will not be directed onto neighboring properties. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Scott Koppandraye, LDK Builders, stated their biggest concern was the curvature of the road in the front. The proposed house will sit further back. Thiesse asked if they plan to install stairs down to the lake. Koppandraye indicated there are none currently, and that if that should change at some point, they will reduce the driveway hardcover. Thiesse asked whether that should be addressed now. Oakden stated the applicants are not required to have lake access, but if they choose to add stairs at some point in the future, they should be aware that they are getting close to the hardcover limit. Thiesse asked if they will be meeting the 30 -foot height requirement. Koppandraye indicated they will be. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m. Thiesse stated there is a definite practical difficulty given the steepness of the lot. Landgrver moved, Leskinen seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. 17-3966, LDK Builders on behalf of Linda and Darrell Tamosuinas, 1525 Long Lake Boulevard, granting of a rear yard setback variance, lot area and lot width variances. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 2. #17-3947 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 209 WALTERS PORT LANE AND 210 PENCE LANE, VARIANCES, 6:39 P.M. — 8:14 P.M. 4. #17-3970 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, VARIANCES, 6:39 P.M. — 8:14 P.M. 5. #17-3971 PAUL VOGSTROM ON BEHALF OF WILLIAM AND SUE DUNKLEY, 2710 PENCE LANE, VARIANCES, 6:39 P.M. — 8:14 P.M. William and Sue Dunkley, Applicants, and Paul Vogstrom, Builder, were present. Curtis stated the applicants own two adjoining properties located at 2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710 Pence Lane. The applicants would like to move the common lot line between the two properties. The property line movement will help them accomplish their lot layout and property improvement goals. Page 2 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. In order to move forward, three separate applications have been made involving a number of variances. Tonight the applications will be reviewed together and the public hearings held together for purposes of efficiency. As proposed, the following variances have been identified supporting the administrative lot line adjustment: A lot width variance for 2710 Pence Lane, which is currently the larger lot. It will become the smaller lot of the two once the property line is relocated. 2. A variance from City Code Section 82-256 to permit creation of a second back lot. A variance from City Code Section 82-256 from the lot area requirements of a back lot. A back lot requires 150 percent of the district requirements. This lot just meets that requirement. 4. A variance from the requirement for back lot setbacks meeting 150 percent of the side yard setback standards for 2710 Pence. 5. A variance from City Code Section 18-136 which allows up to two residential lots to be served via a private driveway. This variance is triggered by the addition of the 2709 Walters Port property being addressed off of Pence. 6. A variance from the requirement that a 30 -foot wide back lot access outlot, or 50 -foot wide private road outlot (with a minimum of 24 feet in paved width) be created to serve the three lots. For 2709 Walters Port a variance is requested for the hardcover within the 75 -foot setback relating to structural improvements to the home as well as a lake setback variance and an average lakeshore setback variance for the structural improvements to the home, the retaining walls, and a drivable path within the 75 -foot setback needing a setback variance. The 75 -foot setback cuts the home off at the addition. The applicants are proposing to use the addition as a connection to the home. For 2710 Pence Lane, an average lakeshore setback variance for the new home is requested as the proposed home is about halfway through the average lakeshore setback. In addition, a lake setback variance is required for the proposed retaining walls and a drivable path within the 75 -foot setback. Staff provided individual practical difficulties analysis in each respective report. Curtis stated in the interests of time tonight, Staff will entertain discussion on specific criteria rather than review each specific criteria. Regarding the variance to facilitate the boundary line changes, out of 14 of the standards necessary for granting the variance, nine were not met and three were not applicable. Staff generally supports the reconfiguration of lot boundaries. However, the current proposal requires variances from City Code which potentially introduce long-term risks to protections required by the City Code. As a result, Staff cannot support this boundary line adjustment that is such a deviation from City standards. As proposed, Staff recommends denial of the application. As it relates to 2709 Walters Port, the preceding variance request to move the lot line lays the groundwork for the administrative lot line rearrangement and results in a proposed area for this property of 3.6 acres. Page 3 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Although they are gaining a significant amount of lot area, the property owners are proposing an addition which will triple the size of the home on the property, adding more structure and hardcover within the already burdened average setback and lake setback areas. They are proposing the connection in the most inconspicuous place possible, which will also avoid impact impacting the existing generator and mechanicals on the side of the home. However, the existing conditions do not necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances. In addition, the necessity for the work proposed within the 75 -foot setback area to install retaining walls and create a driving path for ATVs and lawn maintenance vehicles is partially self-created. The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were done without City permits. The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan, some of which may be addressed on the landscape plan. However, the proposed lakeshore retaining walls are not supported by a practical difficulty in the opinion of Staff. As it regards 2710 Pence Lane, the applicants' preceding variance request results in a restriction of the buildable envelope for the new home on the property as it is getting quite a bit smaller. As currently configured, the property had ample opportunity for a new residence to meet the required average lakeshore setback. The applicant is proposing a new home on the newly created lot which will increase the mass of the structure on the property within the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is also proposing to increase the mass on the east side, possibly further impacting the property owner to the east. The limited building area on the property after the lot line rearrangement results in the applicant creating existing conditions which do not necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances. In addition, the necessity for the work proposed within the 75 -foot setback area to install retaining walls and create a driving path is partially self-created. The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were done without City oversight. The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan. The Planning Commission should open a public hearing to address each of the specific applications, receive comments from the public and review them as necessary. Three separate motions should be made regarding the three separate applications. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Sue Dunkley, Applicant, stated they have lived at 2709 Walters Port since 1984. The adjoining property was purchased recently and discussions have been had with the City since May regarding the proposals. Dunkley noted they received an email at 6:32 p.m. Friday night that raised the back lot issue, which had never had come up before. Dunkley stated they do not have a variance request submitted for that because they were not aware of it but that they have attached information regarding all the other variance requests. Dunkley indicated she did speak with Melanie about the back lot earlier in the day. Dunkley stated their house sits on .56 acres, with the house being built in the 1950s. Dunkley commented the house is very sandwiched on the lot and that they were very excited about being able to purchase the other lot and bring their lot more into compliance. Dunkley stated when they started having discussions with Staff in May, they knew there were lots of questions and issues that would need to be addressed. Dunkley stated they knew they would be able to Page 4 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. handle the width of the road, and after meeting with all the neighbors, who expressed opposition to a 50 - foot wide road, they decided to propose a 16 -foot road width. Dunkley indicated they did meet with the fire department to discuss access to Walters Port and Pence Lane and as a result of the proposed improvements, access would be majorly improved. Currently Walters Port is a private road and Pence is a private driveway. Dunkley indicated they met between 15 and 20 times with the City and it never occurred to her when they closed on the property in August that there was not something that could be done. Dunkley stated the lot with their house on it would have three more acres added to it, bringing it up to 3.56 acres, and in order to do the improvements, they were going to sell a 140 -foot wide, one -acre lot. Dunkley stated they bought 4.02 acres and that their hope is that there is a way to make this work so they can have two beautiful homes. Altogether there is 320 feet of lakeshore. Dunkley noted they did offer to the Huelers a portion of the property at the price they purchased it for, which did not work out. As a result, the circular piece was moved closer to their current house in order to provide more privacy for the Huelers. Dunkley stated the Huelers have to travel approximately 600 feet over their land. Dunkley stated she is hopeful that with the four plus acres they now own, they will somehow be able to have two beautiful homes. Dunkley stated her husband injured his arm and hip in an accident in 1981 and that they would really like the drivable access to the lakeshore. Dunkley stated they would like to move forward with their applications and go before the City Council on Monday. Paul Vogstrom, Builder, stated they did look at a number of options with the lot and how to provide access to it which meet the code requirements of the City. Vogstrom stated in his opinion this is a perfect example of where a variance is needed due to the setting. Part of the process was to try and create a safe driveway as well as to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. As a result, two access points were created, one for Walters Port and the existing one for Pence, which will only be for emergency vehicle access. Vogstrom noted they did present this as a sketch plan last month. What changed from the sketch plan is that there used to be a turnaround more in the middle of the lot. Vogstrom indicated they are also trying to minimize the hardcover by removing the portion of Walters Port that goes into the Dunkley's home currently and instead have the circular area in front of the existing home. Vogstrom stated they are trying to maintain everyone's privacy between the lots as well as along the roadway. Vogstrom noted he also met with the fire chief and that they have incorporated two areas where cars can pass one another. Sue Dunkley stated there are two places to pass around another vehicle and that they would like to make the area more landscaped and better taken care of. Dunkley indicated they are willing to plant lots of trees. Vogstrom pointed out the two fire hydrants on the property. Vogstrom commented this property illustrates a perfect situation for a variance and that they are trying to meet the requirements for access by improving safety and allowing Walters Port to also have access. Page 5 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mark Howry, Landscape Designer, stated they worked with the Dunkleys and Staff at taking an overall comprehensive look at the lot and that it is a very difficult project due to the lot configuration. Howry noted four more items came up today that they were not aware of and that it is not a straight forward lot. Howry commented there is no other lot like this on Lake Minnetonka and that there are still some issues that will need to be worked through. Howry stated in their view they have done a great job at working with Staff and minimizing hardcover. The big issue was the second entrance for the emergency vehicles, which will be a locked gate and not a pass-through. Howry pointed out the existing walls along the lakeshore. Due to Bill's accident, they would like to plant switch backs so a vehicle can be driven down to the lake. Howry stated there is a property on Kelly that also has a switch back that was approved by the City. Howry indicated they will also plant vegetation to make the terraced area more natural. As it relates to the wetland area, work is being done in conjunction with Solutions Blue, a civil engineering company, and wetland delineations have been done. Howry noted they will be purchasing some wetland credits and making the pond bigger. As it relates to access, there will be the turnaround up top, which will improve the access and allow for better stormwater management and improve water runoff. In addition, a portion of Walters Port will be eliminated and turned into green space. Howry stated their plan is to add more evergreens for screening as well as deciduous and ornamental trees and making it more of a naturalized wetland. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m. Greg Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated they researched lake property for five years before purchasing their current home, and that what they found after working with the builders and architects was that there were a lot of restrictions along the lake that would prevent them from building the house they had originally envisioned. As a result, the plans for the house were altered and scaled down. When Pence Lane came on the market, a decision was made to purchase that property and sell the Kelly Avenue property because the Pence Lane property already had a house on it, had the necessary easements that protect their access, and is beautifully wooded. Kelly Hueler stated while they are new to Orono, their understanding is that all the residents live under the same City Code regardless of how long they have lived here. Hueler stated while the Dunkleys have lived here for a very long time and they would have loved to come to a compromise, they purchased the Pence Lane property for the privacy they had anticipated with a private drive with only two other homes in the area. Hueler indicated they went through quite an exercise when building their home to comply with as many of the regulations as possible and that they should have a reasonable right to expect that the City Code and regulations would continue to apply to other properties in the area. Hueler noted their easement is a recorded legal right. Hueler stated when they first found out about this project, they were very shocked and surprised, but they decided it would be in everyone's best interests to try to work with the Dunkleys and to try to communicate. Hueler stated they are quite familiar with real estate and the need for communication with the applicants and the City. Hueler stated they were shocked when they learned that there had been conversations with members of the City Council prior to them even being aware of this project. Hueler noted City Council Member Richard Crosby lives on Walters Port and that he and other families will benefit quite a bit with the changes to Walters Port. Page 6 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Hueler stated the fact of the matter is that on Pence Lane there is only one other property next to them, which could potentially be subdivided, but to say the variances being requested are justifiable is not accurate. Hueler noted they made repeated attempts to communicate with the Dunkleys as well as left a letter in their mailbox as a last ditch effort requesting a discussion about their continued concerns and received no response. Hueler indicated they then had to have their attorney write a letter, which was not a minor thing for homeowners who are not attorneys, and that they do not have the resources to deal with this type of a situation. Hueler stated it is a hardship to be engaging in this situation and that it is City's government's job to determine what is appropriate. Hueler stated they were unwilling to pay the lakeshore price the Dunkleys wanted for the lane and that they did not understand why the Dunkleys wanted them to pay for a lot that has no lakeshore access, no lakeshore view, and is not buildable at a price that included what the Dunkleys had paid for their lakeshore. Hueler indicated they had real estate people come out as well as appraisers to look at the land and that they told the Dunkleys they could not pay that much for the land. Hueler indicated they offered to buy a smaller section of the land, which was not acceptable to the Dunkleys, and that Mr. Dunkley told them the price was nonnegotiable. Greg Hueler stated Mr. Dunkley also said they would be paying for part of the retaining walls by the marsh and part of the driveway. When asked why they should pay for that, they were told it was nonnegotiable and communication ceased by the Dunkleys. Kelly Hueler stated they left on vacation over Labor Day and came home to a dramatically altered land. Hueler indicated they were not given any fair warning except for a demolition order for the home. Hueler stated when they arrived home, in their driveway was a large backhoe and a bobcat, with huge stumps and boulders pulled out of the lake area all the way down to the shore. Hueler indicated they called the City but someone had already called in and a stop work order had been issued. Hueler stated she could not get out of her driveway that morning to get to work and that the situation was very intimidating. Hueler stated the Dunkleys know they did not notify them about the work and that they are now in a situation where they are wondering how any project like this could get passed when citizens' rights are supposed to be equal. Hueler commented reasonable people can disagree but they need to follow the law and not thumb their noses at City ordinances and City Code. Hueler commented she is not sure what they are supposed to do as neighbors when they did what they did to the lakeshore. Greg Hueler stated their easement rights specifically state that 2710 and 2715 share the driveway and that additional homes cannot be added to that driveway without their cooperation. Hueler commented it is unfortunate they have to be here tonight. Kelly Hueler noted they did not say anything at the July meeting but that they tried to be neighborly and present a reasonable solution but they unfortunately have gotten nowhere. Thiesse asked if the easement document is still in flux. Greg Hueler indicated it is and that they do not expire. Kelly Hueler stated easements are legally recorded and are still in play. William Dunkley, Applicant, stated they did try to reach an agreement and that he offered the Huelers the land at the same price they paid for it. Dunkley stated while the Huelers were not purchasing lakeshore, they also were not buying marshland. Dunkley stated for the last month and a half their lawyers have Page 7 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. been contacting his lawyers, and when lawyers are talking back and forth, the neighbors are not talking. Dunkley stated the bottom line is that the Huelers have an easement to drive 600 feet on land he now owns and that they share the agreement for maintenance. Dunkley noted they will be making the driveway twice as wide and improving it and the Huelers do not have to pay for that. Dunkley commented all the Huelers have is a right to drive on the land and that he is not sure what the dispute is for them. Thiesse stated the easement allows them to be on the land. Dunkley stated that is undisputed and that the Huelers will always have that right. Dunkley stated it is their land and that they can make the driveway nicer and wider and relocate it. Dunkley noted he has two attorney opinions that support that. Dunkley stated if the Huelers have a legal issue, there are legal remedies and they can either commence an arbitration or sue, but that they will always have the easement. Dunkleys stated it is their land however. Schoenzeit asked if they are parking on it or blocking the Huelers' access in any way. William Dunkley stated one morning a company removing a tree blocked their way out and that he is not sure how that happened. Dunkley indicated he was not there at the time. Schoenzeit asked if the Dunkleys know they cannot block it long-term. Dunkley stated they are absolutely aware of that. Sue Dunkley noted when the driveway is paved, there will be an issue and that they will need to figure something out. William Dunkley stated that is why they proposed the road be 16 feet wide as opposed to 12 feet wide so cars can pass by each other. Dunkley stated they are proposing to make the road wider and safer and that they will be paying for it. Dunkley stated the Huelers have a permanent easement to use the driveway. Thiesse asked about the stop work order. Sue Dunkley stated the previous owners of the house had the right to remove anything from the house that they wanted prior to demolition. Dunkley indicated they did not touch the house and that the former owners removed a lot of stuff from the house. Curtis noted the work that occurred on the interior of the house happened prior to the demolition order was issued and that the stop work order was posted for the work within 75 feet of the lake. Mark Howry stated the tree removal company started removing boulders that were up against the back of the house and not near the water. The tree removal company then started removing buckthorn and a large concrete foundation. Sue Dunkley commented there used to be a boathouse down there. Howry stated once that was removed, they graded everything out and placed straw down. Page 8 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Leskinen asked if they were aware that a permit is required for any work along the lakeshore, such as tree removal and boulder removal. Sue Dunkley stated she is now. Howry stated they did not want them to do that and that they corrected it as fast as we could. William Dunkley stated they did not demo anything until after they got a permit. Schoenzeit stated they are not talking about the salvage of the items in the house but that they are speaking of the work within 75 feet of the lakeshore. Schoenzeit stated the landscape architect should have known better and that type of work is completely unacceptable. Schoenzeit stated it is important that any project in the future respect that no work is to be done in the 0-75 foot zone and that he wants to hear how that work will be undone. Schoenzeit stated he also sees as part of this project that the applicant has managed to get their dream property but that he would see if they can make the project work with the one lot. Schoenzeit stated the attempt to recoup their costs for the property appears to be pushing the project over the edge. Paul Vogstrom stated going back to the variances, they can do the project to conform with city codes, which means that they have to construct a 50 -foot wide road with a cul-de-sac. Vogstrom noted he had nothing to do with the work in the 0-75 foot zone and that he does not know why that happened. Vogstrom commented the project makes sense but that the neighbors would rather not have them meet code because it means they will have to construct a really wide driveway. Vogstrom indicated they are trying to propose something that makes sense for the whole neighborhood, the Huelers and the lake area, and that in his view this project does that. William Dunkley commented the other neighbors feel their project is fine. Vogstrom stated this project is a perfect example of why a variance is needed for the road. Vogstrom noted they are creating a new access to Walters Port, which will help the residents on that road. Vogstrom indicated they did have conversations with the neighbors prior to doing this project and that everybody is happy about it but that there is a disconnect between the Huelers and the Dunkleys. Thiesse noted there are a lot of variances that are being requested. Thiesse asked how many variances are being requested. Curtis noted the City does not require a 50 -foot paved road as part of the platting of an outlot for either a private road or an improved private driveway but that the City requires a 50 -foot easement. Curtis stated in a redevelopment like this, it might be appropriate for some type of variance, but that some of the other variances are not appropriate because they are in complete contradiction to the requirements of the City. It is Staff's belief that the applicants can work out a solution with the fire department to take the place of the cul-de-sac. Thiesse stated if they were not to access the existing house from Pence and kept it off of Walters Port, that variance would be eliminated. Page 9 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Vogstrom stated he would like to handle one variance at a time and that he would like to discuss why they are necessary. Sue Dunkley stated part of the problem was the entrance into Walters Port. Thiesse commented now that they own the land, they can bring it out and around. Vogstrom stated there is also the wetland and some other challenges. Sue Dunkley stated their hope was to come in through the nice gated area, which creates the need for a couple of variances. Greg Hueler stated a couple of the things said by the Dunkleys are not in full disclosure. Kelly Hueler stated they would like to stay with the facts, which is what the Planning Commission should deal with. Hueler noted they are the only home on Pence Lane and they are the only homeowners that are being impacted this way. The landowners on Walters Port are being provided benefits and that they can understand those benefits because they are reasonable people. Hueler stated it does not, however, give the Dunkleys the opportunity to harm or take away from the rights of another citizen because there is only one on the shared driveway. Hueler stated the easement is a relatively complex document and it speaks very clearly to several things. The one thing that has not been mentioned is the fact that the easement gives everyone an undivided interest in the entrance to Pence Lane off of Kelly Avenue. Hueler noted there are three homes that share that right but yet they were initially told by the Dunkleys that since they now own two of the homes, that takes precedence. Hueler stated they had to calmly tell the Dunkleys that that tactic won't work because it is an undivided interest and that it would be better to discuss it and come to a reasonable solution. Hueler commented they are the only house on Pence Lane and the only one impacted by this development in the way they are being impacted. Hueler noted the new home will be triple the size of the existing house but the new home next to it will significantly generate more traffic on the driveway and will impact her property. Hueler stated this project will impact them and it needs to be dealt with in a rational, reasonable way. Hueler stated to tell them that there is a nonnegotiable price was untenable to them and that they are not in a position to spend their resources like that. Greg Hueler stated they do not dispute that the Dunkleys own the property, but the dispute is that the easement actually requires all affected parties to agree on what happens to the driveway. Hueler noted the Dunkleys cannot legally widen it without their agreement. Kelly Hueler commented it is not as simple as the way it is being presented. William Dunkley stated that last statement by Greg Hueler is absolutely untrue. