Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
10-14-2019 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, October 14, 2019, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification 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 Consent Agenda 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of September 23, 2019 2. Work Session Meeting minutes of September 23, 2019 3. Claims/Bills 4. Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2014A 5. Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2016A 6. Adopt Resolution to Designate Polling Places for 2020 Elections 7. Adopt Records Management Policy and Resolution 8. Approve Purchase of Microfilm Scanner 9. Disposal of Forfeited Vehicles 10. Disposal of Bicycles 11. Accept Officer Josh Needham’s Resignation 12. Request to Promote Full-Time Police Officer 13. Accept Orono Rotary Donation to Lurton and Saga Hills Parks 14. Long Lake Ravine Stabilization – Final Pay Application/Closeout 15. Approve Big Island Park Additional Archeology Work 16. 2019 Sewer Rehabilitation Award 17. LA19-000053 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Average Lake Shore Setback 18. LA19-000062 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Accessory Building Size Regulations 19. LA19-000064 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Gardens as Principal Use Regulations 20. LA19-000068 – Eric Johnson, 580 Orchard Park Road, Variance – Resolution 21. LA19-000071 – Laurel Ulland Architecture/Martha Meyers Head, 2090 Shoreline Drive, Variance – Resolution 22. LA19-000072 – Brenden Lawrence, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, Variance – Resolution Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Agenda Council Meeting Monday, October 14, 2019, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Public Hearing 23. LA19-000060 - Tom Druk, 3348 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing, Resolution Presentation 24. Orono School Board Referendum Presentation 25. LMCD Representative Mark Kroll – LMCD Update Planning Department Report (Matthew Gettman – Planning Commission Representative) 26. LA19-000047 – Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400 Deering Island, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Amend MUSA Boundary 27. LA19-000067 – Alexander Design Group o/b/o Mark and Kristie Ties, 3129 Casco Circle, Variance 28. LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP Mayor/Council Report City Administrator Report 29. Carman Bay Lake Improvement District Levy 30. Designate Contributions for Right-Of-Way 31. Labor Agreement with Sergeants LELS Local #168 City Attorney Report Closed Session 32. The meeting will be closed as permitted by section 13D.05, Subdivision 3(c), to consider offers to purchase City owned properties identified as PID’s: 1711723430115; 17117230117; 1711723430119; and 1711723430123 Adjournment Upcoming Events 2019 10-21-19 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m. (Dennis Walsh) 10-28-19 City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 10-28-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11-04-19 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 11-11-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 11-12-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11-18-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) Agenda Council Meeting Monday, October 14, 2019, 7:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification 11-25-19 City Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 11-25-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. 11-28-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 11-29-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 12-09-19 Truth in Taxation, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 12-09-19 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 11 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson, Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 9, 2019 2. CLAIMS/BILLS 3. REPLACE NETWORK SWITCHES 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSE 5. APPROVAL OF RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING SERVICES CONTRACT 6. COUNCIL CHAMBEERS UPGRADE 7. BEDERWOOD PARK PARKING LOT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH MnDNR 8. CRESTVIEW AVENUE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REQUEST 9. LA19-000070 – ROB OLSON ON BEHALF OF WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB, 200 WAYZATA BOULEVARD, PROJECT ADDRESS: 430 OLD LONG LAKE ROAD, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – MUSA – RESOLUTION NO. 7020 10. DEPARTMENT GOALS 11. GOLF COURSE BENCH DONATION RESOLUTION NO. 7021 Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None PRESENTATION 12. SENATOR DAVID OSMEK MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 11 Senator David Osmek provided the City Council with an overview of the 2019 legislative session. The legislature finished the session late but they did pass a tax bill that he did not vote for because it did not cut in half the two percent sick tax or provider tax, which people pay every time they visit a health clinic. Originally that was intended to be a temporary tax but is now a permanent tax at 1.8 percent. While the legislature could have budgeted for it, they chose not to do so. Osmek indicated he also did not vote for the opiate bill. While the opiate bill was a good idea fundamentally, it basically was a tax on people who obtain opiates from a physician, which are generally people who follow the rules and use what they have. The downside to the bill is that the majority of the opiates are coming in mostly from over the border, and people who are addicted or are overdosing are not going to be taxed. It will tax, however, the average person who goes to the doctor. Osmek stated he advocated for using the general fund to help offset that since all Minnesotans will benefit from it. Going to be discussed in the 2020 session is the insulin bill, which is a good idea and has the backing of insulin manufacturers. At this time he would be happy to support it unless it is modified or changed. Currently as chair of the Energy and Utilities Commission, Osmek stated he has been working with environmental lobbyists and people on the environmental side as well as the utilities to put together a clean energy bill. This bill is vastly different from the House bill, which would not have allowed for natural gas to be used as a bridge fuel when there is not enough renewable energy available. Osmek stated he went on a tour of a wind farm last week as well as two nuclear reactors, and while wind energy is becoming more and more efficient and more reliable, it only makes up a small portion of Minnesota’s energy portfolio and the state needs to have a mix of fuels. No one is against a cleaner environment, but it needs to be accomplished in a sane, rational manner and not rely solely on one type of energy. Osmek stated he also serves on