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 7:30 p.m. Thiesse asked if there is a specific reason why only one back lot is allowed. Page 10 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the back lot rule was created for properties that have the acreage to subdivide but not the frontage. In the situation of a back lot, the City would require a 30 -foot wide access lot be platted that provides access through the front lot to the back lot. Under City Code, the back lot area should be 150 percent of the zoning district requirement and the depth of the required street yard setback shall be 150 percent of the zoning district requirements. Thiesse asked if the second back lot would be alleviated if the existing home keeps their driveway on Walters Port. Curtis indicated it would because then the Hueler's lot would be the only back lot. Schoenzeit stated in his view the applicants need to bring back a revised plan. Curtis stated from Staff's standpoint, the issue with the application is the disregard for the access outlot creation and that a dedicated outlot is key in this scenario for the future. Curtis noted the Walters Port corridor is 20 feet wide and is smaller than some driveways in the City. If there is a way to plat a corridor that meets the guideline of the Council and the Planning Commission that will satisfy the access and the frontage requirements, that would go a long way to alleviating Staff's concerns. Curtis stated City Code requires a cul-de-sac if a private road is being created, but a variance can be granted to allow for alternate accommodations, and the applicant and the fire department have been working on that. Schoenzeit stated he is in favor of tabling the application and having the applicant bring back something clean because it is not the work of the Planning Commission to straighten out the application. Vogstrom noted there was a sketch plan review and everyone seemed to be on the same page at that time. Curtis noted there was a platted outlot on the sketch plan which has gone away. Vogstrom stated that can be put back on. Vogstrom stated he would prefer to discuss the variances rather than tabling it at this point. Schoenzeit noted Staff recommended denials on each application and that in his view it is kind of selfish on their part to be trying to get the Planning Commission to fix their incomplete application. Vogstrom stated there are a number of issues that have not been discussed at all. Schoenzeit stated the plan has gone backwards from the sketch plan. Vogstrom stated the reason for creating the outlot was that they were attempting to sell a piece to the Huelers and he did not know about the back lot variance until last week Friday. Vogstrom indicated he went over their applications a number of times with Staff and that he is very frustrated that they are not being able to be heard on the variances in front of the Planning Commission. Thiesse commented he has not seen an application with this many variances before. Schoenzeit suggested the applicant reduce the number of variances being requested. Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission needs to understand the project and why they are requesting the variances. Page 11 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission does understand the application and that variances are allowed when there is a practical difficulty. Thiesse indicated he is having a problem with the creation of a second back lot. Thiesse stated the first variance is a lot width variance for 2710 Pence. Curtis stated the applicants have indicated they could resolve the lot width variance. Schoenzeit noted when a new lot is being created, it should be conforming. Thiesse noted the second variance being requested is the creation of a second back lot and a third variance from the requirements of a back lot. Curtis indicated that is correct. Curtis stated it is a 1 -acre lot. Thiesse stated the fourth variance is from the 150 percent of the setback standards and that Item No. 5 is where the outlot would come in. Curtis stated in her view a lot of the variances build on each other and hinge on the access outlot or the private road. Curtis stated if they create a private road, it would become frontage and it would not be a back lot situation.. Thiesse asked if that is what was presented originally in the sketch plan. Curtis stated she does not believe they presented a 50 -foot wide corridor but they did present an outlot. Leskinen stated she has a concern about the easement, and the way she reads it is that it requires all parties to agree on any change or maintenance or repair of the driveway that are a part of the easement. Leskinen stated if the parties are not in agreement, it may be a nonissue. Thiesse stated if an outlot is created, the question is whether everybody will have access to it. Thiesse stated the easement will not work anymore because they will not be able to connect to the outlot. Vogstrom stated he is not sure since that issue just came up on Friday and they will need to address that. Sue Dunkley noted the easement covers the area before the gate and consists of around 100 -plus feet, which is before the gate. Dunkley stated anything inside the gate is their land and that the Huelers will need to travel 635 feet on their land. Dunkley noted Pence was a city road at some time. Thiesse stated the easement is a legal document that the Planning Commission will not be discussing. Sue Dunkley stated it is the 135 feet from the gate to Kelly and that it has nothing to do with the huge, long driveway coming in. Thiesse recommended someone submit something to the City stating that. Thiesse asked if the outlot needs to be near Pence. Curtis stated it does not and that the applicants could propose to move the driveway. Thiesse stated anything going to the outlot would need to be accessed by the Huelers. Page 12 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Sue Dunkley stated the Huelers will be able to access it and that they just moved the circle so the traffic would be away from the Huelers so they could keep their privacy. Dunkley indicated they can put the driveway back where it was. Lemke asked if the Planning Commission can approve some of the variances. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission can take them one at a time. Schoenzeit commented he has a problem with the rest of the variances where the first premise is wrong and that the applications should either be tabled or denied as presented. Thiesse stated he would like to discuss the applications further. Landgraver stated he is in agreement with what Chair Thiesse said. Curtis suggested the Planning Commission provide direction on each request because the applicant would like to move forward to the City Council. Thiesse stated he appreciates the work of the applicants but that they are requesting a number of variances to get to that point. Thiesse stated he is not inclined to accept a second back lot and their reduced percentages. Leskinen noted the property does not lend itself to meet the standards of a practical difficulty and because of that she cannot approve it. Schwingler indicated he is in agreement. Schoenzeit stated he is also in agreement. Lemke stated the application is somewhat incomplete and that he would love to see the proposal tidied up a little bit more. Landgraver stated if the back lot is denied, the question becomes what remains of the proposal. Landgraver stated he does not think it is appropriate for the Planning Commission to deny the applications outright and that perhaps they should table it. Landgraver stated he is in agreement with allowing Staff to do a lot line rearrangement. Schoenzeit moved, Landgraver seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3947, Paul Vogstrom on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710 Pence Lane, due to the second back lot variance requests, the lack of practical difficulties, and based on Staff's recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Thiesse noted the next application for discussion will be Application No. 17-3970. Thiesse asked if the addition was shown on the sketch plan. Curtis stated she does not recall if it was included but it was discussed at the sketch plan review. Thiesse asked if the addition extends into the average lakeshore setback or the 0-75 foot zone. Page 13 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated the whole house is within the average lakeshore setback. Sue Dunkley noted the whole house is also within the 0-75 foot zone. Schoenzeit stated the fact that the majority of the house is in front of the line is a practical difficulty. Thiesse commented the applicants could not meet those two setbacks even if they wanted to. Thiesse stated the next issue is the retaining walls in the 0-75 foot area. Thiesse commented the area appears to be relatively flat based on a photograph he has seen. Curtis illustrated the area where the retaining walls would be extended. Sue Dunkley pointed out that there are 11 stairs that go down currently. Leskinen stated someone's physical limitations are unfortunate but that she is not sure it rises to a practical difficulty inherent with the property itself to justify the continuation of the retaining walls. Thiesse asked if there is a way to install a ramp. Curtis indicated the applicants are allowed by code to construct a lift. Landgraver stated he does not recall granting a variance in the past to allow this kind of access. Curtis stated the situation on Kelly was a grandfathered situation where walls were repaired and there was an existing pathway that had been in place for quite a while. The homeowners had maintained that with their project. Landgraver asked if that was a fairly steep hill. Curtis indicated it was not and that it was an existing situation. Thiesse asked if the only reason the walls are necessary is due to the ramp. Mark Howry pointed out there is a 13 -foot grade change from the high point and that the Dunkleys do want to have handicap access. In addition, the property on Kelly Avenue is not even a half mile away and it does have a switch back, which is one reason why they proposed what they did. Howry stated he realizes there are a lot of variances going on but that they are requesting it because of the existing walls and that there is a precedent on Kelly for the switch back. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission cannot consider the Kelly Avenue situation because it was an existing condition that is being maintained. Thiesse stated this property already has a number of walls. Howry stated there is another switch back on Bohn's Point Road. Curtis noted the City did not approve the switch back and that they were repairing existing retaining walls. Page 14 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Thiesse commented it is a lot of wall already and that he would have difficulty with the switch back. Howry stated there are existing stairs there, but as far as reconfiguring the stairs, there is no way to get a ramp in there without reconfiguring some of the existing walls. Schwingler noted they would be adding more hardcover within the 0-75 foot zone. Landgraver commented he does not recall the City ever approving something like this and that he does not want to start now. Landgraver stated it appears the Planning Commission is okay with the average lakeshore setback variance and the average lakeshore setback variance but is against the hardcover variance. Schoenzeit stated he sees no compelling reason to add more hardcover in that area. Landgraver moved, Schoenzeit seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. 17-3970, Paul Vogstrom on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley, 2709 Walters Port Lane, based upon the request for a hardcover variance in the 0-75 foot zone. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Thiesse stated the Planning Commission will next discuss Application No. 17-3971, variances in order to construct a new home with a pool and construct shoreline retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake and average lakeshore setback. Thiesse stated he stood along the average setback line and then stood further back along the line and his view was not changed. Thiesse stated the house will just be further back from the lake. Leskinen asked whether the scope of the variances changes for the new building if the lot line rearrangement does not happen. Curtis indicated it would. Curtis stated if the lot line rearrangement does not happen, it would change everything being proposed. Curtis pointed out the current lot line and the proposed lot line. Curtis stated if they were to rebuild on the Pence Lane property in the same location, it would result in a narrower house as viewed from the lake. The home that was removed was a one-story rambler and what is being proposed is a two-story. Currently the lot consists of four acres and they would have ample conforming area to construct a new home on. Curtis stated the creation of the new lot line creates in part their practical difficulty because it does not allow them to move the house further back. Leskinen asked if the Planning Commission should just review this application without considering the lot line rearrangement. Curtis stated they should make a recommendation based on what is in front of the Planning Commission for this application. Schoenzeit noted the applicants would not get the variances if the lot line rearrangement does not happen. Page 15 of 32 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, October 16, 2017 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated they would be recommending approval of a plan for a lot that does not currently exist. If the Council denies the first application, the second two applications become moot. This application is requesting a structural setback variance in the 75 -foot zone for walls and not for the house. Schwingler stated in looking at it from the average lakeshore setback, it does not make sense and that it is contingent upon getting the lot lines moved. Schwingler stated he does not see a practical difficulty for the hardcover in the 0-75 foot zone. Thiesse asked what the allowance is for stairs for access to the lake. Curtis indicated the applicants are allowed access to the lakeshore via a stair and that typically the City has enforced the minimal building code stairway width. Thiesse commented the lot line rearrangement is causing a lot of the problems with the property. Lemke stated he does not see a practical difficulty for either one. Thiesse stated if the lot line was there already, there would be a practical difficulty. Lemke stated he would disagree and that the house could possibly be configured to fit on the lot. Schoenzeit commented these are pretty big lots but that they will not be able to get a big house in there. Leskinen stated the lot line creates the practical difficulty, which is the part she is having a problem with. Schoenzeit stated it is a self-inflicted practical difficulty. Vogstrom stated in order to put the house in front of the average lakeshore setback, it would be completely in front of both homes on each side and the back yard of the new home would be looking at the front of either home. Vogstrom stated that would not fit in with the character of the other homes on the lake. Vogstrom stated moving the new home further back than the existing home seems to make sense since it is on a point and that type of situation has been approved in the past. Lemke commented there are too many unknowns at this time. Landgraver stated he would like to see some further clarity on the application before approving. Schwingler stated the back lot issue needs to be cleared up. Rief stated in his view this should be tabled until it is determined what will happen with the back lot. Vogstrom stated he would agree with tabling it so they can get the back lot figured out. Leskinen moved, Landgraver seconded, to table Application No. 17-3971, Paul Vogstrom on behalf of William and Sue Dunkley, 2710 Pence Lane. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. (Recess taken from 8:14 p.m. — 8:20 p.m.) Page 16 of 32 CITY OF ORONO Street Address' Mailing Address: Telephone (952) 249-4600 el 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Fax (952) 249-4616 Orono, MN 55356 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 www.6.orono.mn.ws 19 October 2017 Paul Vogstrom 10231 Beebe Lake Rd Sent via EMAIL Hanover, MN 55341 RE: 60 -Day Extension for #17-3947, 17-3971, & 17-3971 On May 18, 2017, the City of Orono received your application for variances for properties at 2709 Walters Port Road and 2710 Pence Lane. Your applications were considered to be complete on September 27th resulting in an initial 60 -day City review period expiration of November 26th for each. The City hereby notifies you that we are extending the time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The review time period is extended until January 25, 2018 for all of the aforementioned applications. Further extensions must be at your request. Please reach out to me if you have any questions on this matter, 952.249.4627 or mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Melanie Curtis Planner Copies via email: William & Sue Dunkley Mark Hauri From: Melanie Curtis To:"RRES.PropertyIDandPlats@hen nepin.us" Cc: Jeremy Barnhart; "Sue Dunkley"; "Bill Dunkley - Dunkley & Bennett"; "yogstrom@gmail.com"; "Sandra Rapaport" Subject: Combination Request - Orono Date: Friday, November 03, 2017 9:54:00 AM Attachments: Citv COMBINATION REQUEST 2017.Ddf To whom it may concern: Please see that attached information regarding the combination request for the following PIDs: 21-117-23-23-0045 and 21-117-23-23-0051 Note, the aforementioned combined properties shall be addressed as: 2709 Walters Port Lane Please confirm receipt and provide verification of the combination to: City of Orono, Attn: Melanie Curtis 2750 Kelley Parkway Long Lake, MN 55356 mcurtis(cbci.orono.mn.us Thank you, Melanie Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtisa-ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us Date Application Received: 08/29/17 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/27/17 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/26/17 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner I'Y1GG Date: 16 October 2017 Subject: #17-3970, Paul Vogstrom o/b/o William & Sue Dunkley 2709 Walters Port Ln Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a 6,500 square foot addition to the existing home; and construct shoreline retaining walls. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends denial. Background The applicant has concurrent applications for variances in order to facilitate the movement of the common lot line between 2709 Walters Port Lane and 2710 Pence Lane. The Dunkleys currently own both properties; 2710 Pence Lane is intended to be sold to Eric Vogstrom for re -development. The analysis herein will assume the aforementioned lot line movement is approved. Lot details are based on the proposed lot dimensions as illustrated on plans attached as Exhibits D & E. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330, 78-1279, & 78-1640 - Setbacks: LR -1B District Required Existing Proposed Addition Rear/Street 30' 78' >400' North Side (Lakeshore 10' 45' No change portion) Southeast Side 10, ±7.5' 11.1' (Lakeshore portion) Wetland 35' >250' >200' Lakeshore 75' 1 ±25' 1 57' The entire existing home is within the average lakeshore setback. The proposed addition will encroach approximately 52 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Average Lakeshore For purposes of this application the average lakeshore setback is measured from the home at 2707 Walters Port Lane and the proposed home at 2710 Pence Lane (as the existing home was demolished). 2710 Pence is the subject of a variance for average lakeshore setback for a new home and also lake setback to permit retaining walls within 75 -feet of the OHWL. FILE # 17-3970 16 Oct 2017 Page 2of5 Section78- 330 - Lot Area/Width: LR -1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140' Actual 158,230 s.f. (3.6 acre) ±258' @ 75'±412' @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: As the subject property, after the lot line adjustment, will exceed 2.0 acres the structural coverage limit does not apply. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Although significant, the hardcover calculations have not been provided isolating the hardcover existing only within the 75 -foot setback area. Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 39,557 s.f. 8,610 s.f. 31,385 s.f. Tier 1 158,230 s.f. (25 %) (5.4%)* (19.8%)* *based on the after lot line arrangement lot area. Retaining wall HC has been excluded. Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback & Hardcover within 75 -foot Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The applicant is proposing to connect an approximate 6,500 square foot addition to the existing 3,800 square foot home in the location of the hot tub deck area. The hot tub deck area will become enclosed and roofed and incorporated into the new addition within the 75 -foot setback. Because of the location of the existing home on the lot, the connection will be within the 75 -foot setback area resulting in 130 square feet of new structural and hardcover improvements within the 75 -foot setback where neither are permitted. Additionally, the applicant is proposing installation of new retaining walls within the 75 -foot setback along the shoreline slope. They propose to construct new walls which should tie into the existing wall system on the property and create an open sloped switchback to provide access via a small ATV or lawn equipment. The walls are not listed as permitted structural encroachments within the shore setback zone therefore a variance is required. Access to the lake via motorized vehicles is not a right protected by the zoning ordinance. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct the addition to the home. The existing home is situated entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; portions of the addition will be approximately 52 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The existing hot tub deck area will also become enclosed and incorporated into the new addition. 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 FILE # 17-3970 16 Oct 2017 Page 3 of 5 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 existing home on the property is situated entirely within the shore setback (75 -foot setback). The proposed addition by nature of the connection will encroach somewhat into the 75 -foot setback, approximately a 20 foot encroachment, the balance of the addition will be beyond the 75 -foot setback. The addition will be connected to the existing home in the location of the open hot tub deck area which will become enclosed. This criterion is met regarding the addition. The variance requested to construct retaining walls is purely for convenience and aesthetic reasons; therefore this criterion is not met. The connection within the 75 -lake yard is necessary to avoid size limitations imposed on accessory structures, which are in part, to maintain a reasonable scale and character of Orono neighborhoods. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposal to construct additions to the existing home in the most conforming manner possible is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The proposed addition will increase the bulk and massing on the property which is already non -conforming. These improvements are within close proximity to the lake. The recent acquisition of land opens the property owners' possibilities for improvements which could conform to the code. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property owner built the existing home on the property. Their recent acquisition of adjacent land creates options for improvements which could conform to the code. Further, the owner recently removed vegetation and conducted grading within the 75 - foot lake yard in the area to be incorporated with their property. This activity was commenced without proper City permits and approvals. The request for retaining walls in this area to stabilize the slope was caused directly by the owners' actions. This criterion is not met; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual massing of structure and additional hardcover within the 75 foot setback will alter the character of the locality, particularly when viewed from the lake. 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 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 FILE # 17-3970 16 Oct 2017 Page 4 of 5 condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential addition 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 owners' recent acquisition of adjacent land provides relief for many of the existing limiting conditions on the property as the size of the property has increased significantly. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The 3.6 acre size of the property exceeds many of the adjacent properties in the neighborhood. 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. The owners have an existing home on the property demonstrating reasonable use. 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. The intent of the zoning ordinance is to provide an opportunity for development and reinvestment in neighborhoods while reinforcing Orono's goals of lake and natural resource protection, while preserving the unique neighborhood character. The proposed addition, and the prerequisite boundary line adjustment, is out of character with the neighborhood, and the lake yard variances are proposed to avoid a tenant of the Code intended to protect against uncharacteristic bulk and mass. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. It appears the purpose for granting the requested variances would be for the convenience to the applicants. 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 completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicant's preceding variance request on the October agenda (File #17-3947) which lays the groundwork for the administrative lot line rearrangement, results in proposed lot area for this property of 3.6 acres. According to Code, a pool of any size and one oversized accessory building up to 1,600 square feet can be constructed square. The proposed addition exceeds the accessory building limitation by 2,000+ square feet. Although they are gaining a significant amount of lot area, the property owners are proposing an addition which will triple the size of the home on the property; adding more structure and hardcover within the already burdened average setback and lake setback areas. They are proposing the connection in the most inconspicuous place possible, which will also avoid impacting the existing generator and mechanicals on the side of the home. However the existing conditions do not necessarily constitute a practical difficulty supporting the variances. Additionally, the necessity for the work proposed within the 75 -foot setback area to install retaining walls FILE # 17-3970 16 Oct 2017 Page 5 of 5 and create a driving path for ATVs is partially self-created. The tree removal on the lake slope and the grading were done without City permits. The applicant was directed to provide a detailed restoration plan, some of which may be addressed on the landscape plan, however the proposed lakeshore retaining walls are not supported by practical difficulty. Public Comments Comments were received primarily pertaining to and attached to File #17-3947. 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 The applicant has provided a practical difficulties analysis. Planning Commission should review the application and the submitted information and determine if there are practical difficulties supporting the average lakeshore setback, lake setback, and hardcover variances for the home addition and lakeshore improvements requested by the applicant. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit E. Proposed Landscape Plans Exhibit F. Proposed House Plans and Elevations Exhibit G. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Site Photos Exhibit J. Property Owners List & Map AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 8 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: Old Crystal Bay Road (CSAH 112-CSAH 6) Design Proposal Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Public Works Director/ Section: City Engineer Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval to commence design for Old Crystal Bay Road (OCB) between County Road 112 and County Road 6. 2. Background. For some time there have been concerns regarding the ability of OCB to handle the traffic associated with the Orono Public School operations. In particular, OCB and those roads that feed it suffer from heavy congestion during school drop off and pick up times. In 2010 the city conducted a traffic and safety study which was followed that same year by a feasibility study. However the construction project ultimately was not approved. In 2012 a 1.5 inch overlay was applied to this section of road. In 2016 the School performed a traffic study of the internal school facilities and the road corridor which confirmed many of the same issues the 2010 studies had identified. At the April 24, 2017 the work session the council directed staff to look at the road condition and congestion issues. On May 22nd staff presented some options to the City Council's School Committee and received guidance to proceed with requesting the county reconfigure the OCB-6 intersection to right in/ right out and to work toward a long term plan for the road with construction in 2018. In July Council authorized Bolton and Menk to complete a feasibility study of project. The feasibility study was completed and the city and school have held some initial meetings on moving the project forward. 3. Scope. The design work will consist of topographic surveying, preliminary design, and detail design for the reconstruction and reconfiguration of Old Crystal Bay Road between County Road 112 and County Road 6 and well as the replacement of associated water, sewer and storm water utilities. 4. Cost. a. Engineering Cost. Bolton and Menk has provided a scope of services for a total fee estimate of $247,500 (Exhibit A) for Design work though Project Award. The initial design work will be completed for a fee not to exceed $74,250. b. Project Cost. The table below contains a rough order of magnitude estimate. A more refined Engineers estimate will be prepared as part of the preliminary design process. Pavement and traffic improvements $ 1.6M -1.8M Stormwater $ 250K -300K Sewer Replacement $ 190K Water Replacement $ 210K TOTAL $ 2.25M -2.5M Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: -TV 5. Funding. The engineering as well and the eventual projects will be funded with a combination of Municipal State Aid and the respective utility funds. The project will require an MSA Advance which could provide up to approximately $1.3M. It is expected the School District will cost share any items required to support campus traffic operations such as turn lanes, intersections, signals and cross walks. Concurrent with the preliminary design process staff will draft a cooperative agreement outlining the cost sharing responsibilities. 6. Timing. Nov 27, 2017 Feasibility report presentation / Design Fee Approval Nov -Jan Coordination meetings with School/ preliminary design development January 22, 2018 Authorization to complete detailed design; Cooperative agreement approval April 2018 Solicit Bids Mayl4, 2018 Award Jun -Sep 2018 Construction of Phase 1 Jun -Sep 2019 Construction of Phase 2 COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Move to approve Bolton and Menk to commence design of the Old Crystal Bay Road for an estimated fee of $247,500. The initial design work will be completed for a fee not to exceed $74,250. Exhibits Exhibit A. Bolton and Menk Construction Proposal Exhibit B. Feasibility Study Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: C�BOLTON & MENK Real People. Real Solutions. November 21, 2017 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Old Crystal Bay Road — Project Development and Design Services Dear Adam: 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 Ph: (952) 448-8838 Fax: (952) 448-8805 Bolton-Menk.com As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for continued project development and design services associated with the proposed improvements on the Old Crystal Bay Road Corridor. Prosect Understanding As authorized, Bolton & Menk has completed its review of previous studies, has developed an understanding of existing traffic volumes and patterns, and has developed some general scenarios for traffic improvements that have been reviewed with both the City and the School District. Based on that work, it is our understanding that the City would like to continue to develop a project that will improve traffic flow on Old Crystal Bay Road, while working closely with the School District to ensure that the proposed improvements meet the needs of both the City and the School. In addition to traffic improvements, the project will also include the complete reconstruction of Old Crystal Bay Road between Wayzata Boulevard and County Road 6. Proposed Scope of Engineering Services To assist the City with this important project, Bolton & Menk proposes the following scope of services: Topographic SurveX — Bolton & Menk will document existing conditions within the right of way and will locate existing property corners. Photographs of existing conditions will also be taken. City /School Coordination — Bolton & Menk will facilitate three meetings with the City and School District in December and January to further establish the objectives and parameters for development of the project. Up to three intersection scenarios will be developed and reviewed to determine how they accommodate the school's future plans and how they address current traffic operational issues. It is anticipated that the public would be invited to the final meeting and will be given the chance to give input on the proposed improvements. Detailed Design and Permitting —Once the final scope of the project is defined and upon authorization, Bolton & Menk will prepare detailed plans and specifications for the project. This work will include ongoing coordination with the school district and completion of all necessary permit applications and Municipal State Aid submittals. Given the nature of the work and access needs during the school year, it is anticipated that as much construction work as possible will need to take place during summer recess. With that understanding, a project phasing plan that balances the need for efficient construction activities with the access needs of H:\0RN0\C13114606\1_Corres\C_To Others\OCB Project Development and Design Proposal.docx Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. Old Crystal Bay Road November 21, 2017 Page 2 the school will be developed. It is possible that the improvements will need to be completed in two phases starting in June of 2018 and finishing in September 2019. Bidding — Upon authorization, the project will be advertised for competitive bids. Bolton & Menk will administer the bidding process and will ultimately make recommendations to the City Council for awarding the project to the lowest responsible bidder. Fee Estimate At this time, it is difficult to prepare a not -to -exceed fee for the project because there are several design elements that remain undefined such as, urban versus rural drainage, the extent of utility work, traffic/access control, and the potential for added infrastructure to improve pedestrian safety. However, based on our understanding of the project, we anticipate that the engineering fees associated with the scope of work described above, will be approximately $247,500. To ensure that the project continues to move forward, we are requesting that the Council authorize 30% of the estimated fees (not -to -exceed $74,250) at its Council Meeting on November 27t1i. This will allow the scope of the project to be fully defined by facilitating the on-going coordination meetings with the City/School/public, completing a topographic survey of the project area, identifying intersection scenarios and traffic control, evaluating drainage needs, and establishing construction limits. It is our intent to provide a not -to -exceed fee for the remaining tasks prior to the City authorizing the preparation of final plans and specifications. As always, we will work as efficiently as possible to ensure that our fees are appropriate given the needs of the project and the City's expectations. Once a Construction Contract is awarded, Bolton & Menk will prepare a separate scope and estimate for construction phase services, which will include project observations and strategies to keep the public well informed of the project status and schedule. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. -t) -__Q -P IM& David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer H:\0RN0\C13114606\1_Corres\C_To Others\OCB Project Development and Design Proposal.docx Bolton & Menk is an equal opportunity employer. Q& MLENK Real People. Real Solutions. Traffic Study Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction City of Orono, MN Submitted by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. 2638 Shadow Lane Suite 200 Chaska, MN 55318-1172 P: 952-448-8838 F: 952-448-8805 Certification Traffic Study for Old Crystal Bay Road City of Orono, MN BM Project No.—T43.13114606 November 2, 2017 I hereby certify that this engineering document was prepared by me or under my direct personal supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 11/02/2017 Marcus H Januario Date License Number 46776 MY LICENSE RENEWAL DATE IS JUNE 30, 2018 Pages or sheets covered by this seal: Pages 1 to 23, Appendix A to H City of Orono Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Certification Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary.................................................................. II. Introduction............................................................................. III. Existing Conditions................................................................... IV. Data Collection and Forecast ................................................... V. Crash Analysis........................................................................... VI. Traffic Modeling....................................................................... VII. Alternative 2A.......................................................................... VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations ........................................ Appendix Appendix A: Existing Conditions: Project Area Overview Appendix B: Existing Conditions: Turning Volumes Appendix C: Alternative 1 Overview Appendix D: Alternative 1 Turning Volumes Appendix E: Alternative 2 Overiview Appendix F: Alternative 2 Turning Volumes Appendix G: Alternative 2A Overview Appendix H: Crash Rates and Patterns Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 .1 .1 .2 .3 .4 .S 19 23 Table of Contents I. Executive Summary Old Crystal Bay Road is experiencing heavy congestion during the school peak hours. Previous studies have indicated that the problem is worse during the High School and Middle School peak hours, when entering or leaving school traffic overflows onto Old Crystal Bay Road and onto 6t'' Avenue N. The queues of vehicles along Old Crystal Bay Road either block intersections or do not provide enough adequate space for vehicles leaving the schools to merge with main traffic. The first symptom of the problem is recurrent traffic congestion during school peak hours. Southbound queues form along Old Crystal Bay Road extending from the High and Middle Schools to CSAH 6 both eastbound and westbound. The second symptom was identified in the traffic circulation on both the Middle School and the High School campuses, where vehicles queue from pick-up/drop-off areas to the previous intersection. At the Middle School, the queue of vehicles winds through the student's parking lot, preventing vehicles from entering/leaving their parking stalls. The third symptom is traffic and pedestrian safety concerns. Vehicles entering the school driveways queue along the main road, not leaving enough space for vehicles leaving the campuses. Safety concerns also exist for students, especially High School students, who park their cars at the Middle School and need to cross Old Crystal Bay Road. These students have to cross the road amid either stopped or slow moving vehicles, creating unsafe situations. The symptoms listed above are the consequence of a bigger issue that is not easily identified but causes the traffic congestion, impacting the campus circulation and causing safety issues. This study aims to investigate the causes of those symptoms and identify solutions to either mitigate or eliminate them. Traffic models were initially prepared for two alternatives. Alternative 1 turns the two existing High School and Middle School intersections into right-in/right-out only and adds a signalized intersection between the two. Alternative 2 signalizes the two existing access intersections. The results of the analysis show that both alternatives succeed in improving traffic operations, campuses circulation and vehicles and pedestrian safety, with alternative 2 showing superior performance. However, as both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 primarily focus on Middle and High School improvements, a variation of Alternative 2 (Alternative 2A) was created to not only address campus issues, but the entire project study area. Alternative 2A, took into account intersection and movement priority, access management and corridor design alternatives, and safety and operational improvements along the entire study area. While each of the proposed roadway and intersection improvement alternatives provide some relief to traffic congestion during peak school periods, Bolton & Menk recommends the city engages with the school district on developing a short and long term access management plan for Old Crystal Bay Road. Based on traffic volumes and conflicts at the current access configuration, a more cost- effective solution may be attained for both the city and school district if collaborative planning occurs. II. Introduction Bolton & Menk was hired by the City of Orono to prepare a traffic study on Old Crystal Bay Road, from Wayzata Boulevard (CSAH 112) to 6t' Avenue N (CSAH 6). This section of Old Crystal Bay Road crosses the City School Campus and provides access to a Preschool, Elementary School, Intermediate School, a Middle School, and High School. The study area also crosses the School District Building, Orono Ice Arena, Lee Carlson Field (baseball and softball), Orono City Administration, and Orono Dental Care. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Executive Summary Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 1 Even though the study area includes 11 intersections from Wayzata Boulevard (CSAR 112) to 6tn Avenue N (CSAH 6), recommendations were preliminarily made to the intersections and roads serving either the Middle School or the High School, and to the intersection with CSAH 6. Improvements at other intersections were also recommended, as they are impacted by traffic at intersections at the High School and Middle School. Between the Middle School and High School and CSAH 6, there is an intersection that gives access to the Orono Ice Arena and to the Lee Carlson Field, located west and east of Old Crystal Bay Road, respectively. This intersection was not included in the study as the access roads are not used regularly throughout the day and the year. Immediately south of the Middle School and High School, there is an intersection that gives access to the High School Sports Complex and the OK Kids Preschool, located west and east of Old Crystal Bay Road, respectively. There are 6 other intersections between the High School Sports Complex and Wayzata Boulevard (CSAH 112) which that give access to the other facilities and businesses previously listed. The full list of the intersections included in the study area is as follows: 1. 6' Avenue N (CSAH 6) (hereafter Intersection 1) 2. Northern Middle School and High Schools Driveway (hereafter Intersection 2) 3. Southern Middle and High Schools Driveway (hereafter Intersection 3) 4. Tennis Courts Parking Driveway (hereafter Intersection 4) 5. Tennis Courts and OK Kids Preschool Driveway (hereafter Intersection 5) 6. Schumman Elementary School Driveway (hereafter Intersection 6) 7. Orono Community Education Driveway (hereafter Intersection 7) 8. Northern Orono Intermediate School Driveway (hereafter Intersection 8) 9. Southern Orono Intermediate School Driveway (hereafter Intersection 9) 10. Kelly Parkway (hereafter Intersection 10) 11. Wayzata Boulevard (CSAH 112) (hereafter Intersection 11) See Appendix A for an overview of the study area. [II. Existing Conditions The Middle School and High School access roads are primarily made via two access points, either north or south of the pick-up/drop-off area (Intersections 2 and 3). At the High School, the northern driveway (Intersection 2) is used as an entrance to the pick-up/drop-off area and the student parking lot, but is also used as both entrances and exits for school buses, faculty and staff, who park at the northern parking lot. The southern driveway (Intersection 3) is only for exiting vehicles, primarily from the drop-off area and student parking lot. The High School parking lot does not have enough parking stalls for all students, and, as a result, the Middle School parking lot across the street accommodates the overflow. At the Middle School, the northern driveway (Intersection 2) is used as an exit from the pick- up/drop-off area and student parking lot but is also used as both entrance and exit for school buses, faculty, and staff, who park at the northern parking lot. The southern driveway (Intersection 3) is used as an entrance to the pick-up/drop-off area and both entrance and exit to the student parking lot. School buses come either north or southbound on Old Crystal Bay Road and take Intersection 2 to access the High School northern parking lot to drop-off/pick the High School students. Following, they head back to Intersection 2 to cross Old Crystal Bay to drop-off/pick the Middle School students. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Existing Conditions Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 2 The first symptom of the problem is traffic congestion. The corridor experiences heavy recurrent congestion during the school peak hours. Queues form along Old Crystal Bay Road, the school access drives, and parking lots. The southbound queues extend north from Intersection 3 up until CSAH 6 and also along that road for both westbound and eastbound vehicles turning south on Old Crystal Bay Road, causing operational concerns. The second symptom was identified in the traffic circulation at both the Middle School and the High School campuses. Vehicles heading to the High School pick-up/drop-off area enter the campus via Intersection 2 and leave via Intersection 3. Exiting vehicles at Intersection 3 queue all the way to the pick-up/drop-off area, as the queues of vehicles entering both the High and Middle schools do not leave enough spaces on Old Crystal Bay Road for them to merge with the north - south traffic. At the Middle School, vehicles heading to the pick-up/drop-off area, enter the campus via Intersection 3 and leave via Intersection 2. Queues extend from the pick-up/drop-off area to Intersection 3 and Old Crystal Bay Road, both south and northbound. The queue of vehicles wind through the student parking lot, preventing vehicles from entering/leaving their parking stalls. The queue of vehicles also overrides on Old Crystal Bay Road, not leaving enough spaces for exiting vehicles to merge onto the north -south traffic. The third symptom is the safety concerns observed for both vehicles and pedestrians. Safety concerns were identified at several intersections along Old Crystal Bay Road, where vehicles entering the school driveways queue along the main road, or inside the individual school's driveways and parking lots. The problem is however worse at Intersections 2 and 3, where there is a conflict between north and southbound left turning vehicles, whose queues are long enough to interfere with each other. Safety concerns also exist for students, especially High School students, who park their cars at the Middle School and need to cross Old Crystal Bay Road. Those students have to cross Old Crystal Bay Road either by Intersection 2 or Intersection 3 amid either stopped or slow moving vehicles, creating unsafety situations. Since these two intersections are over 500 feet apart and the Middle School parking lot is located between them, the preferred crossing point would be in between these two intersections, although the only assigned crossing paths are located at Intersections 2 and 3. The symptoms listed above are the consequence of a bigger issue that is not easily identified but causes the traffic congestion, impacting the campus circulation and causing safety issues. IV. Data Collection and Forecast No data collection was conducted; instead, existing turning movement counts collected by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. on May 19, 2016 were utilized, which saved time, the client's money, and additional unnecessary effort. Since the traffic is predominantly school -related, no update to 2017 was required, assuming that both the number of school parking spots, facility sizes, and number of employees have not significantly changed to justify a new data collection. See Appendix B for the existing turning volumes. The raw data on turning movement counts collected by SRF Consulting Group, Inc. was provided by the City of Orono. Data on cars and trucks were collected in 1 -minute intervals, which were consolidated in 15 -minute intervals for the Peak Hour Factor (PHF) calculations. However, neither north nor southbound thru movements were available at some of the intersections. For those intersections, PHFs were approximated based on the intersection for which PHFs were available. Likewise, truck percentages were calculated for the approaches for which turning movement counts were available. Wherever data was missing, the truck percentage was approximated based on adjacent intersections where that value was available. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Data Collection and Forecast Page 3 The previous study prepared by SRF found two morning and two afternoon peak hours, where the earlier peaks were related to the Middle School and High School, and the later peaks were related to the Intermediate and Elementary schools. This study focuses on the intersections that give access to either the Middle School or High School. The remaining intersections received recommendations, whenever needed, based on the existing peak hour study and to minimize the impact of recommendations made for another intersections. Accordingly, only the earlier AM and PM peak hours were analyzed. V. Crash Analysis A crash analysis was completed for the study area (from CSAH 112 to CSAH 6) from 2013 to 2015 using data obtained from the Minnesota Crash Mapping Analysis Tool (MnCMAT). Over this period of time, 3 crashes were reported at CSAH 112 & Old Crystal Bay Rd, 2 crashes were reported at Kelley Pkwy & Old Crystal Bay Rd, 1 crash was reported at Lee Carlson Field & Old Crystal Bay Rd, and 2 crashes were reported at CSAH 6 & Old Crystal Bay Rd. Appendix H contains the crash rates and patterns for the study area. The summary of crashes by type follows. • CSAH 112 & Old Crystal Bay Road o 2 out 3 crashes were classified as rear end crashes. o 1 crashes was involving collision with deer. • Kelley Pkwy & Old Crystal Bay Road o 1 crash was classified as ran off road due to snow. o 1 crash was classified as right angle. • Lee Carlson Field & Old Crystal Bay Road o 1 crash was classified as left turn into traffic. • CSAH 6 & Old Crystal Bay Road o 1 crash was classified as rear end due to westbound left turn. o 1 crash was classified as ran off road. The crash rates for all intersections were calculated using MnDOT's intersection green sheets. An observed crash/severity critical index over one indicates that the intersection operated outside the expected, normal range for similar intersections statewide. • CSAH 112 & Old Crystal Bay Road o The observed crash rate was 0.29 crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV), resulting in a critical crash index of 0.3, which is within the normal range. Neither fatal nor serious injury crashes were observed. • Kelley Pkwy & Old Crystal Bay Road o The observed crash rate was 0.52 crashes per MEV, resulting in a critical crash index of 0.49. The observed crash rate was higher than the statewide average, but below the critical rate. Neither fatal nor serious injury crashes were observed. • Lee Carlson Field & Old Crystal Bay Road o The observed crash rate was 0.35 crashes per MEV, resulting in a critical crash index of 0.29. The observed crash rate was higher than the statewide average, but below the critical rate. Neither fatal nor serious injury crashes were observed. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Crash Analysis Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 4 • CSAH 6 & Old Crystal Bay Road o The observed crash rate was 0.31 crashes per MEV, resulting in a critical crash index of 0.36. The observed crash rate was higher than the statewide average, but below the critical rate. Neither fatal nor serious injury were observed. Vl. Traffic Modeling The traffic operations analysis for the intersections consider the following measures to determine the adequacy of the intersection design to meet acceptable operations: intersection Level of Service (LOS), Delay, and Volume -to -Capacity ratios (V/Q. An explanation of each of these measures is provided below: LEVEL OF SERVICE AND DELAY The operational analysis results are described as a Level of Service (LOS) ranging from A to F. These letters serve to describe a range of operating conditions for different types of facilities. LOS's are calculated based on the 2010 Highway Capacity Manual, which defines the LOS based on Control Delay and on V/C. Control Delay is the delay experienced by vehicles slowing down as they are approaching the intersection, the wait time at the intersection, and the time for the vehicle to speed up through the intersection and enter into the traffic stream. The average intersection Control Delay is a volume weighted average of delay experienced by all motorists entering the intersection on all intersection approaches. The Control Delay may be modeled within the analysis software, Trafficware Synchro/Simtraffic. Level of Service D is commonly taken as an acceptable design year LOS. The level of service and its associated intersection delays for signalized and unsignalized intersections are presented below. The delay threshold for unsignalized intersections is lower for each LOS compared to signalized intersections, which accounts for the fact that people expect a higher level of service when at a stop -controlled intersection. Table 1: Level of Service Criteria In this study, queue lengths were also used to evaluate operational performance and improvement necessary to bring their length to acceptable ranges. SCENARIOS ANALYZED Three scenarios were initially defined to be analyzed, as follows: Existing Conditions This scenario is the existing conditions (control, traffic, and geometry). See Appendix A for the existing configuration and Appendix B for traffic volumes. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 5 Signalized Intersections Unsignalized All Intersections Intersections LOS Control Delay per Vehicle (sec.) Control Delay per V/C Ratio Vehicle (sec.) A <10 <10 <1.0 B >10 and <_ 20 >10 and <_ 15 <1.0 C >20 and <_ 35 >15 and <_ 25 <1.0 D >35 and <_ 55 >25 and <_ 35 <1.0 E >55 and <_ 80 >35 and <_ 50 <1.0 F >80 >50 >1.0 In this study, queue lengths were also used to evaluate operational performance and improvement necessary to bring their length to acceptable ranges. SCENARIOS ANALYZED Three scenarios were initially defined to be analyzed, as follows: Existing Conditions This scenario is the existing conditions (control, traffic, and geometry). See Appendix A for the existing configuration and Appendix B for traffic volumes. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 5 Alternative 1 In this scenario, the existing northern and southern access intersections to the Middle School and High Schools (Intersections 2 and 3) will operate as right-in/right-out only. A new intersection is being proposed between the two driveways to the Middle School and High School (hereafter Intersection 20). Intersection 20 will be signalized and will operate as a full intersection with all movements allowed. During off-peak hours when traffic is significantly low, the signal will operate with a phasing that will prioritize the north -south movement over the east -west movement. Internal modifications to both Middle School and High School campus circulation are proposed to comply with the intersections' lane configurations. Specifically, an entrance to and exit from the High School student parking lot may occur through Intersections 2, 3, and 20. The entrance to the High School drop-off/pick-up area may occur though Intersections 2 and 20 only but exit may occur through Intersections 2, 3, and 20. See Exhibit I for campus circulation illustration. At the Middle School, entrance to and exit from the student parking lots may occur through Intersections 2, 3, and 20. Drop-off area may be accessed through driveways 3 and 20 but exit may occur through Intersections 2 and 20. At both schools, any exit that requires a left turn movement at Old Crystal Bay Road will be allowed only at Intersection 20. These proposed changes will reduce the number of movements allowed on both Intersections 2 and 3, where all left turning movements will be prohibited. As a result, the number of conflicting points will drop to only two merging and two diverging points, improving safety. At the same time, operations will improve, as there will be little need for space to enter the traffic flow. Internally, south entrance to/exit from the Middle School parking lot for students will be reduced to one, which will preclude the queue of vehicles to extend through it. Also, a multi -use path will be built, connecting the two schools and providing safety for students, faculty, employees, and parents who need to cross from one school to the other. Beacons will be installed on both directions, which will be coordinated with the traffic signals both north and south of the crossing. The construction of this multi -use path will require the removal of a few parking stalls; however, both student parking lots are proposed to be extended to the south to add more parking spaces, which will outnumber the number of spaces lost. Additional turning lanes or extension of existing lanes are proposed wherever the analysis indicates the need and space is available to accommodate these changes. Existing turning movements and traffic circulation on both Middle School and High School campuses were re-evaluated and rerouted as needed to meet the new intersections and driveways geometry. See Appendix C for the proposed lane configurations, traffic circulation, and Appendix D for the respective rerouted traffic volumes. Alternative 2 In this scenario, Intersections 2 and 3 operate as full intersections, allowing all movements. Accordingly, these intersections will be signalized to increase performance and improve traffic flow. These intersections will operate with timings during peak hours only. During off- peak hours, when traffic is significantly low, the signals will operate with a phasing that will prioritize the north -south movement over the east -west movement. Internal modifications to both the Middle School and High School campuses' circulation are proposed to comply with the intersections' lane configurations. Specifically, the High School student parking lot entrance and exit may occur through Intersections 2 and 3. Entrance to Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 6 Exhibit 1- Campus Circulation - Alternatives 1 & 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 ORONO HIGH SCHOOL F> Z7==) Fu 7 .1 s ig ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL BOLTON & MENK OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD ALTERNATIVES CIRCULATIONS ORONO HIGH SCHOOL - ALTERNATIVE 2 MOTU oil e ql• aso L > LAYOUT LEGEND < TO SCHOOLS FROM SCHOOLS High School drop-off/pick-up area may occur though Intersection 2 only and exit may occur through Intersection 3 only. See Exhibit 1 for campus circulation illustration. At the Middle School, student parking lot entrance and exit may occur through Intersections 2 and 3. Entrance to drop-off/pick-up area may be done through Intersection 3 only, and exit may occur through Intersection 2 only. These proposed changes will increase the number of movements allowed on both Intersections 2 and 3, but the signalization will improve both safety and operations. Internally, south entrance to/exit from the Middle School parking lot for students will be reduced to one, which will preclude the queue of vehicles to extend through it. Also, a multi -use path will be built, connecting the two schools and providing safety for students, faculty, employees, and parents who need to cross from one school to the other. This multi -use path will cross Old Crystal Bay Road where HAWK beacons will be installed. As an alternative, the path may pass under Old Crystal Bay Road, offering additional safety. The construction of this multi -use path may require the removal of a few parking stalls. However, both student parking lots are proposed to be extended to the south to add more parking spaces, which will outnumber the number of spaces lost. Additional turning lanes or extension of existing ones are proposed wherever the analysis indicates the need and there is available space to accommodate these changes. Existing turning movements and traffic circulation on both Middle and High School campuses were re-evaluated and rerouted as needed to meet new intersection and driveway geometry. See Appendix E for the proposed lane configurations, traffic circulation, and Appendix F for the respective rerouted traffic volumes. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS The AM and PM peak hours LOS and queuing tabulations for all three scenarios can be found in Tables 1-6. In those tables, LOS that are below the acceptable threshold and queues that exceed the available space are highlighted. Existing Conditions Through the evaluation of the elements provided by the existing conditions analysis, the four main issues that were causing the problems of traffic congestion, impacting the campus circulation and causing safety issues, were identified as follows: 1. Northbound traffic to the High School and southbound traffic to the Middle School queue and overlap on Old Crystal Bay Road. As they move slowly, they leave little space for vehicles leaving both schools to merge with the north -south traffic. 2. Unable to find space to merge with the north -south traffic on Old Crystal Bay Road traffic, vehicles exiting both the High and the Middle schools start queueing on the school's roads, eventually interfering with the drop-off/pick-up area. 3. After picking -up or dropping -off students, drivers are unable to move forward or are able to move slowly only, because of the queue of vehicles extending from Intersections 2 and 3 up to the pick-up/drop-off area. As a result, these vehicles start queueing up to the entrance intersections (Intersections 2 or 3) or even beyond, along Old Crystal Bay Road. 4. High School students who park their cars at the Middle School parking lot have to negotiate their crossing on Old Crystal Bay Road amid stopped or slow moving vehicles, creating unsafe conditions. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 7 Table 1 - Existing Conditions - AM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 8 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 18 34 29 15 83 31 1 LOS C D D C F D Queue (ft.) Average 100 225 75 75 150 95th 550 275 275 175 375 - Delay (sec.) 10 4 14 10 10 45 51 57 96 97 131 72 LOS B A B B B E E E F F F F 2 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 75 75 75 150 150 150 450 450 450 95th 50 1 50 1 50 125 1 125 125 1 400 1 400 400 1 950 950 1 950 Delay (sec.) - 21 15 - 25 32 - - 39 29 29 LOS - C C D E - E D D 3 Queue (ft.) Average 25 75 75 125 125 150 150 95th 50 125 125 250 250 325 325 Delay (sec.) 5 21 15 4 9 - - 1 1 7 LOS A C C A A A A A 4 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 50 50 0 0 95th 125 1 125 125 125 1 125 25 1 25 Delay (sec.) 23 10 6 4 2 8 8 2 0 0 4 LOS C B A A A A A A A A A 5 QueueAverage (ft.) 50 50 50 50 75 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 100 12 125 125 25 75 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) - 4 4 2 - - - - 0 0 1 LOS A A A I A A A 6 Queue (ft.) Average 25 50 50 95th 25 100 100 - Delay (sec.) 53 4 5 2 0 0 2 LOS F A A A A A A 7 QueueAverage (ft.) 25 75 25 25 95th 50 125 1 50 50 - Delay (sec.) - - - 1 0 0 1 LOS A A A A 8 Queue (ft.) Average 25 95th 50 Delay (sec.) 5 1 0 1 LOS A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 95th 25 25 50 - Delay (sec.) 6 - 5 3 2 17 10 10 4 1 0 3 LOS A A A A C B B A A A A 10 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 25 95th 25 25 1 25 25 1 75 75 75 50 50 50 Delay (sec.) 78 15 2 28 54 11 47 16 8 39 15 4 28 LOS E B A C D B D B A D B A C 11 Queue (ft.) Average 100 125 25 50 50 50 25 25 50 25 25 25 95th 225 275 25 100 100 100 75 75 1 100 50 50 50 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 8 Table 2 - Existing Conditions - PM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 9 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 1 0 10 6 2 1 3 1 LOS A A B A A A A Queue (ft.) Average 0 25 50 50 25 0 95th 0 25 100 100 50 0 - Delay (sec.) 12 31 17 13 13 13 20 - 16 171 128 21 LOS B D C B B B C C F F C 2 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 100 100 100 50 50 125 125 95th 100 100 1 100 175 1 175 175 1 75 75 250 250 Delay (sec.) 8 25 26 - 22 9 38 32 - 1 1 58 LOS A D D C A E D - A A F 3 Queue (ft.) Average 25 75 75 75 50 100 100 250 250 95th 75 125 125 150 100 225 225 575 575 Delay (sec.) - 5 - 4 1 - - - - 1 1 1 LOS A A A A A A 4 QueueAverage (ft.) 50 25 25 25 25 95th 100 75 75 25 25 Delay (sec.) 10 20 8 3 1 0 7 3 2 0 0 2 LOS B C A A A A A A A A A A 5 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 100 100 50 50 50 1 50 50 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) 11 - 6 3 0 - - - - 0 0 1 LOS B A A A A A A 6 QueueAverage (ft.) 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 50 50 25 25 Delay (sec.) 6 5 3 0 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 7 Queue (ft.) Average 25 0 25 25 25 25 95th 50 0 50 50 25 25 Delay (sec.) - - 3 0 1 0 1 LOS A A A A A 8 QueueAverage (ft.) 25 25 25 25 95th 50 50 50 50 Delay (sec.) 11 6 - 0 2 - 1 LOS B A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 95th 25 50 50 75 Delay (sec.) 19 23 12 5 1 1 12 8 5 3 2 1 A LOS C C B A A A B B A A A A A 10 QueueAverage (ft.) 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 75 75 75 Delay (sec.) 50 13 1 31 44 6 49 14 4 46 26 6 24 LOS D B A C D A D B A D C A C 11 QueueAverage (ft.) 50 50 0 25 75 50 50 50 25 125 125 50 95th 75 100 25 25 125 50 100 125 75 200 275 125 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 9 The previous descriptions lead to the conclusion that those problems are interconnected as in a loop. As these conditions worsen, traffic conditions will continue to deteriorate, with a change of traffic gridlocks, in the future. See Exhibit 2 for locations with heavy turning volumes. The existing conditions model indicates the presence of high delays, V/C and consequently low LOS at certain intersections but especially at Intersections 2 and 3. Specifically, LOS is below the threshold (LOS D) during the AM peak hour at Intersection 1 (westbound left), Intersection 2 (southbound left, through and right, westbound left through and right), Intersection 3 (northbound right and southbound left), Intersection 7 (eastbound left), and Intersection 11 (eastbound left). In the PM peak hour, LOS is below the threshold value at Intersection 2 (southbound through and left), and Intersection 3 (westbound left). Queues form along Old Crystal Bay Road, the school access drives, and parking lots. The southbound queues extend north from Intersection 3 up until CSAH 6 and also along that road for both westbound and eastbound vehicles turning south on Old Crystal Bay Road, causing operational concerns. Specifically, queues extend beyond the available storage at Intersection 1 (eastbound right, westbound left, and northbound left), and Intersection 2 (westbound left, through and right, southbound left, through and right). See Exhibit 3 for the queues graphic representation. Alternative 1 Alternative 1 offers a significant improvement over the existing conditions, with LOS either at or above the threshold (LOS D) during both the AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, including the new proposed Intersection 20. In relation to queues, Alternative 1 also represents a significant improvement over the Existing Conditions, where almost all queues are under the 95' percentile and all are under the average length during both the AM and PM peak hours. The only queues that will extend beyond proposed storage length occur at Intersection 20 (eastbound through and right, and westbound left) in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, queues exceed proposed storage length at Intersection 20 (eastbound left and westbound left). In all these cases, the queues exceed the available storage by one (25 feet) or two (50 feet) vehicles. Additionally, the excess length will happen inside the schools campuses where they are expected to split in two or three lines. Therefore, the excess queues can be considered insignificant. See Exhibit 4 for the queues graphic representation. School campus circulation will also improve in Alternative 1, because vehicles will have more options to enter and leave both schools. As a result, queue of vehicles heading to/coming from the pick-up/drop-off area will split among the entering/exiting options available and the chances to override onto Old Crystal Bay Road will significantly decrease. The results of the queue lengths indicate that the queues of exiting vehicles will not extend onto the pick-up/drop-off area. Therefore, the queue of vehicles at the drop-off area will be able to move faster. The queues from the drop-off/pick-up areas may override onto Old Crystal Bay Road, but they will be much shorter and can be accommodated in the turning lanes being proposed. As Intersections 2 and 3 will operate as right-in/right-out only, the risk of having northbound left and southbound left queues overlap on Old Crystal Bay Road was eliminated. Also, the risk of vehicles accepting inadequate merging spaces was eliminated, as the only left turning movements from the High and Middle schools onto Old Crystal Bay Road will be via Intersection 20, which is signalized. Pedestrian safety will improve with the construction of the multi -use path. Safety crossing Old Crystal Bay Road will be improved with pedestrian phases at Intersection 20. Vehicle safety will improve with reduced conflict points and a signalized intersection. Conflict between vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrian will be significantly reduced. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 10 -101 7:00-8:00 A.M. HEAVY TURNING MOVEMENTS M- SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17277 ORONO HIGH SCHOOL I� ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL ORONO CITY ADMINISTRATION OK KIDS PRESCHOOL ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL QMW ORONO ICE ARENA x V BOLTON & M ENK OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY PEAK TURNING MOVEMENTS 2:30-3:30 P.M. HEAVY TURNING MOVEMENTS SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORONO HIGH SCHOOL ORONO ICE ARENA io x ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL Q N V ORONO CITY ADMINISTRATION OK KIDS PRESCHOOL LAYOUT LEGEND N �► 50 - 75 Turning Movements V ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL 75 - 125 Turning Movements 125+ Turning Movements Exhibit 3 - Queue Lengths - Existing Conditions BOLTON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY EXISTING ISSUES & MENK 1 1 ' 1 �r 1 1 J! IMM!9 ,1 fIM/11 1 1 T 1 7� ORONO HIGH SCHOOL ' 1 'I.owl iti J4 �+ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 . -_________ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 1 1 Z 1 1 ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL BOLTON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY EXISTING ISSUES & MENK Exhibit 4 - Queues Lengths - Alternative Scenarios 1 & 2 ALTERNATIVE 1 &-mj ORONO HIGH SCHOOL 1 .j s ig ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL BOLTON N OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVES QUEUES & MEN TWN ALTERNATIVE 2 soil � • r �y��� IM •N�j LAYOUT LEGEND AVERAGE QUEUES MAX QUEUES ORONO HIGH SCHOOL 1 1 �t y1NIN 1 1 .�•1 nbN►'Mx -1 N 5•�+y11-A311M1�g.i1Ni� 1 1 AW ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL i ,�I _ a V Table 3 — Alternative 1 - AM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 11 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 4 2 28 20 11 0 7 1 LOS A A D C B A A Queue (ft.) Average 0 25 75 75 75 0 95th 25 75 125 125 125 0 - Delay (sec.) - 5 - 2 1 - - 3 1 2 2 LOS A A A A A A A 2 Queue (ft.) Average 25 0 25 50 0 25 95th 25 0 25 75 0 50 Delay (sec.) 3 1 1 - 2 1 LOS A A A A A 3 Queue (ft.) Average 50 0 25 0 95th 75 0 75 25 - Delay (sec.) 7 5 2 0 - 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 4 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 25 25 0 0 Delay (sec.) 7 5 3 1 0 9 4 3 0 0 2 LOS A A A A A A A A A A A 5 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 50 25 25 25 95th 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) - 4 4 1 0 - - - 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 6 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 0 0 0 95th 25 75 75 0 0 0 Delay (sec.) 26 4 4 1 - 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 7 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 50 50 0 0 95th 25 25 100 100 25 25 Delay (sec.) - - - 0 0 - 0 LOS A A A 8 Queue (ft.) Average 25 0 95th 25 0 - Delay (sec.) 4 0 0 0 LOS A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 95th 25 25 25 - Delay (sec.) 8 - 4 2 1 9 11 8 5 1 0 2 LOS A - A A A A B A A A A A 10 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 25 25 25 95th 25 1 25 25 75 75 75 50 50 10 50 50 50 Delay (sec.) 21 1 20 2 15 27 7 34 22 7 27 7 3 18 LOS C C A B C A C C A C A A B 11 Queue (ft.) Average 50 125 25 25 100 25 25 50 50 100 50 25 95th 100 225 25 1 25 200 1 75 50 75 1 100 200 125 1 75 Delay (sec.) 20 21 9 16 13 6 13 7 3 14 9 6 12 LOS C C A B B A B A A B A A B 20 Queue (ft.) Average 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 75 75 75 - 95th 75 100 100 100 100 100 125 50 50 125 125 125 - Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 11 Table 4 — Alternative 1 - PM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 12 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 3 1 13 9 2 1 4 1 LOS A A B A A A A Queue (ft.) Average 0 25 75 75 25 25 95th 0 50 150 150 50 50 - Delay (sec.) - 3 - 1 1 - - 3 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 2 Queue (ft.) Average 25 0 0 25 0 0 95th 50 0 0 50 0 0 Delay (sec.) 4 0 0 3 1 1 1 LOS A A A A A A A 3 Queue (ft.) Average 50 0 0 25 0 0 95th 75 0 0 50 0 0 Delay (sec.) 8 5 4 1 - - 1 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 4 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 1 75 75 0 0 Delay (sec.) 10 14 7 3 1 0 8 4 2 0 0 2 LOS B B A A A A A A A A A A 5 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 1 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) 7 - 6 3 0 - - - - 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 6 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 25 25 0 0 Delay (sec.) 6 5 3 0 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 7 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 50 1 50 1 25 25 Delay (sec.) - - 3 0 0 0 0 LOS A A A A A 8 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 0 0 Delay (sec.) 9 7 - 0 0 - 1 LOS A A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 0 25 95th 25 50 0 25 - Delay (sec.) 14 12 8 4 1 1 10 12 5 2 1 0 2 LOS B B A A A A B B A A A A A 10 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 75 75 75 1 50 50 1 50 1 50 50 50 1 50 50 1 50 Delay (sec.) 27 18 2 23 19 4 21 19 4 15 9 3 13 LOS C B A C B A C B A B A A B 11 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 75 25 75 75 50 95th 75 1 100 25 50 50 50 75 125 75 150 125 75 Delay (sec.) 15 19 6 6 4 2 15 17 4 6 4 5 8 LOS B B A A A A B B A A A A A 20 Queue (ft.) Average 50 25 25 25 50 50 50 25 25 25 50 50 95th 100 50 59 1 75 1 75 1 75 1 125 1 50 1 50 1 50 1 100 1 100 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 12 However, Alternative 1 will reduce the pick-up/drop-off areas for vehicles that need to turn left to enter either school. The pick-up/drop-off areas will be fed by two access roads but will have only one road for exiting. This will reduce the queues and mitigate their impact on Old Crystal Bay Road but the service time at the drop-off/pick-up areas will remain the same. The traffic is, however, expected to flow faster as short queues are expected to occur before the drop-off/pick-up areas. As Intersection 2 and 3 will operate as right-in/right-out only, all vehicles that need to turn left to exit either school will have to do it via Intersection 20. Intersection capacity will not be an issue, as the analyses have shown that the intersection will operate under capacity. The concern is that the traffic flow will be mixed including passenger cars, school buses and even delivery trucks and large buses. Therefore, vehicle speeds will vary during the peak hour according to the traffic flow mix. The path of vehicles leaving the schools via Intersection 20 will cross the parking lots of either schools, impacting vehicles entering/leaving parking stalls. Over half of the parking spaces will be impacted at the High School, whereas only a few spaces will be impacted in the Middle School. The construction of the new Intersection 20 and the multi -use path will require the elimination of several parking stalls at both school parking lots. The proposed parking lot expansions will make up for the spaces lost and still add a few more. The construction will also split the parking lots, creating two distinct areas, although interconnection will be maintained. As a summary, these are the main changes expected to occur with Alternative 1: Key Benefits • Reduces traffic conflict at existing intersections • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle conflicts • Prevents queues from extending into parking lots • Removes queues from thru lanes • Prioritizes traffic and pedestrian through a new signalized intersection • Reduces risk of queues overriding onto the drop-off/pick-up areas Key Challenges • Reduces pick-up/drop-off areas for some vehicles • Left -turn exit must be through one intersection only • Some vehicles will exit through parking lots • Parking lot expansion is required to make up for some removed parking spaces. Alternative 2 Alternative 2 offers a significant improvement over the existing conditions, with LOS either at or above the threshold (LOS D) during both the AM and PM peak hours at all intersections. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 13 In relation to queues, Alternative 2 also represents a significant improvement over the Existing Conditions, where almost all queues are under the 95' percentile and the average length during both the AM and PM peak hours. The only queues that will extend beyond proposed storage length occur at Intersection 2 (westbound left, through and right) and intersection 3 (eastbound through and right) in the AM peak hour. In the PM peak hour, queues exceed proposed storage length at Intersection 3 (eastbound through and right and westbound left, through and right). In all these cases, the excess length will happen inside the schools campuses where they are expected to split in two or three lines. Therefore, the excess queues can be considered insignificant. See Exhibit 4 for the queues graphic representation. School campus circulation will also improve in Alternative 2, where vehicles will have more options to enter and leave both schools, as Intersections 2 and 3 will operate as full intersections. As a result, queue of vehicles heading to/coming from the pick-up/drop-off area will split among the entering/options available and the chances to override onto Old Crystal Bay Road will significantly decrease. The results of the queue lengths indicate that the queues of exiting vehicles will not extend onto the pick-up/drop-off area. Therefore, the queue of vehicles at the drop-off area will be able to move faster. The queues from the drop-off/pick-up areas may extend onto Old Crystal Bay Road, but they will be much shorter and can be accommodated in the turning lanes being proposed. As Intersections 2 and 3 will be signalized, movement prioritization will eliminate the risk of having northbound left and southbound left queues overlap on Old Crystal Bay Road. The signalization of the Intersections 2 and 3 will also eliminate the risk of vehicles accepting inadequate spaces as they merge onto Old Crystal Bay Road. Pedestrian safety will improve with the construction of the multi -use path. Safety crossing Old Crystal Bay Road will be improved with either an underpass or the installation of HAWK beacons. Vehicle safety will improve with reduced conflict points and signalized intersections. Conflict between vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrian will be significantly reduced. Alternative 2 will extend the pick-up/drop-off areas following the parking lot expansions. Traffic will flow better because the entrance/exit paths are well-defined and don't leave many decisions to be made. This will reduce the queues and mitigate their impact on Old Crystal Bay Road. However, the service time at the drop-off/pick-up areas will remain the same. The traffic is expected to flow faster as short queues are expected to occur after the drop-off/pick- up areas. The path of vehicles leaving the schools will not go through the parking lots of either schools, thus not impacting vehicles entering/leaving the parking stalls. The construction of the multi- use path will not require the elimination of parking stalls at any of the school parking lots. The proposed parking lot expansion is optional and is being proposed as an opportunity for improvement. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 14 Table 5 — Alternative 2 - AM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 15 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 3 2 19 12 7 0 5 1 LOS A A B B A A A Queue (ft.) Average 0 25 50 0 95th 0 50 100 0 - Delay (sec.) 27 9 25 7 5 47 22 13 11 12 17 LOS C A C A A D C B B B B 2 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 50 50 50 100 50 50 100 100 75 95th 50 1 50 1 50 125 1 75 75 225 1 125 125 175 175 1 175 Delay (sec.) 18 22 12 11 11 13 12 16 8 28 6 5 14 LOS B C B B B B B B A C A A B 3 Queue (ft.) Average 25 75 75 75 75 75 25 25 25 75 75 75 95th 50 125 125 125 125 125 25 25 25 150 125 125 Delay (sec.) 10 - 4 2 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 LOS B A A A A A A 4 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 50 50 0 1 0 Delay (sec.) 11 5 3 1 0 8 6 2 0 0 2 LOS B A A A A A A A A A A 5 QueueAverage (ft.) 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 75 75 75 75 75 50 50 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) - 4 4 1 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A 6 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 0 0 I 95th 25 100 100 0 0 Delay (sec.) 21 6 4 1 0 - 1 LOS C A A A A A 7 QueueAverage (ft.) 25 25 50 50 25 95th 25 25 100 100 25 - Delay (sec.) - - - 0 0 0 LOS A A A 8 Queue (ft.) Average 0 0 95th 25 25 Delay (sec.) 3 0 1 1 LOS A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 95th 25 25 50 - - Delay (sec.) 6 - 4 2 1 14 10 8 5 1 0 3 LOS A A I A A B B A A A A A 10 QueueAverage (ft.) 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 25 25 25 95th 25 75 75 75 50 50 1 75 50 1 50 1 50 Delay (sec.) 23 19 2 18 31 7 33 24 9 21 9 2 19 LOS C B A B C A C C A C A A B 11 Queue (ft.) Average 50 125 25 25 100 25 25 25 50 75 50 25 95th 125 225 25 1 25 250 50 1 50 75 100 175 100 50 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 15 Table 6 — Alternative 2 - PM Peak Hour Measures of Effectiveness (MOE's) Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 16 Approach EB NB WB SB Intersection Movement LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT LT TH RT Inters. Delay (sec.) 1 0 11 7 1 1 3 1 LOS A A B A A A A Queue (ft.) Average 0 0 75 75 25 0 95th 0 25 125 125 50 0 - Delay (sec.) 12 13 8 13 8 7 26 6 4 11 7 2 9 LOS B B A B A A C A A B A A A 2 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 50 75 75 25 25 25 50 50 25 95th 75 75 75 1 75 125 1 125 1 50 50 50 125 125 50 Delay (sec.) 12 10 12 10 8 4 32 33 27 16 13 9 15 LOS B B B B A A C C C B B A B 3 Queue (ft.) Average 25 50 50 50 50 25 100 100 100 25 25 25 95th 75 1 125 125 100 1 100 75 200 1 200 1 200 25 1 25 25 Delay (sec.) 11 5 5 1 - - - - - 1 1 1 LOS B A A A A A A 4 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 50 50 75 75 25 25 Delay (sec.) 10 12 8 3 0 0 7 4 2 0 0 2 LOS B B A A A A A A A A A A 5 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 25 25 25 Delay (sec.) 10 12 8 3 0 - 7 4 2 0 0 1 LOS B B A A A A A A A A A 6 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 95th 50 50 50 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 Delay (sec.) 8 - 4 3 0 - - - 0 0 1 LOS A A A A A A A 7 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 25 25 0 0 95th 50 50 50 1 50 25 25 Delay (sec.) - - 3 0 0 0 0 LOS A A A A A 8 Queue (ft.) Average 25 0 0 95th 50 0 0 Delay (sec.) 10 6 - 0 0 1 LOS B A A A A 9 Queue (ft.) Average 25 25 0 25 95th 25 50 25 50 - Delay (sec.) 15 17 10 4 1 1 9 13 4 3 1 0 2 LOS B B B A A A A B A A A A A 10 Queue (ft.) Average 50 50 50 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 95th 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 Delay (sec.) 26 17 2 15 18 4 22 19 4 15 9 3 13 LOS C B A B B A C B A B A A B 11 Queue (ft.) Average 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 75 25 75 75 25 95th 75 100 25 25 100 50 75 150 50 150 125 75 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 16 As a summary, these are the main changes expected to occur with Alternative 2: Key Benefits • Establishes vehicle priority through signalization • Significantly reduces pedestrian/vehicle conflicts • Prevents queues from extending onto parking lots • Removes queues from through lanes • Expands pick-up/drop-off areas for all vehicles • Parking lot expansion is not required but will greatly benefit • Reduces risk of queues overriding onto the drop-off/pick-up areas. • Improves school campuses circulation • Additional pedestrian safety improvement with underpass, instead of HAWK beacons Key Challenges • Adds two signals and an underpass (or HAWK beacons) • More costly if either underpass or parking lot expansion is included PRELIMINARY COSTS A preliminary cost -estimate was prepared for Alternatives 1 and 2 and for the reconstruction along Old Crystal Bay Road, as follows: Alternative 1 • Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction: $985,000 (CSAH 6 to CSAH 112) • Addition of Turning Lanes: $38,000 • Addition of Signalized Intersections: $250,000 • School Road Reconfiguration: $515,000 • Multi -use path: $29,500 • Total: $1,817,500 Alternative 2 • Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction: $985,000 (CSAH 6 to CSAH 112) • Addition of Turning Lanes: $32,500 • Addition of Signalized Intersections: $450,000 • Multi -use path: $29,500 • HAWK Beacons: $100,00 • Total: $1,597,000 Optional Items • School Road Reconfiguration: $376,500 • Underpass: $833,000 • Total: $2,806,500 Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 17 ALTERNATIVES COMPARISON The purpose of this traffic impact study is to identify current traffic issues and potential transportation solutions to mitigate these issues and improve safety and operations of the transportation facility for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The recommendations focus on the improvements of the four problems previously identified and discussed, which can be discussed in three areas, as follows: B. Traffic operations Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 offer a significant improvement over existing conditions, with LOS either at or above the threshold (LOS D) during both the AM and PM peak hours at all intersections, including the new proposed Intersection 20 (Alternative 1, only as it is not applicable to Alternative 2). The proposed geometric changes for both alternatives reduce conflict between vehicles, reduce delay, improve LOS, and provide space to accommodate the queues. In both scenarios, there are still a few movements at a few intersections where the maximum queues may extend beyond the block length. However, the excess queues are negligible as they will either not override onto the previous intersections or will be accommodate by the proposed turning lanes. C. Middle School and High School Campuses' Circulation Both Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 considerably improve traffic circulation at both schools campuses. There are additional options to enter/ leave the pick-up/drop-off areas and to enter/exit the student parking lots. New Middle School parking lot design will prevent built up queues in in it. Proposed turning lanes will better accommodate the queue of vehicles and avoid gridlocks. The circulation will also split the queues, either entering or leaving, thus splitting their impact on traffic. However, in Alternative 1, all vehicles that need to make a left turn to leave both campus will have to do it via Intersection 1, and their path will be through the parking lots. Alternative 2 offers two exit alternatives with no impact on the parking lots. C. Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Pedestrian safety will improve with the construction of the multi -use path. Safety crossing Old Crystal Bay Road will be improved with signalized pedestrian crossing in Alternative 1. Pedestrian safety improvement is even better in Alternative 2, with either HAWK beacons or an underpass. Vehicle safety will improve with better traffic flow, reduced conflict points and a signalized intersection, in Alternative 1, and with two signalized intersections in Alternative 2. D. Additional Considerations and Recommendations The improvements offered by both alternatives are almost comparable. The westbound queues in Intersection 2 in Alternative 1 will be a little shorter that in Alternative 2, as the former has three access points and more opportunities for the queues of vehicles to split. Alternative 2 has more balanced traffic between the two access points, which is an advantage, whereas Alternative 1 concentrates most of the traffic through the proposed middle intersection. The HAWK beacons in Alternative 2 will offer a superior level of safety when compared to a signalized intersection, due to the reduced number of conflicts, and the underpass will offer an exceptional level of pedestrian safety over existing conditions and also over Alternative 1. Alternative 2 can become significantly costly after the inclusion of the underpass, ramps, retaining walls, and the expanded parking lots. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Traffic Modeling Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 18 Alternative 2 is superior to Alternative 1, as follows: • Better establishes vehicle priority through signalization on all entrances/exits • Reduces pedestrian/vehicle conflicts through either HAWK beacons or underpass • Prevents queues from extending into parking lots, as a result of an improved traffic flow and parking lot design • Reduces the risk of queues overriding onto pick-up/drop-off areas, and therefore, reducing the probability of queues overriding onto Old Crystal Bay Road • Removes queues from through lanes, as a result of intersection signalization • Offers parking lot expansion and an underpass as additional improvements • Expands pick-up/drop-off areas for all vehicles • Gives the option of HAWK beacons or underpass • Offers better campuses circulation options with less decision points and no impact into the parking lots • May be less expensive than Alternative 1 if the underpass and the parking lot expansion are not included However, since both alternatives focus on the Middle and High schools, a third alternative was developed. That third alternative, called Alternative 2A, is a variation of Alternative 2, and aims to address the entire project study area. Also, this third alternative took into account intersection and movement priority, access management, corridor design alternatives, and safety and operational improvements. VII. Alternative 2A Alternative 2A is a variation of Alternative 2, which was considered superior to Alternative 1. Even though Alternative 2 proposed solutions would produce a significant improvement on traffic operations, safety, and campus circulation, the solutions focus on the both the High and the Middle schools. See Appendix G for an overview of this alternative. Alternative 2A expands the solutions to the entire corridor through the evaluation and improvements of the remaining intersections considering access management, intersection priority, traffic and pedestrian safety, and campus circulation, which were aggregated into the following criteria: A. ACCESS BLUEPRINT It was determined where primary and secondary access points would be located based on Hennepin County access guidelines. The access blueprint is intended to be a planning tool to guide land use decisions and intersection improvements along Old Crystal Bay Road. See Exhibit 5 for the access blueprint. Speed differentials between vehicles continuing along the major street and those slowing to turn into a driveway can lead to crashes. Similarly, the crash risk is increased when trying to turn onto or cross the main roadway from a side driveway. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Alternative 2A Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 19 Exhibit 5 - Old Crystal Bay Road Access Blueprint ACCESS BLUEPRINT OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD - SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL "ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 9 $ 6 xzx I 3 NM ORONO DENTALCARE ORONO CITY -' ADMINISTRATION OK KIDS PRESCHOOL ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL LEE CARLSON FIELD PRIMARY INTERSECTION: • Traffic control options include traffic signals, all -way stops, and thru-stops. • Modifications to intersection traffic control shall be based on an engineering study which takes into account traffic volumes and other considerations. SECONDARY INTERSECTION: • Traffic control options include thru-stops, right-in/right-out, and 3/4 access. BOLTON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD FEASIBILITY STUDY ACCESS BLUEPRINT 3 `� & MENK B. INTERSECTION GUIDELINES Traffic control changes will be required at several locations to accommodate the campus concept, keep minimum spacing and avoid overlap on intersection influence areas, and consolidate access points. Appropriate Intersection Traffic Control Based on intersection type (primary or secondary), different types of traffic control were selected. For primary intersections, traffic signals or thru-stops were selected. Unlike primary intersections, secondary intersections are not meant to necessarily accommodate all turning movements. Therefore, traffic control at secondary intersections included right-in/right-outs, and three-quarter intersections. These alternatives are considered reduced conflict intersections, which are restricted to right turns only and right turns plus the lefts from the major street, respectively. Exceptionally, full movement intersections were included at locations where only one access point was available. The type of control chosen for specific intersections is meant to efficiently manage conflicts between different movements within the intersection. This was accomplished by either limiting movements sequentially as with a traffic signal or geometrically with reduced conflict intersections. Exhibit 6 illustrates a graphical representation of conflict points for the various types of intersections. The illustrations depict the location of conflict areas between two or more vehicles by either an arrow, circle, or square based on the type of conflict. Fewer conflict points lead to fewer areas where crashes can occur, usually increasing safety and traffic flow. The type of conflict point can have an impact on crash severity, as well. For example, crossing conflict points can produce more severe crashes than merging/diverging. Functional Intersection Area An intersection is defined by both its physical and functional areas. Conflict points describe the internal influences and operations of the physical area of the intersection, while the functional area describes the larger impact of intersections and how they can interact with each other. The functional area extends both upstream and downstream of the physical area and influences intersection spacing requirements. The functional area of the approach to an intersection consists of three basic elements: a. Perception -reaction distance: Area of an approach in which the typical driver detects, identifies, decides and responds to changes in the roadways or other drivers around them. This would include routing decisions to access different land uses off of Old Crystal Bay Road. b. Deceleration -maneuver distance: Distance along and intersection approach where drivers physically slow down and alter their path in response to roadway changes or routing decisions. For example, a driver making a left turn would slow down and merge into the left turn lane in this distance. c. Queue -storage distance: Length associated with 95t' percentile queues at intersection approaches for particular movements. With no turn lane present for an approach, the functional area of the intersections consists only of the perception -reaction distance and maneuver distance. This is considered the same length as the stopping sight distance for the posted speed of the approach. The following is a summary of key features of each intersection improvement concept, information on operation and safety improvements, and related impacts, as applicable. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Alternative 2A Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 20 Exhibit 6 - Intersection Conflict Points 0 Full Access Right In/Out Access 3/4 Access � Roundabout 1 Access Full Access + Full Access T 314 Access Right In1Uut Access Roundabout 4 12 16 32 0 :i 6 9 0 2 8 10 0 0 4 4 0 8 8 0 0.3'" 0.3'1, 0.2 0.1 Mlwl� Intersection Conflict Points (Source: MnDOT Traffic Safety Fundamentals Handbook) Intersection 1: e Avenue (CSAH 6�(Primary Intersection This intersection stays as it is today. Traffic and safety improvements will occur as a result of the improvement along the corridor. Intersection 2: High School/Middle School Northern Intersection (Primary Intersection) This intersection stays as proposed in Alternative 2: a full operational signalized intersection. Intersection 3: High School/Middle School Southern Intersection (Secondary Intersection) This intersection was modified from the proposed concept in Alternative 2. The western approach was removed as the intersection will serve only the Middle School. It will be a % intersection, with right-in/right-out and southbound left turn. Two of the High School parking lots (east, south) will be combined and the south exit/entrance will occur at Intersection 5. Intersection 4: High School South Parking Lot Access (Secondary Intersection) This intersection changed to a right-in/right-out only. Intersection S: High School Southern Intersection (Primary Intersection) This intersection was modified from the proposed concept in Alternative 2. This intersection will consolidate the entrance to/exit from the High School south parking lot with the High School entrance/exit. It will be a full operational signalized intersection. Intersection 6: Schumman Elementary Parkin Loot (Secondary Intersection) This intersection changed to a right-in/right-out only, as the main entrance will be Intersection 7. Intersection 7: Schumman Elementary School Main Entrance (Secondary Intersection) This intersection stays as proposed in Alternative 2: a full operational thru-stop control. Intersection 8: Orono Intermediate School Main Entrance (Secondary Intersection This intersection will be an entrance only with right -in and left -in only. Intersection 9: Orono Intermediate School Main Exit (Secondary Intersection) This intersection will be an exit only, thru-stop control and right -out, left -out, only. Intersection 10: Kelley Parkway (Primary Intersection) This intersection stays as proposed in Alternative 2: a full operational thru-stop control. Intersection 11: Wayzata Boulevard (Primary Intersection) This intersection stays as proposed in Alternative 2: a full operational signalized intersection. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Alternative 2A Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 21 C. OPERATIONS IMPROVEMENT AND QUEUE STORAGE Intersections along Old Crystal Bay Road can be as close as 90 feet apart. Access management measures are needed to consolidate or restrict access points. According to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), for roads with appropriate traffic volumes (ADT < 18,000 vehicles per day), a three -lane road with a two-way left -turn lane (TWLTL) can be effectively used to achieve safety benefits and improve traffic flow. Operational and design changes associated with a three -lane roadway that promote safety include reduced vehicle speeds, reduced vehicle -pedestrian, -bicycle, and -vehicle conflicts. The main operational benefits are: • Separating Left Turns. Separating left -turning traffic has been shown to reduce delays at signalized intersections. Side -street Traffic Crossing. Side -street traffic can more comfortably enter the mainline roadway because there are fewer lanes to cross. This can reduce side -street delay. • Speed Differential Reductions. The reduction of speed differential provides more consistent traffic flow and less "accordion -style" slow -and -go operations along the corridor. Old Crystal Bay Road is being proposed to be redesigned as a three -lane road with a TWLTL. PRELIMINARY COSTS A preliminary cost -estimate was prepared for Alternative 2A and for the reconstruction along Old Crystal Bay Road, as follows: Alternative 2A • Old Crystal Bay Road Reconstruction • Addition of Turning Lanes: • Addition of Signalized Intersections: • Multi -use path: • HAWK Beacons: • Total: Optional Items • School Road Reconfiguration: • Underpass: • Total: ALTERNATIVE 2A SUMMARY $985,000 (CSAH 6 to CSAH 112) $32,500 $450,000 $29,500 $100,00 $1,597,000 $475,000 $833,000 $2,905,000 Alternative 2A is slightly more costly than Alternative 2, although the former combines all advantages of Alternative 2 with additional advantages, as follows: Traffic Operations Alternative 2A proposes a new concept for the entire study corridor. Old Crystal Bay Road will be redesigned as a three -lane roadway with a TWLTL. The three -lane concept separates left -turning lanes, reducing delays at signalized intersections. The side -street traffic can more comfortably enter the mainline roadway because there are fewer lanes to cross, which can Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Alternative 2A Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Page 22 reduce side -street delay. It also reduces speed differential, providing more consistent traffic flow and less "accordion -style" slow -and -go operations along the corridor. Access management was developed for the entire corridor identifying primary and secondary intersections and appropriate traffic control to each of them, reducing the number of conflict points, reducing delays and improving safety at intersections. Middle School and High School Campus' Circulation The southern access to both Middle and High Schools were split and the eastbound approach was closed. The High School southern access was moved to Intersection 5. Those modifications reduced the number of conflict points and demand at Intersection 3, compared to Alternative 2. The eastern High School parking lot was extended and combined with the southern parking lot, creating a great number of additional parking spots. The exit from High School and its parking lots will be done via Intersection 5, which is signalized, with no conflicts with vehicles entering the Middle School. Vehicle and Pedestrian Safety Vehicle safety will improve with the construction of the three -lane roadway concept. Both pedestrian and vehicle will benefit from an increased safety with the reduction in the number of conflict points at the reclassified intersections (primary and secondary). Additional Recommendations Alternative 2A significantly improve traffic flow, safety, and campus circulation while reducing delays and queue lengths. However, the service time at the drop-off/pick-up areas will remain the same. The service time would be reduced in half with two drop-off/pick-up areas in parallel. This would eliminate the queues overriding onto Old Crystal Road Bay. However, the duplication of the service area would require the elimination of several parking spaces, severely impacting the capacity to accommodate the parking demand. This would not be a problem with Alternative 2A, where a great number of parking spaces would be added with the proposed parking lots expansion to the south. VIII. Conclusions and Recommendations While each of the proposed roadway and intersection improvement alternatives provide some relief to traffic congestion during peak school periods, Bolton & Menk recommends the city engages with the school district on developing a short and long term access management plan for Old Crystal Bay Road. The results of the analysis reveal that the problems initially listed are being caused by an access management issue, not a traffic operations issue, which requires collaboration with the adjacent land owner to be successful. Based on traffic volumes and conflicts at the current access configuration, a more cost-effective solution may be attained for both the city and school district if collaborative planning occurs. Prepared by: Bolton & Menk, Inc. Old Crystal Bay Road Feasibility Study I T43.112987 Conclusions and Recommendations Page 23 Appendix A: Existing Conditions Project Area Overview 11 �- 0 ORONO DENTAL CARE ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL t J t 10 9 8 SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 191 TENNIS COURTS _ ORONO HIGH SCHOOL IIJ rel uM w STUDENT PARKING 5 -4 - STUDENT PARKING OK KIDS PRESCHOOL' ®� ORONO CITY ADMINITRATION WrvL�oa ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL I I LAYOUT LEGEND EXISnrvG RIGHT OF WAT 1-I NG PARCEL .UNE • TRAFFIC SIGNAL }, I Two -WAY STOP CONTROLLLI d J J • au-wav sioP coNTRa _ XINTERSEGnoN io 0¢°�° Q�M`ENK OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION EXISTING CONDITION ICE ARENA P -i 11 ^ 1 CRYSTAL BAY ftAD LEE CARLSON FIELD W lx u 1 Appendix B: Existing Conditions Turning Volumes //ONO Old Crystal Bay Feasibility Study ?F City of Orono, Minnesota o 4k 0 w Existing Turning Movement CountsBOLTN — (Z) &MEN K September 2017 Real People. Real Solutions. w o a - � N m �0 (56) i! R N . t m a m0 School Parking V Middle School Parking a 28 (34)—if O 37 (5) --*t° w � Yrt t 82(87 )___4 m C -4 r o 41. .N... N U�0(0) /�� ♦ y A.` 32 (11) School Parking. Studenrtert�� Pa�k��,,g 9 (29)� ( r 0 1) —*� N a G m K J. O m y a N. I � O J UVJ Inlennediale School Parking R\ T Y to `- a c y rn _ I v LLY m O 10,O � t nediale School Park,,tj m — 0 (4)_ m r� F 100 (214) CID rn v 118 (20) a 0 N rn c°'o a F 3 (1) AC— 167 (85) ` a Ar 122 (17) CSAH 6 CSAH s High School Parking _ w„ a> o 2 (25)� m C: r �_ M (187) 0 (29)� M m r�89 (28) andd e S, -1 Pa,k 367 (122)— 0 0 T _ 24 (43) n a °t°° 'o0 11 (4) M N N a 246 (6l) ---A M cm O AC— 7 (17) 1 (20) m � y A � v C 106 (46)� 6th Avenue'No'rth lei Ceimedia le 9cliool Pae klieg Kelley Pkwy 352 (103) C ^ w o a - � N m �0 (56) i! R N . t m a m0 School Parking V Middle School Parking a 28 (34)—if O 37 (5) --*t° w � Yrt t 82(87 )___4 m C -4 r o 41. .N... N U�0(0) /�� ♦ y A.` 32 (11) School Parking. Studenrtert�� Pa�k��,,g 9 (29)� ( r 0 1) —*� N a G m K J. O m y a N. I � O J UVJ Inlennediale School Parking R\ T Y to `- a c y rn _ I v LLY m O 10,O � t nediale School Park,,tj m — 0 (4)_ a N U rn v V O a 0 Legend i 2L / � m U n N a O School Parking 17 (9)__�11 � a m N 8 (13)� y N \� V o W O m — U M M a O a 0 Elementary Parking w a 0 (2)� R\ _ w„ a> o 2 (25)� m C: r �_ M O C a r m v N O {'. ementary Parking R 1 (2)� _ 1 J OD Ni K M a ,N� 1 3 (14)---A oho O Wayzata Boulevard West � a 0 w a 184 (147) r �_ y a X67 (187) M m r�89 (28) AC— 24 (43) n a °t°° 'o0 11 (4) M N N a CSAH 112 O AC— 7 (17) CSAH 112 106 (46)� lei Ceimedia le 9cliool Pae klieg Kelley Pkwy 352 (103) C ^ 3 (24)� N >. ID 0(39)-- m Ul N N o O U C U 2017 Turning Movement Counts 4 AM (PM) 0 400 Feet Source: Hennepin Count, MnGeo tie, 12 A Uk�t 6 -a W Appendix C: Alternative 1 Overview ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL L—J�- 11 �' EFT ,�RN 10 - 9 8 7 ORONO DENTAL CARE ORONO CITY ADMINITRATION Wa �o�.aoN — --11 111 11 T— Nemo m=mIa � � a I v LAYOUT LEGEND E%ISTNG RIGHT OF WAY E%ISTNG PARCEL LINE • W -A SIGNAL TWO-WAY S-1 - T -x INTERSECTION IN M1 BOLTON xnxo� F & MEN K SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL -49, L9J TENNIS COURTS w .» '11 _=! % A OK KIDS PRESCHOOL _ ORONO HIGH SCHOOL 3�r ICLOSEIIII,III ��It 20 it IIIIIII �. � i��� Inill� it ~�r� ivtiir�t 1 IIIIIII I��� �� ot ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE 1 ICE ARENA 10 =� OLD YSTAL BAY ftAD LEE CARLSON FIELD 1 Appendix D: Alternative 1 Turning Volumes //ONO Old Crystal Bay Feasibility Study ?F City of Orono, Minnesota Alternative 1 Turning Movements BOLTN &MEN K September 2017 (Z) Real People. Real Solutions. School IW I School Parkin 0 67 (87)— `° 5 (6) o .N... N v N v U -Q I0) N 0) a_ AI32(11) School Parking Slu dam Cec lei Pai kl�,ig 9 (29)_�f O 0 1 `D r 62 (97) A M N Ilk AII�A 0 er c F 0 .•a 18 �1' y o (2 0) t 0(36) 3(1) AC— 122 (11 6) High School Parking endse so, l P,,k,,,X 28(63)--1 middle School Parking - a I Q 55 (9)--* on o �- ti .> 15 (5)--Ar- lk � r V O Legend a ui m y `N••' r U O AF Intermediate SChoCI Parking R\ I o [n M � � N 0 r`c a � - 1 v R. Wayzata Boulevard West Alt. 1 Turning Movement Counts 4 AM (PM) 0 400 Feet Source: Hennepin Count, MnGeo a a m m co „ T v N U O Elementary Parking R\ O 00 (2)__1 0 00 Qi D: O M W 2 (2 5) m� _ M V f 44 �L r R O J. n m q N y n U n N O School Partaking 17 (9)__�* ie a to 8 (13)---A m N V ` 0 m � m r--184 (147) r y m a X67 (187) M m r�89 (28) n a AC— 24 (43) CSAH 112 °t°° Uo 11 (4) M N N a CSAH 112 O AC— 7 (17) In Ceimedia le School Paikhig 106 (46)__1,>«t� Kelley Pkwy 352 (103) � C � ^ � 3 (24)� N 13 (4) an on 'n r;* 0 (8) N N M 0 (39)---A an c N V � O C a m v N N � O ementary Parking R J OD Ni K M a ,N� OBD O 3 (14)---A V 6 -a o r m F 100 (214) 100 (20) � m v N z Ar 167 (85) �:• [p U V O CSAH 6 CSAH 6 i High School Parking hndd's School Pa,kn 367 (122)--*-� � o o ° 246 (6l) ---AMM o0 C4 1 (15)� in 00 T , - - 6th Mik- School IW I School Parkin 0 67 (87)— `° 5 (6) o .N... N v N v U -Q I0) N 0) a_ AI32(11) School Parking Slu dam Cec lei Pai kl�,ig 9 (29)_�f O 0 1 `D r 62 (97) A M N Ilk AII�A 0 er c F 0 .•a 18 �1' y o (2 0) t 0(36) 3(1) AC— 122 (11 6) High School Parking endse so, l P,,k,,,X 28(63)--1 middle School Parking - a I Q 55 (9)--* on o �- ti .> 15 (5)--Ar- lk � r V O Legend a ui m y `N••' r U O AF Intermediate SChoCI Parking R\ I o [n M � � N 0 r`c a � - 1 v R. Wayzata Boulevard West Alt. 1 Turning Movement Counts 4 AM (PM) 0 400 Feet Source: Hennepin Count, MnGeo a a m m co „ T v N U O Elementary Parking R\ O 00 (2)__1 0 00 Qi D: O M W 2 (2 5) m� _ M V f 44 �L r R O J. n m q N y n U n N O School Partaking 17 (9)__�* ie a to 8 (13)---A m N V ` 0 m � m r--184 (147) r y m a X67 (187) M m r�89 (28) n a AC— 24 (43) CSAH 112 °t°° Uo 11 (4) M N N a CSAH 112 O AC— 7 (17) In Ceimedia le School Paikhig 106 (46)__1,>«t� Kelley Pkwy 352 (103) � C � ^ � 3 (24)� N 13 (4) an on 'n r;* 0 (8) N N M 0 (39)---A an c N V � O C a m v N N � O ementary Parking R J OD Ni K M a ,N� OBD O 3 (14)---A V 6 -a Appendix E: Alternative 2 Overview —a -x L— LAYOUT LEGEND PROPOSED ROADWAY MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER _ TRAIL _ SIDEWALN E%ISTINC RIGHT OF WAY E CUNC PARCEL LINE • TRAPFlC SIGNAL TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL XINTERSECTION 10 0¢04,0 BOLTON xnxo� F t,_;/ &MEN K ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL t L111 TIft 11 \' 10= 9 8 ORONO DENTAL CARE ORONO CITY ADMINITRATION mm 2� J SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL A TENNIS COURTS ORONO HIGH SCHOOL �Ion "s it rj aM - 911 list — 4 3 �lf� ililllii�i� i L — —oEST� AN NREAP.= � 12 X 23 IINT T111 L"T Tu, T � l� 111• I `IIIIIII`+�--�� f OK KIDS PRESCHOOL 11 11111.1. qii tpksm, ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE 2 ICE ARENA �. f^ OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD LEE CARLSON FIELD 1 Appendix F: Alternative 2 Turning Volumes //ONO Old Crystal Bay Feasibility Study ?F City of Orono, Minnesota lom 7E r�. o 118 (20) C4 N oNo coo a 3 (1) ^ ° a Ar 122 (17) i High School Parking hlidd'.e S—oI Pa,ki 0 (29)--�" 1 (20)-- m m I � 0 6th Avenue a 0 a .�I 1 (56) (_i y R I� �I AIS 1 (99) High School Parking 19 :dJ.e S �I Pai kl��y? 28 (34) 37 (5)--)P- : `D q 82 (87)---A y O K Alternative 2 Turning Movements BOLTN &MEN K September 2017 (Z) Real People. Real Solutions. --100(214) AI- 167 (85) CSAH 6 R\ CSAH 6 - 367 (122) --*-o o - 246(61)-- m M °° , M r t�— m � � t n N N N a High School Parking 17 (9)--�f 1 rtl r 8 (13)� m N U Olil�' x rn 5(6) o N O a _ 1 _ v O R A.`32 (11) U High School Parking ;^ M a smdenleerle� Pa�ki�,,y I�/ � Ty. 9 (29)� r.� Elementary Parking R 0 (1)—* Ce 0(2)--1 (2)- I 62 (97)---A a � M a> N i T M 2 (25)--A m e M c � � 0 a ui m r CD y N r U O M a_ C O a m Intermediate School Parking R\ N M U M o I Z':ementary Parking 4Y ca p fs K M O m a a Y + J ned',ale S'l—I Parklity 0 (4)--�f �` Kelley Parkway rn ` V f) . V ° Wayzata Boulevard West V n ll v 9 \t v m o m r N m 184 (147) L fD a X67 (187) _ M rn m r89 (28) , - AC— 24 (43) cm = MN C-4 N I 11 (4) y CSAH 112 ` ♦ y ° AC -7 (17) 9 vI = 106 (46)1-1Ir CSAH 112 [e n�ediale 9liool Pai king ftei Kelley Pkwy > 352 (103)— G ^ 3 (24)� N 13 (4)� m 'o 0 (8)� N M o .� N n V 0 ('.i9)� 7 i o iC/ N N O if n b Legend e � , .[ ' Nt o Alt. 2 Turning Movement Counts J �t 4 AM (PM) n •, . 12 0 400 v Feet Source: Hennepin Count, MnGeo Source: _ ��" Appendix G: Alternative 2A Overview SCHUMANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL ORONO INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL 11 10 9 8 7 6 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD I + a3, ORONO �x DENTAL CARE ORONO CITY ADMINITRATION Hoo, METRO J1ZI T fV t-1 LAYOUT LEGEND PROPOSED ROADWAY MEDIAN, CURB & GUTTER _ TRAIL _ SIDEWALN E%ISTINC RIGHT OF WAY E CUNC PARCEL LINE • TRAPFlC SIGNAL TWO—WAY STOP CONTROL XINTERSECTION 10 o¢��c BOLTON xnxo�F t_/&MENK 2� J TENNIS COURTS ORONO HIGH SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD OK KIDS PRESCHOOL ORONO MIDDLE SCHOOL OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD RECONSTRUCTION ALTERNATIVE 2A ICE ARENA 10 LEE CARLSON FIELD 1 Appendix H: Crash Rates and Patterns Intersection Crash Rate (2013 - 2015) Cross Street Intersection Class Old Crystal Bay Rd Crash Rate State Average Critical Crash Index Old Crystal Bay Rd K + A (FAR) State Average Critical Severe Crash Index CSAH 112 Rural Signal Control 0.29 0.40 0.96 0.30 0.00 0.31 7.36 0.00 Kelley Pkwy Rural Thru/Stop 0.52 0.26 1.06 0.49 0.00 1.06 20.80 0.00 Lee Carlson Field Rural Thru/Stop 0.35 0.26 1.21 0.29 0.00 1.06 26.45 0.00 CSAH 6 Rural Thru/Stop 0.31 0.26 0.86 0.36 0.00 1.06 14.17 0.00 Section Crash Rate (2013 - 2015) Section Roadway Type Crash Rate K + A (FAR) Old Crystal Bay Rd State Average Critical Crash Index Old Crystal Bay Rd State Average Critical Severe Crash Index High/Middle School S. Intersection to Rural 2 -lane Undivided 3.19 0.31 4.47 0.71 0.00 1.55 189.73 0.00 N. Intersection Corridor Crash Rate (2013 - 2015) Corridor Roadway Type Crash Rate K + A (FAR) Old Crystal Bay Rd State Average Critical Crash Index Old Crystal Bay Rd State Average Critical Severe Crash Index CSAH 112 to CSAH 6 Rural 2 -lane Undivided 4.25 0.53 2.05 1 2.07 0.00 2.43 39.76 0.00 XXX Old Crystal Bay Rd Exceeds the State Average Rate XXX Old Crystal Bay Rd Exceeds the State Average Rate and the Critical Rate X.XX Crash Index or Severe Crash Index Exceeds 1 Intersection Intersection Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes Number % K+A Number % CSAH 112 Collision with Deer 1 33% 0 0% Rear End 2 67% 0 0% Total 3 100% 0 0% Intersection Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes Number % K+A Number % Kelley Pkwy Ran Off Road 1 50% 0 0% Right Angle 1 50% 0 0% Total 2 100% 0 0% Intersection Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes K+A Number % Number % Lee Carlson Field Left Turn Into Traffic 1 100% 0 0% Total 1 100% 0 0% CSAH 6 Intersection Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes Number % K+A Number % CSAH 6 Rear End 1 50% 0 0% Ran Off Road 1 50% 0 0% Total 2 100% 0 0% Section Intersection Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes K K+A Number % Number % Number % High/Middle School S. Intersection to Head On 1 100% 0 0% N. Intersection Total 1 100% 0 0% Corridor Corridor Diagram (2013-2015) All Crashes Number % K+A Number % CSAH 112 to CSAH 6 (Intersection Included) Rear End 3 33% 0 0% Right Angle 1 11% 0 0% Head On 1 11% 0 0% Left Turn 1 11% 0 0% Ran Off Road 2 22% 0 0% Collision with Deer 1 11% 0 0% Total 9 100% 0 0% AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 9 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: Parks Capital Improvement Plan Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Agenda Public Works Director/ Public Works Director/City Section: City Engineer Report Engineer 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to provide the City council with an opportunity to review the Parks' Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) for 2018 including the results of the Golf Course Master Plan. 2. Summary. The CIP is a planning level document that lays out future capital expenditures. The plan is revised annually and submitted for approval to the City Council. The 2018 draft is attached. There were two major changes to the CIP this year: the Golf course CIP was merged into the Park CIP, all equipment regardless of funding source was merged into the Equipment CIP, and the city completed a master plan for the Golf course. 3. Golf Course Plan Outline. Since taking over oversight of the Golf Course the Park Commission has been interested in developing a plan of capital improvements at the Golf Course for both golf related and other recreational opportunities. In particular the Commission expressed an interest in opportunities to increase revenues such as gathering areas and an outdoor deck as well as non -golf activities such as sledding, tubing and a trail system. In June the council authorized development of a plan for the golf course. Bolton and Menk, Inc completed the plan (Exhibit A) in September and the plan was presented to the Commission at the October Park Commission Work Session and at the November Commission meeting the priorities following table were established. Pri Item Estimated Implementation Description Cost 1 Porch/ Patio $ 47,000 Short Term Includes porch for clubhouse 2 Cart Parking $ 28,925 Short Term Run concurrent with Porch project as the porch project eliminates current cart parking. Includes retaining wall and pavement for cart parking. 3 Fest Tent Area $ 1,800 Short Term Leveling and clearing a 40'x60' area for placement of a fest tent to facilitate more events at the golf course 4 Fire Pit $ 26,885 Short Term Natural gas fire pit area. 5 Lawn Bowling $ 80,000 Long Term Project pending further analysis. Installation of a 30' x 120' 2 lane lawn bowling facility 6 Snow Tubing $ 102,000 Long Term Project pending further analysis. Installation Hill w/Tow of a tow rope and procurement of snow tubes. Rope 7 Multi -Use $ 214,700 Long Term Project pending further analysis. Trail Installation of a perimeter multiuse trail at the golf course. Prepared By: Reviewed By: 5bV Approved By: 5b)X 4. Parks CIP. The draft Parks CIP is as Exhibit B. The following items were added to the CIP this year: a. Navarre Playground Basket Ball Court Surfacing b. Crystal Bay Basket Ball Court Surfacing c. Hackberry Park Basket Ball Court Surfacing d. GC Cart parking e. GC Fairway Drainage f. GC Fest Tent Area g. GC Fire Pit 5. Equipment CIP. Equipment associated with parks is managed on the Equipment CIP at Exhibit C. The following items were added to the Equipment CIP this year: a. Mower for Big Island b. Boat for Big Island 6. Funding. Items on the Equipment CIP are funded through the Equipment Outlay Fund. Items on the Park CIP items will be funded through number of funds including the Park Dedication Fund, Community investment Fund and Storm Water Fund. COMMISION ACTION REQUESTED The City Council should review and provide any comments and/or guidance for the Park CIP. Exhibits Exhibit A. Golf Course Plan Exhibit B. Draft Park CIP. Exhibit C. Draft Equipment CIP Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: � � 111111111 I I \" IZZD LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES LONGRIDGE ASSOCIATES 'j)LGR�EEN 15'FROM D 191 Foll" ' : i q /'�',� fl!�� herr � ' L � � i is "''l�"e� � ��/� r? r \�� \ N Ali �j 69 i � � ii i,ii� �\� � iii/ J �%�� // /j ���` i i i \"� ^, ��� olla ox -i I\ ��\\ i i �� �� f /r \\ �� 1 - Ii ` 111\�� �: � //�i iii /l/'� � --1 �\�� �� \� � kC`�C \l /I �\ �� iii� �\W I�u� �r� \\I �� �i\\ .. I _, i -- E: i'� � � �/�l/u it � ,/�� it "'j/ zx- 77' � J'�ii�il, � � i� /viii f� i iii oil �� i ill Milk ,�\� '/, ,i. gym,% U���\ /, �% �('- AS m DECK IIIIIIIIIIIIIM TRAIL • COURSE GREENS ®FIRE PIT (24' AREA) LOCATION - CANOPY TENT (40' x 60') LOCATION LAWN BOWLING (30' x 120') LOCATION (2 -LANES) ■ SCREENED PORTA POTTY L ORONO GOLF COURSE CLUBHOUSE AMENITIES W a II SEPTEMBER 201 7 t► -ek U 30 15 I CLUB HOUSE DECK ONE-WAY DRIVE DUE TO LIMITED PARKING SPACE TENT ACCESS rAU Qn ORONO GOLF - COURSE r PARKING LOT ESTIMATED EXISTING STALL NUMBER: 30 r PROPOSED STALL HUMBER: 31 L ADDITIONAL PARKING PROPOSED RETAINING WALL 0 30 15 f Ytl 71 �4!� , cr T r. f - f low ���� *ext �+•s+ .;� , � y I ORONO GOLF COURSE CLUB HOUSE DECK 900 SQ FT EXISTING CLUB HOUSE ENTRANCE OUTDOOR TABLES & SEATING ADA RAMP LANDSCAPING AROUND PERIMETER t 9 ORONO GOLF COURSE PREFERRED FIRE PIT OPTION FIRE PIT WITH GAS LINE & LIMESTONE BLOCK SEATING EXISTING TREE (1) LIMESTONE FIRE PIT 18"x 24"x 48" LIMESTONE BLOCKS PAVERS LANDSCAPING AROUND PERIMETER f'I-J c _ Y i - pz�A wo, � �' 11 r ORONO GOLF COURSE ALTERNATIVE FIRE PIT OPTION A FIRE PIT & CAST STONE SEAT WALLS EXISTING TREES (2) CAST STONE 1 WALL r LIMESTONE � __0 rill oo PAVERS ORONO GOLF COURSE ALTERNATIVE FIRE PIT OPTION B MPP PIT 2 ('OCT IKI PI A( -r- Snow Tubing Canopy Tent Fire Pit & Seating Area • Circulating tow rope • Classic pole tent • Limestone block • Customer Hands-free tow rope hook connection • High peak pole tent • Limestone wall e hL ;�+R�' � ,� r i ,3i .l._� .. ., .• . _ tr: 4 . 4 , .. F . : i. • 4• -- a _ T-• 5 N -•.'', r 4 f„+ ' 'BI I 1 - • Single -user tube -- - •Two -person tube • Rubber tube • Rubber tube with durable canvas cover 9 ti • Limestone Block • Strap and ring for easy towing • Concrete Block _ Natural Gas Line o J* -- tP dIrl s . .40 low ff a 1 } s • Grooming machinery Estimated Cost: $6,500 L w F • Berms for safe multi -lane use w 1 Estimated Cost: $9,000 - $14,000 Estimated Cost: $200.,000 ORONO GOLF COURSE AMENITY OPTIONS � I Real � BOLTON PUBLIC GOLF Orono Golf Course Master Plan Preliminary Cost Estimate 9/7/2017 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Multi -use Trail (Preferred Option) UNIT COST 10' Multi -use Trail (extended outside ROW) 5123 LF $38 $194,674 Site Work (finish grading/seeding) 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 Snow Tube Total $214,674 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Club House Deck Deck 900 SF $50 $45,000 Site Work (grading/plantings/asphalt) 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Total $47,000 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTAL COST Multi -use Trail (Alternative Option) UNIT COST 10' Multi -use Trail (within property lines) 4964 LF $38 $188,632 Site Work (finish grading/seeding) 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 $200,000 Snow Tube Total $208,632 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Club House Deck Deck 900 SF $50 $45,000 Site Work (grading/plantings/asphalt) 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Total $47,000 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Fire Pit (Preferred Alternative) Tow Rope System (approx. 400') 1 LS $75,000-$250,000 $200,000 Snow Tube Tree Removal 1 EA $1,300 $1,300 Site Work(grading/seeding) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Pavers 452 SF $10 $4,520 Sand/ Gravel 452 SF $1.25 $565 Cast Stone Firepit 1 LS $6,500 $6,500 Limestone Blocks(18"x24"x48") 4 EA $1,800 $7,200 Gas Line & Fire Pit Insert 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Gas Line & Fire Pit Insert 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Total $26,885 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Club House Deck Deck 900 SF $50 $45,000 Site Work (grading/plantings/asphalt) 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Total $47,000 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Fire Pit (Alternatives A & B) Tow Rope System (approx. 400') 1 LS $75,000-$250,000 $200,000 Snow Tube Tree Removal 1 EA $1,300 $1,300 Site Work(grading/seeding) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Pavers 615 SF $10 $6,150 Sand/ Gravel 615 SF $1.25 $769 Cast Stone Firepit 1 LS $6,500 $6,500 Limestone Endcap Boulders /Cut Stone 6 EA $900 $5,400 Cast Stone Seat Wall 180 SF $50 $9,000 Gas Line & Fire Pit Insert 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Total $35,919 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Club House Deck Deck 900 SF $50 $45,000 Site Work (grading/plantings/asphalt) 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Total $47,000 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Soft Top Canopy Tent Tent (40'x60') 1 EA $14,000 $14,000 Site Work (grading/seeding) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Total $15,800 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Snow Tubing Hill Asphalt Pavement 245 SY $65 $15,925 Tow Rope System (approx. 400') 1 LS $75,000-$250,000 $200,000 Snow Tube 100 EA $100 $10,000 Site Work (grading/seeding) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Total $211,800 QUANTITY UNIT UNIT COST TOTALCOST Soft Top Canopy Tent Tent (40'x60') 1 EA $14,000 $14,000 Site Work (grading/seeding) 1 LS $1,800 $1,800 Total $15,800 UNIT IUN IT COST ITOTAL COST Porta "' Monthly Cost Based on Signing of Long Term Lease h1Short Term (Weekend Rentals) Approx. $175/Rental QUANTITY UNIT UN IT COST TOTALCOST Additional Parking Asphalt Pavement 245 SY $65 $15,925 Retaining Wall (3' Height) 130 LF $100 $13,000 Total $28,925 UNIT IUN IT COST ITOTAL COST Porta "' Monthly Cost Based on Signing of Long Term Lease h1Short Term (Weekend Rentals) Approx. $175/Rental DRAFT Park Park Park Community Investemnt Park PMF PMF Park Park Park Storm GC Operatin Storm Park Park Park Park Park Park Park Park/Grant Park Capital Improvement Plan, City of Orono As of: 21 Nov 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Parks CIP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Table A-71 5 -Year CIP Planning Period Project 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Park Equipment (Navarre, Hackberry, Bederwood, Crystal Bay, Eagerness) $60,000 $64,946 $70,300 $76,095 $82,367 Dock Replacement (15 year life) $4,500 $4,775 $5,068 $5,378 $5,707 $6,056 Willow Drive Trail - Rehab $68,901 Trail Construction along CSAH 19 to Dakota $115,000 Bederwood Park Improvements $30,000 CR 6 Trail (CCB - Willow) Improvement $36,402 Ferndale Road Trail - Improvement $21,925 Basket Ball Court Surfacing - Navarre $28,000 Basket Ball Court Surfacing - Crystal Bay $ 28,000 Basket Ball Court Surfacing - Hackberry $ 28,000 GC Irrigation Pond Dredging $ 35,000 GC Clubhouse Foundation Restoration $ 10,000 GC Wetland and Fairway #4 Improvements $ 160,000 GC Porch/ Patio $ 47,000 GC Cart parking $ 28,925 GC Fairway Drainainge $ 13,100 GC Fest Tent Area $ 1,800 GC Fire Pit $ 26,885 GC Tow Rope $ 102,000 GC Perimter Trail $ 214,700 GC Lawn Bowling $ 80,000 GC Cart Trail Rehabilitation $ 20,000 Totals $68,901 1 $190,710 $201,402 1 $101,925 1 $92,500 1 $130,000 1 $160,000 $219,475 $64,946 $0 $5,068 $0 $70,300 $5,378 $0 $0 $81,802 $0 $0 $6,056 $82,367 Capital Improvement Plan, City of Orono Equipment CIP Fund Source Bumper # As of: 20 Nov 17 17 Purchase Year Expected Life (yrs) 5 Year CIP Planning Period Equipment Description 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 Parks 210 Truck, Small Pick Up 1997 15 $30,000 $38,047 Streets/Parks 471 lChipper 2004 1 20 $40,500 Parks 610 Truck, Pick up 1994 15 $30,000 Parks/ Street 351 Tractor -Mower/Sweeper 2017 20 Parks 451C Mower 2015 10 Parks 205 Mower (Big island) 10 $7,000 Parks -GC 605 Greens Mower (800) 2004 20 1 $8,000 Parks -GC 606 Greens Mower (1000) 1999 20 $8,000 Parks -GC 604 John Deere Rough Mower (455) 2002 20 $30,000 Parks -GC 607 Aerator 1988 25 $15,000 Parks -GC 601 Fairway Mower 1999 20 $30,000 Parks -GC 602 Tee Mower 2004 20 $30,000 Parks -GC 608 Sprayer 2001 10 $9,000 $12,000 Parks 215 Boat (Big Island) $20,000 STAYTHE COURSE People Preserving Orono's Public Links November 27, 2017 To: City of Orono, Minnesota Orono Administration Orono City Council Orono Park Commission Director of Public Works Orono Public Golf Course Management Since 2013, Stay the Course has been a force for change. We understand there has been a proposal to make some changes to the Orono Public Golf Course. Having just learned of the proposed changes, we would like to participate as a sub -committee and share our history and perspective on the golf course. Stay The Course is a group of people from the community and beyond who have volunteered over 1,000 hours and raised thousands of dollars to improve the golf course. We viewed the online Park Commission meeting held on November 6, 2017 and realize that many of you might benefit from additional information and historical facts garnered before the commision and city council were involved with the course. We feel this information would help in decision- making going forward and respectfully request an opportunity to do so. The following pages are copies of a Stay The Course letter sent on February 5, 2017. Additional furniture valued at $2,130 was donated by Stay The Course in April of 2017 that was not covered in the attached letter. Thank you, Stay the Course Claudia Whiteley 952-473-8109 Janie Delaney 952-473-4666 STAY THE COURSE I P.O. Box 66 I CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA 55323 STAYTHE COURSE People Preserving Orono's Public Links February 5, 2017 To: City of Orono, Minnesota Orono Administration Orono City Council Orono Park Commission Director of Public Works My name is Janie Delaney. As a founding member and volunteer of Stay The Course, I hope this letter will enlighten all those who are new to city government, city offices and any interested citizens, a more detailed overview of who Stay The Course is and what it has accomplished since its formation in late fall of 2012. As a group of passionate volunteers, we have made remarkable progress at the Orono Public Golf. Since our first letter of appeal in November 2013, significant money has been raised and much has been done to enhance the golf experience and return profitability to the bottom line. Thanks to generous contributors comprised of driven volunteers, neighbors, and supporters, the course has undergone immense changes. This treasured resource, with all its history and beauty has been enhanced each year by STC and its supporters. Monies in the account currently at the city are earmarked for specific items designated by donors and STC volunteers. In 2012 when Stay The Course began its work there was much to be done. You can see it evidenced in the before and after pictures on the following pages of this document. The 90th anniversary of OPG was coming up in July of 2014. The group wanted to celebrate this historic date. The OPG needed a tremendous amount of work. No job was too large for us. 2013 In February of 2013, we appeared before the council with a 9 -page PowerPoint presentation offering suggestions on everything from maintining the history to branding and marketing ideas to maintenance to youth program concepts to highway signage, etc. Many other long-range plans were also included. We had big dreams. In April of 2013, work began. New branding on collateral materials. Website was created and donated by a volunteer of STC. Plywood was removed from front door and a new door was installed by the city. Building improvements were discussed with city, STC and Lions who offered to do the labor on roofing the maintenance shed. Materials for roofing the maintenance shed were ordered along with repair lumber for the siding on the shed. The Lions were also clearing buckthorn from the hill by the lower parking lot. STAY THE COURSE I P.O. Box 66 I CRYSTAL BAY, MINNESOTA 55323 STAYTHE COURSE People Preserving Orono's Public Links New storm windows and painting of the clubhouse were put out for bid at this time. Re -installation of putting green was being discussed. Some years past, the putting green was turned into a tee box for some unknown reason and plans began for resurrecting the green. A new flat screen TV replaced the old tube floor model in the clubhouse. STC recommended strong beer instead of 3-2 and a review of cost vs. sell price was investigated for beverages and food profitability. STC suggested tracking rounds to predict and utilize advertising for low -play periods and get metrics on peak and low golf times, etc. This could not be implemented at the time as the computer system was too old and antiquated. STC recommended instituting what every other golf course in Minnesota does and that is NOT allow season passes to be used for league play. We were never successful in that effort even though it would have made a significant difference in the bottom line. In June/July 2013, website was completed. Course costs were being compared to similar courses in the area. Work continued on plans for forming the 90th anniversary committee. In September 2013, window bid submitted for clubhouse. In October 2013, Stay the Course logo developed and donated. First appeal letter sent November 2013 with good results. 2014 In January 2014, STC met with city to review buckthorn, maintenance, shed roof, shed painting, new clubhouse windows, clubhouse painting and new door. Also discussed were advertising goals and strategies. In March 2014, there was an offer from a resident to match donations made to the course. Golf course employees were not trained to sell this opportunity and no one contributed in spite of some collateral materials created. Fountain pump in pond is repaired by volunteer and paid for by STC volunteer. In June 2014, the rock at the entrance to the golf course was repainted. $150 of the cost was donated by an STC volunteer with the balance picked up by the city. Preparation and planning for Leo Feser Day, July 9, 2014 - OPG 90th Anniversary 9 -hold golf scramble took up most of June and July. This included exterior painting, general clean up, invitations, leader board, securing sponors, publicity, landscaping around clubhouse, banners, sidewalk, donations for auction, caterer, goody bags, banners, etc. In early July of 2014, the south entry way interior to clubhouse was painted and historic photos were hung in preparation for the tournament. This entryway was later redone in lighter and more welcoming colors by STC volunteers and 40 hours of labor donated by a supporter of STC. The east side of the clubhouse was transformed with foundation plantings donated by Kelley and Kelley. August 2014 brought review of event and more improvement plans for Winter 2014/Spring 2015. October 2014 - Adam Edwards replaces Jessie. 2015 With Adam on board, new marketing, facility plans, grounds issues, concession revamping, and operations procedures were reviewed. Groupon was re -introduced with new target market involved. STAYTHE COURSE People Preserving Orono's Public Links Strategies for enticing more golfers were discussed including leagues, youth programs and small corporate events. A discussion to ensure branding consistency and marketing plans were reviewed. Improvement of retail counter space and display items. STC took inventory and prepared Excel sheets for future inventory purposes as no system was in place. Parking issues, putting green, ice cream, fees, spiritwear were discussed. Historical booklet was discussed as a fundraiser. STC volunteered to professionally develop a booklet at no charge to sell at the clubhouse or keep for posterity. The winter of 2015/spring 2016 racked huge numbers of volunteers hours on the interior of the clubhouse. Entryway, bath hallway, display cabinet, cash register area were all painted with a fresh coats of paint. Cabinet doors were replaced along with light fixture repair. The display case was revamped and food was removed from interior to a self -serve candy/snack display. The lighted counter now holds and displays spiritwear for the OPG. A freezer was donated by an STC supporter for the sale of ice cream. The kitchen and office received a huge makeover with much needed repairs, appliances, carpet and flooring. STC volunteers painted and cleaned for weeks leaving a sparkly and welcoming environment for the new clubhouse manager. 2016 In spring 2016, another STC appeal letter was sent. The goal of the 2016 appeal was to install new benches at tee boxes throughout the course. The opportunity to sponsor a bench did not go unnoticed. We quickly had benches adopted for all the tee boxes. The old benches were dangerous and unattractive. The STC funds were also used to purchase a set of outdoor furniture and umbrella to be placed next to the practice green and a matching sponsor bench on first tee where it is an ideal spot to take in some of the best views of the course as well as summer sunsets. Flowering pots, trellis and perennials were donated by STC supporters to enhance these new additions. Another notable improvement in the clubhouse was the removal of carpet to expose the original wood floor, which were sanded and varnished to restore it to its warmth and beauty. The kitchen was completed to accommodate the delivery and setup of food and beverage service. Historical photos of founder, Leo Feser, his family and the early days of the course are now on display in the once again updated entry. New landscaping was planted to freshen the building. It's impossible to list all the past and present projects completed and envisioned, but with the help of volunteers and our participation we accomplished much. We agree that preserving this historical acreage and boosting the bottom line is top priority. The course needs strong management backed by a concrete and committed business plan with an understanding of what needs to be done, what is possible and what will enhance the bottom line. These types of issues cannot be resolved without knowing what has been done before now. Our hope is that the improvements will continue to beautify this beloved golf course for generations to come, but be CAREFULLY planned out. We encourage you to come play this summer or just stop by the clubhouse and see all the improvements — we know you'll approve. Thank you, Janie Delaney, STC AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 10 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: Approval Temporary Site Plan for River Valley Sports Use of a Tent for Sales Display Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Agenda Planning Department Development Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to consider a temporary site plan for River valley sports to erect a tent for three months, from January 19, 2018 to March 19, 2018 to accommodate post boat show sales and display. 2. Background. River Valley sports is a marine based sales and service business at 1444 Shoreline Drive. Boat sales and service is a permitted use at the subject property, zoned B-2. River Valley sports has submitted a special event permit for their proposed event, which includes the use of a large (39' by 82') heated tent to the north of the existing sales and service building. The tent would be located in the parking lot. Parking spaces necessary to support the retail business will be located in front of the tent, and across the street as shown on the attached site plan. There is no special provision for temporary site plans. The City Code gives the administrator authority to defer a site plan to the Council. In the case, due to the lengthy but temporary nature of the tents, and the need to document parking solutions, on a busy thoroughfare, it seemed appropriate for the Council to act on the request. Fire Code. The applicant has been working with the Fire Chief to ensure the use of the tent meets all applicable fire code standards. Parking. Parking requirements for the site, based on the approval of the site plan and variances in 1989, required 73 spaces. The new tent will generate a need of 4 more spaces. The City code reduces the number of parking stalls required by Marina/ sales uses in winter. Winter parking rules require at least 20% of the required spaces remain open for winter use, boats may be stored on 80% of the parking areas. The adjusted parking requirement is 19 spaces (15 spaces = 20% of the total required, plus 4 more for the tent parking (1/800 sq ft)). Additional parking is proposed in the gravel lots at 1442 and 1440 Shoreline Drive. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the temporary site plan/ special event permit subject to the following conditions: A. At least 19 spaces must be preserved for retail sales parking. B. Written permission from the owner of 1442 and 1440 Shoreline Drive must be provided to use these spaces. 1442 and 1440 may be used for parking, but not boat storage. C. Sales functions may not occur after 10 pm. D. No repair or similar service may take place in the tent. E. Tent shall meet all applicable fire and building codes. F. Tent shall be removed and site restored no later than March 30, 2017. Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -Sb)R Approved By: -T V AGENDA ITEM COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the site plan for the tent, subject to the 6 conditions noted above. Exhibits Exhibit A. Site Plan and permitting documents References A. Division 4 of the City Code (starting at section 78-141) pertaining to site plan review Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: -Sb)R Approved By: -TV Rivervalley sports Exhibit A - Hennepon County Property Map Date: 9/29/2017 PARCEL ID: 1111723220017 OWNER NAME: Eof Investments LIc PARCELADDRESS: 1444 Shoreline Dr, Orono MN 55391 PARCELAREA: 0.63 acres, 27,652 sq ft A -T -B: Torrens SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2016, PAYABLE 2017 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -Preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -Homestead MARKET VALUE: $2,200,000 TAX TOTAL: $73,797.82 ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Commercial -preferred HOMESTEAD: Non -homestead MARKET VALUE: $2,022,800 Comments: This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsu itable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryorloss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2017 40' x 90' Structure Tent Enclosed with Trolls/doors Heated and Lighted Set for 2 Months E F F F = Double Door F = 350K BTU Heater -Light Foxture No Smokingin Tent F = Fire Extinguisher No Cooking In Teat Specil-Cattops Type BTUtbf Ignition CFM Voltage Fraquency Pita se Curmnt Hose & Regulatoir Thermostat Net Weight Length Width Height Wheel Kit Item #' THC-J55CDF, Flagro Tent Heaters Dual fuel inter ange tr* sew.tor valveto el t fuel type :7 3. "perm 3s,,ff,.ic ally controlled fcx a consivvt, conto!'# bwcnint el Numerous duct opcon for a., a. -,'i con-sinrue, on ap lic ons Operates as botn a 4]res!.,i air circ.; A;r w. a !,eater a-. the twee. of a say ".rc- tlf ■ Easi to se" un, S .r quie, and eft"civit upe 2 Dual! Fuel 330,0011,, Direct Spars.. 2. 4 *, , ffV 60 Hz 15 amps 15 fti Hose S ReqwatorAs"noly ft r-crd fy-;r remote l 347 '13s .1 - . 115 its 32-5 in 421 i€ Standard M ft 1716-xible DutVTHCP-W1) 10) Duct DiT,,jser(THCP-DD) Heat Diffuseer(THCP-HD85, THCP+10175) Jeremy arnhart From: Anna Carlson Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:38 AM To: Jeremy Barnhart Subject: FW: River Valley Power and Sport Tent Structure Permit Attachments: doc00493520171031091810.pdf Jeremy, Please review the attached and below email from 1444 Shoreline Dr. Thanks. Anna -----Original Message ----- From: Luke Stoker [mailto:luke.stoker@rivervalleyinc.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:35 AM To: Anna Carlson <acarlson@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: River Valley Power and Sport Tent Structure Permit After Sitting with Ultimate Events the final tent size would be 39'x82. Attached shows the tent with 10' of clearance from our building and 14' from the property line (19' from the adjacent building) of an adjacent property that we own as well. Attached is the CAD of the structure showing the doorway/exit sign placement, fire extinguishers, heaters and lighting. Also included is overflow parking areas, any overflow on the East side of Shoreline DR is served by two lighted crosswalks. Again Your Boat Club on the East side of Shoreline Dr is closed for the season for the period that we are looking at having the structure present. Our company is partners in the ownership of adjacent properties 1444,1442 and 1442 Shoreline Drive. Again we request an allowance on the 20' set back from our 1444 Shoreline building from the Fire Marshall. As for the propane supply, for the heaters, we look for input on placement. Options we have discussed are in front of the house at 1442 just off the gravel parking lot, behind the tent on the blacktop on 1444 or behind the building at 1444. Do we need a permit for the propane supply as well? Please let me know what else you may need from us on our end. With the Super Bowl coming to town, Ultimate Events would like to make sure we get on the schedule for equipment as soon as possible. Thank you for working with us on this and your time! Luke Stoker I Director of Business Development River Valley Power and Sport 612-382-9006 1 RiverValleyPowerand Sport.com -Original Message ----- From: noreply@coordinated.com[ma iIto: noreply@coordinated.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:18 AM To: Luke Stoker<1uke.stoker@rive rvaIleyinc.com> Subject: Scanned Image Scanned image from copier. Do Not Reply. TASKalfa 306ci [00:17:c8:28:c8:9a] City of Orono P.O. Box 66 2750 Kelley Parkway Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone: (952) 249-4600 Fax: (952) 249-4616 %-A,Nv.ci.orono.mn.us FOR CITY USE ONLY Date Received: Permit Number Permit Fee: $25.00 CITY OF ORONO - TENT PERMIT (All tent permits must be approved by the Fire Chiej) Tent Information: :1 Date of Event: I !� 1 t$ - 3 t� Size of Tent(s): -s`tx �9 Number of Tent(s): Does the tent have sides? No &D Please include Fire Retardant Information from the rental company for tent(s) AND a Sketch or Drawing of where the tent will be located on the property along with this application. Owner Information: Site Address: 1444 stAWL15 L trjs DY"L Owner: 401%V -I) 6400ZDJ Mailing Address: City: u-�-;,ac's Home Phone: $Sa - T46 T"q Zip: S531-1 l Alternate Phone: 61a.31ba -414 0 6 c..Zke STov-e�A- 5" Cjl Contractor / Applicant Information: Contractor/App.: Aw*k Jvtr ,\ley Pa%x-SPSC-Contactt- Person: 5lnm Address: 1444 9VWtaAOt OQ� Phone: ct� ` 449 `` 11c I Fax: w)A City: VP PrA-it3K"M Zip: 1 Alternate Phone: 61-X. 3a;1 9W Email: WV -E • SK'ktV,41! �j t, c. o 1 hereby apply for a permit and acknowledge that the infonfation above is complete and ac at the work will be in conformance with the ordinances of the City of Orono andZT e re Codes- stand this is only an application for a permit and work is not to start without a permit. 'cis ate Permit Approved By: Date Approved: (Turd P=it 05/04/11) Special Event Permit Application City of Orono s�A. %2750 Kelley Parkway ❑ Fee: $50.00 P.O. Box 66 ❑ Fee: $200.00 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 ❑ Double Fee (application received less than 10 business days prior to event) Date Received: Objective: To ensure the health, safety and welfare of the communi Type of Special Event (check all that apply) ❑ Activity which generates parking needs ❑ Live Music - Noise Exemption for more than 20 vehicles off site ❑ Marathon Event ❑ Block Party ❑ Parachute Jump ❑ Carnival ❑ Parade of Homes/Home Tours ❑ Circus ❑ Street Parade ❑ Commercial/Movie Shoot ❑ Theatrical Performance or Exhibits ❑ Fishing Contest ❑ Use of Public Property ❑ Hot Air Balloon Event 2r Private Event ta( Otto "04%, Lar a Assembly involving more than 300 people at one time - $200.00 Fee ❑ Gathering, or projected gathering, of more than 300 persons at one time and at a single location Applicant Information Name: kvowt - � �&Dm Arm -%r LAY -E M1PPGWo6JV#t Address: 1 %P44- :5Jft%gu.M ,Dqk. City, State, Zip: IJP erp,*'� rA 0 5 Phone: Ct53L - do b�a•3sa` o L�k.E sTe Email: Lam 's-rokt2 Q»�tQt�ali , c�r�1 Organization (if applicable): VAI(el Nita 4-A EYbr—kA Address: / 14 H City, State, Zip: W �1 ? t�►'sl4 lrilbJ ��� Phone: SrSa --4% rf497i Event Details Name of Event: t4n, S iaawr cvnDvJ r-. e�4JL !gOC&I5 SLw Location: 1'444 1kv Date(s): Hours: M- F 43 930 - 6 WA S�er is %30.14 VA Applicant Phone # on Event Day: b ta►. J&a-`too 16 Title and Brief Description of Event: Use additional paper if necessary. I am aware of all applicable State and other laws regarding parades and special events and will abide by same. IN CONSIDERATION of being allowed to participate in the above-described event the undersigned hereby releases, waives, discharges, and covenants not to sue the City of Orono, the City's elected officials, employees, volunteers, or agents rReleasees') for injuries, death, or damages caused by the negligence of Releasees as a result of participating in the above- described event. The undersigned further agrees to protect, indemnify, and hold harmless Releasees from any and all damages, liability, and costs, including attorney's fees, for injuries, death, or damages caused by the negligence of Releasees. This Release and Indemnification does not apply to intentional, will, or wanton acts by Releasees. The applicant for a parade, a special event, or a private event permit shall pay a service charge for the governmental services provided to enforce the Orono City Code related to es and Special Events, and the city may, as a condition of approval of the pe it, require that the applica t oney with the city in a sum equal to the estimated service charge to be incurred by the i .Service arges includ city st time or city consultant time necessary. The City may certify to the County Audit any unpaid char which sha! be collected together with property taxes levied against the property. Signature Date GCOA) )esi' °,°o) p's -Uto4AL Special Event Permit Application (continued) Snbnuttals-. Please give consideration to the following list of documents and/or permits which may be required prior to City and Council approval. The application should be submitted at least 14 days prior to the event. Documents [Z Site plan identifying buildings, driveways, local streets, parking locations, temporary structures (include size), temporary restrooms, or any cordoned off area(s) for special events ❑ Proposed parade route or location of event ❑ - Signature of the owner of the property on which the special event is to be held. ❑ Approval of Homeowners Association if the event affects private property where a Homeowners Association has been established. ❑ Proof of written notice to all property owners within 350 feet of the location on which a special event is to be held at least 10 days prior to the event. The notice must contain the date, time, and location of the special event. ❑ Shuttle bus service will be required for all Parade of Homes/Home Tours unless applicant demonstrates sufficient on-site parking is available. Shuttle bus plan to be included with application. ❑ Proof of possession of any license or permit which, under federal, state or local laws or regulations, the applicant is required to have in order to conduct the parade or special event, or which, under any such law or regulation, would exempt the applicant from the licensing requirements of Orono City Code Sec. 66- 223. ❑ A policy or certificate of insurance on which the city, its agents and employees, are additional insureds, providing public liability insurance. providing umbrella or all perils coverage in the amount of $12000,000.00. Licenses/Permits Lif applicable) ❑ DNR ❑ Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) ❑ Fireworks ❑ Peddler, Solicitor or Transient Merchant ❑ Fire Department (Fire Marshal) ❑ Temporary Sign ❑ Gambling m Building Permit (temporary structure, i.e. tent) ❑ Hennepin County Sheriff's Water Patrol ❑ Vendor License ❑ Health Department (County) ❑ Other -❑ Temporary Liquor License (State and Local) — Any time alcohol is served or sold to the general public, or if alcohol is sold at a private partylevent-even if included in ticket price. May only be issued to a club, charitable, religious, or non-profit organization, or political committee registered -under state law. Some or all of the information that you are asked to provide on the application is classified by State law as either private or confidential. Private data is information which generally cannot be given to the public but can be given to the subject of the data. Confidential data is information which generally cannot be given to either the public or the subject of the data. Our purpose and intended use of this information will be used to determine your qualification for the permit or license requested. If you refuse to supply the information, the permit or license may not be issued. For Office Use Only Review by Administration: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑: NA Review by Building & Zoning: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA Review by Fire Marshal: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA Review by Police Department: ❑ Approved ❑ Denied ❑ NA By: By: By= By: W:VApplications, license or Permit Applications)\Special Event Permit Application 06-15_doc Please answer the following questions related to this special event permit application. PARTICIPANTS/GUESTS Approximately how many people are expected at event? 3010" ? Is this event open to the public? ® Yes ❑ No Is public property used for the event? ❑ Yes IN No If yes, include copy of Certificate of Insurance showing coverage of the event, i.e. marathons, parades. PARKING Approximately how many vehicles are expected? b On -Site Parking: How many vehicles could be parked on the property? to Off -Site Parking: How many vehicles would need to be parked off the property? List location(s) of off-site parking: Describe method(s) of transporting guests/participants of event from off-site parking: Submit written permission for parking from property or business owner(s). LIVE MUSIC Will there be live music? ❑ Yes ® No Will there be amplified music? ❑ Yes 10 No What are the proposed hours for music to be played? Attach a sketch indicating direction/location of music in relationship to property. LIQUOR Will liquor be served at the event? ❑ Yes ® No If liquor is served, will there be a charge? ❑ Yes ® No Is liquor included with the price of a ticket to attend the event? ❑ Yes ® No FEES BEING CHARGED Will the event have any fees collected? ❑ Yes ® No Will there be any tickets sold for the event? ❑ Yes 0 No What is the purpose for any money that is collected? FIREWORKS Will there be fireworks at your event? ❑ Yes Q No Describe location for proposed display of fireworks: VENDORS / OR ATTRACTIONS Will vendors be coming to the event to sell food or other products? ❑ Yes ® No Permit required from Hennepin County. Will you have any other attractions? (Ex: Petting Zoo, Carnival) ❑ Yes ® No Attach list of attractions and map of locations PRIVATE EVENTS Will any special services be required from the Police Department or any other city department? ❑ Yes !] No Describe the required services: LARGE EVENTS Will there be more than 300 participants? ❑ Yes In No Please provide a site map of the event parking, location of music, attractions, tents, sanitary facilities, garbage containment, etc. Must meet requirements of Orono Code Sec. 38-802. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ■ If you are having an event that has less than 300 people, no music, no fireworks, no off-site parking, not charging for liquor and is not one of the types of special events listed at the beginning of this application, a special events permit may not be required. ■ The City recommends notification to the neighbors so that they are aware of the event, and to help prevent any event -related complaints. AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 11 Item Description: Non -Waiver of Tort Limits Date: November 23, 2017 Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda City Administrator Finance Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to adopt a resolution making a selection not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability. 2. Background. Minnesota Statutes 466.04 limits a city's tort liability to a maximum of $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. Because cities have the right to waive the liability limit, our insurance carrier, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT), requires that the City Council adopt a resolution stipulating whether the City will or will not waive the statutory limits under the laws. A waiver of the limits would result in increased liability exposure and an increase in premiums. 3. Cost. Because waiver of the statutory limits increases the amount that the LMCIT could potentially be responsible for, waiver of the limit will increase the city's general liability insurance premium by approximately 3% ($1,500). The City also carries excess liability coverage in the amount of $2,000,000. A wavier of tort limits would increase this premium by 25% ($5,200). 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the adoption of the resolution not to waive tort limits. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt a resolution making a selection not to waive the statutory tort limits for liability purposes. Exhibits Exhibit A. Tort Limit Waiver Form Exhibit B. Resolution Exhibit C. LMCIT Informational Memo Prepared By: J 16 Reviewed By: 5bV Approved By: _T�2 0 j EAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 1913 LIABILITY COVERAGE — WAIVER FORM LMCIT members purchasing coverage must complete and return this form to LMCIT before the effective date of the coverage. Please return the completed form to your underwriter or email to pstech@lmc.org This decision must be made by the member's governing body every year. You may also wish to discuss these issues with your attorney. League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust (LMCIT) members that obtain liability coverage from LMCIT must decide whether to waive the statutory tort liability limits to the extent of the coverage purchased. The decision has the following effects: If the member does not waive the statutory tort limits, an individual claimant would be able to recover no more than $500,000 on any claim to which the statutory tort limits apply. The total'all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would be limited to $1,500,000. These statutory tort limits apply regardless of whether the city purchases the optional excess liability coverage. if the member waives the statutory tort limits and does not purchase excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover up to $2,000,000 for a single occurrence. (Under this option, the tort cap liability limits are waived to the extent of the member's liability coverage limits, and the LMCIT per occurrence limit is $2 million.) The total all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited. to $2,000,000, regardless of the number of claimants. If the member waives the statutory tort limits and purchases excess liability coverage, a single claimant could potentially recover an amount up to the limit of the coverage purchased. The total all claimants would be able to recover for a single occurrence to which the statutory tort limits apply would also be limited to the amount of coverage purchased, regardless of the number of claimants. Claims to which the statutory municipal tort limits do not apply are not affected by this decision. D ro-,o LMCIT Member Name Check one: © The member DOES NOT WAIVE the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04. C The member WAIVES the monetary limits on municipal tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes, Section 466.04 to the extent of the limits of the liability coverage obtained from LMCIT. Date of city council/governing body meeting �� ( 2.n /in Signature Position 145 UNIVERSITY AVE. WEST PHONE; (651) 281-1200 FAx: (6S!) 281-1299 ST. PAUL, MN 55103-2044 TOLL FREE: (800) 92S-1122 WEB: www.iMCORc CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL A RESOLUTION MAKING A SELECTION NOT TO WAIVE THE STATUTORY TORT LIMITS FOR LIABILITY INSURANCE PURPOSES WHEREAS, pursuant to previous action taken, the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust has asked the City to make an election with regards to waiving or not waiving its tort liability established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04 ; and WHEREAS, the choices available are as follows: to not waive the statutory tort limit, to waive the limit but to keep insurance coverage at the statutory limit, and to waive the limit and to add insurance to a new level. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council does hereby elect not to waive the statutory tort liability limit established by Minnesota Statutes 466.04. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held November 20, 2017. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor r n LE EAGUE of MINNESOTA CITIES CONNECTING & INNOVATING SINCE 19t3 RISK MANAGEMENT INFORMATION LMCIT LIABILITY COVERAGE OPTIONS Liability Limits, Coverage Limits, and Waivers LMCIT gives cities several options for structuring their liability coverage. The city can choose either to waive or not to waive the monetary limits the statutes provide; and the city can select from among several liability coverage limits. This memo discusses these options and identifies some issues to consider in deciding which of the options best meets the city's needs. What are the statutory limits on municipal tort liability? The statutes limit a city's tort liability to a maximum of $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. These limits apply whether the claim is against the city, against the individual officer or employee, or against both. What are the coverage limits for LMCIT's basic primary liability coverage? For coverage written or renewed on or after November 15, 2014, LMCIT's liability coverage will provide a limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence. Besides the overall coverage limit of $2,000,000 per occurrence, there are also annual aggregate limits (that is, limits on the total amount of coverage for the year regardless of the number of claims), for certain specific risks. Aggregate limits apply to the following: Products $3,000,000 annually Failure to supply utilities $3,000,000 annually Data security breaches $3,000,000 annually EMF $3,000,000 annually Limitedpollution* $3,000,000 annually Mold $3,000,000 annually Employers liability (work comp) $1,500,000 annually Land use/special risk litigation** $1,000,000 annually Activities in outside organizations $100,000 annually * Includes sudden and accidental releases of pollutants; herbicide and pesticide application; sewer ruptures, overflows and backups; and lead and asbestos claims. Dredging or excavation claims are subject to a $250,000 sublimit. These limits apply to both damages and defense costs. ** Coverage is provided on a sliding scale percentage basis, which is based on participation in LMCIT's online land use training. Coverage applies to both damages and litigation costs. LEAGUE OF MINNESOTA CITIES 145 UN IVY RST AVL IVY ST mow: (651) 281.1200 rAx:(651)281 1298 INSURANCETRUST 5T. PAUL. AIN 55103-1044 TOL1raLL:(800))25-1122 %VMWWWAMcokc Why does LMCIT provide higher coverage limits than the statutory limit? The reason is to give member cities better protection. The statutory liability limit caps the city's liability for many types of claims. But some liability claims, which are listed in the next section, aren't covered by the statutory limit, so the city's potential liability is unlimited. The higher limit also protects against a major hrcident in which many people might be injured. The $2,000,000 per occurrence coverage limit gives the city better protection for these types of claims, and makes it less likely the city could end up with liability exceeding its coverage limit. Another reason to provide higher limits is because it's increasingly more common to see contracts require more than the statutory limit of $1,500,000; a more common figure is a $2,000,000 limit. LMCIT's higher limits will now meet this requirement, but if even higher limits are required, there is the option to carry LMCIT's excess coverage to meet the additional requirements. LMCIT can also issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to a particular contract. If the statute limits our liability and LMCIT is already providing higher limits than required, why purchase even more limits? There are four good reasons why cities should strongly consider carrying LMCIT's excess coverage, which provides higher limits of liability coverage. Excess coverage is available in $1,000,000 increments, up to a maximum of $5,000,000. 1. The statutory tort limits either do not or may not apply to several types of claims The following are the types ofclaims the statutory limits do not apply to. LMCIT'shigher limit of $2,000,000 will definitely provide better protection against these types of claims, but there could be cases where even that limit might not be enough. • Claims underfederal civil rights laws. These include Section 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, etc. • Claims for tort liability that the city has assumed by contract. This occurs when a city agrees in a contract to defend and indemnify a private party. • Claims for actions in another state. This might occur in border cities that have mutual aid agreements with adjohiing states, or when a city official attends a national conference or goes to Washington to lobby, etc. • Claims based on liquor sales. This mostly affects cities with municipal liquor stores, but it could also arise in connection with beer sales at a fire relief association fund-raiser, for example. • Claims based on a "taking" theory. Suits challenging land use regulations frequently include an "inverse condemnation" claim, alleging that the regulation amounts to a "taking" of the property. 2. LMCIT's primary liability coverage has annual limits on coverage for a few specific risks The table on page 1 lists the liability risks to which aggregate coverage limits apply. If the city has a loss or claim in one of these areas, there might not be enough limits remaining to cover the city's full exposure if there is a second loss of the same sort during the year. Excess liability coverage gives the city additional protection against this risk as well. There are, though, a couple important restrictions on how the excess coverage applies to risks that are subject to aggregate limits: The excess coverage does not apply to the following types of risks: o Failure to supply utilities. o Mold. o "Limited pollution" claims if either the pollutant release or the damage is below ground or in a body of water. o Auto no-fault claims. o Uninsured/underinsured motorist claims. o Workers' compensation, disability, or unemployment claims. o Claims under the medical payments coverage. The excess coverage does not automatically apply to liquor liability unless the city specifically requests it. 3. The city maybe required by contract to carry higher coverage limits LMCIT's limit of $2,000,000 will meet most contract requirements, but if even higher limits are required, LMCIT's excess coverage is an option. LMCIT can also issue an endorsement to increase the city's coverage limit only for claims relating to a particular contract. 4. There may be more than one political subdivision covered under the city's coverage An HRA, EDA, or port authority is itself a separate political subdivision. If the city EDA, for example, is named as a covered party on the city's coverage and a claim were made that involved both the city and the EDA, theoretically the claimant might be able to recover up to $1,500,000 fi•om both the city and the EDA, since there are two political subdivisions involved. Excess coverage is one way to provide enough coverage limits to address this situation. Another solution is for the HRA, EDA, or port authority to carry separate liability coverage in its own name. This issue of multiple covered parties can also arise is if the city has agreed by contract to name another entity as a covered party, or to defend and 'indemnify another entity. Who needs excess liability coverage? If anything, excess liability coverage is even more important to a small city rather than to a large city. If a city ends up with more liability than it has coverage, the city will have to either draw on existing funds or go to its taxpayers to pay that judgment. A large city faced with, say, $1,000,000 of liability over and above what its LMCIT coverage pays might be able to spread that cost over several thousand taxpayers. The small city by contrast might be dividing that same $1,000,000 among only a couple hundred taxpayers. $1,000,000 divided among 5,000 taxpayers is $200 apiece — annoying but probably at least manageable for most taxpayers. $1,000,000 divided among 200 taxpayers is $5,000 apiece — enough to be a real problem for many. What's the effect of waiving the "per claimant" statutory liability limit? For cities that choose to waive the statutory limits, the city is choosing to waive the protection of the statutory limits, up to the amount of coverage the city has. Someone with a claim against a 3 city that has waived the statutory limits would be able to recover up to $2,000,000 (of course the individual would have to prove to the court or jury that he or she really does have that amount of damages), rather than the statutory limit of $500,000 per claimant. Because the waiver increases the exposure, the premium is roughly 3%higher for coverage under the waiver option. For cities that choose not to waive the statutory limits, the city's liability is limited by the statute to no more than $500,000 per claimant and $1,500,000 per occurrence. LMC1T's higher coverage limits would only come into play on those types of claims that aren't covered by the statutory liability limit. Why would the city choose to pay more for the waiver -option coverage? The statutory liability limit only comes into play in a case where: • The city is in fact liable. • The injured party's actual proven damages are greater than the statutory limit. Very literally, applying the statutory liability limit means an injured party won't be fully compensated for his or her actual, proven damages that were caused by city negligence. Some cities, as a matter of public policy, may want to have more assets available to compensate their citizens for injuries caused by the city's negligence. Waiving the statutory liability limits is a way to do that. Other cities may feel that the appropriate policy is to minimize the expenditure of the taxpayers' fiords by taking full advantage of every protection the legislature has decided to provide. There's no right or wrong answer on this point. It's a discretionary question of city policy that each city council needs to decide for itself. What's the effect of waiving the statutory limits if the city has excess coverage? If the city has $1,000,000 of excess coverage and chooses to waive the statutory tort limits, the claimants (whether it's one claimant or several) could then potentially recover up to $3,000,000 in damages in a single occurrence. If the city carries higher excess coverage limits, the potential maximum recovery per occurrence is correspondingly higher. Carrying excess coverage under the waiver option is a way to address an issue that some cities find troubling: the case where many people are injured in a single occurrence caused by city negligence. Suppose, for example, that a city vehicle negligently runs into a school bus full of children, causing multiple serious injuries. $1,500,000 divided 50 ways may not go far toward compensating for those injuries. Excess coverage under the waiver option makes more finds available to compensate the victims in that kind of situation. -'�6 The cost of the excess 25% greater if the city waives the statutory tort limits. The cost difference is proportionally greater than the costdifference at the primary level ' '-Ii66Zsc for a city that carries excess coverage, waiving the statutory tort limits increases both the per- claimant exposure and the per -occurrence exposure. Is there an increase in risk if the city waives the statutory tort liability limits? There is no increase in risk for the city to end up with liability if LMCIT doesn't cover it. The waiver form specifically says the city is waiving the statutory toil liability limits only to the extent of the city's coverage. Of course, that's not to say there is no risk the city's liability could exceed its coverage limits. Listed earlier in this memo are a number of ways that could happen to any city, but the waiver doesn't increase that risk. Can the city waive the statutory tort limits for the primary coverage but not for the excess coverage? No. If the city decides to waive the statutory tort limits, that waiver applies to the Rill extent of the coverage limits the city has. The city cannot partially waive the statutory limits. Is there a simple way to summarize the options? It's not necessarily simple, but the table on the following Your League Resource page is a shorthand summary of what the effect would be Call the Underwriting of the various coverage structure options in different Department at 651.281.1200 circumstances. or 800.925.1122 with any questions. u b a0 O o 3 ti U Q y,a H O O O O O U C O O O O O a G ~ m O O O O ^. O O O O O m O O rq O O •� 0 P q m >, U a Fa o c U a� itl y C�. U El' O O O O O x O N O O O O ctl Cd.N N O y � o EA 69 69 M 69 pp a ^y Y Y cd (1 El O 0 O O O O O C U O O O O O O O yd N 0U ' ❑ �O 69 61) 69 N 0 b 8 o tC U �+ 4 O U O U ISA X X° o O O CC d N U O N O d H > '> > ti O •� O y c 3 c 0 3 0 8 OO O O caQ O GO O > Q3 xQ x3 AGENDA ITEM Item No.: 12 Date: November 27, 2017 Item Description: Fund Balance Transfer Presenter: Ron Olson Agenda City Administrator Finance Director Section: Report 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve fund balance transfers from the General Fund to the Pavement Management Fund and the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. 2. Background. In accordance with the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) and the Minnesota Office of the State Auditor recommendations, the City has adopted a fund balance policy. The policy specifies that the City will maintain an unassigned General Fund balance ranging from 45% to 50% of the General Fund revenue budget. As of December 31, 2016 the unassigned fund balance is $4,405,927, this represents a balance of 57.2% of the General Fund revenue budget. A fund balance of 50% would be $3,854,285 which indicates that the City has an excess fund balance of $551,642. According to the City's fund balance policy, balances in excess of 50% are to be transferred into the Community Investment Fund. However the Council has the option to transfer the excess balance to any fund that they deem appropriate. For the past few years this has been the Pavement Management Fund. With the idea that excess fund balance would be available, Council approved road projects in 2017 that require an amount of $633,200 greater than the Pavement Management Levy. $183,000 was transferred earlier this year from two closed debt service funds. This leaves a balance needed of $450,200 for 2017 projects. For road projects planned for 2018, an additional $317,000 is needed identified projects. Staff has also identified a need for online human resources application. The primary use of this product would be to improve the process for conducting annual performance reviews. Among its benefits would be the ability to easily perform a 360° review process which provides a much more in depth review of an employee. The application would also be utilized in the hiring process to evaluate applications. Staff would like to transfer $20,000 to the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund for this potential purchase. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approving a transfer of $531,642 to the Pavement Management Fund road projects and a $20,000 transfer to the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund for human resources software. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve General Fund transfers in the amounts of $531,642 to the Pavement Management Fund, and $20,000 to the Improvement and Equipment Outlay Fund. Prepared By: Nic Reviewed By: Approved By: -T)a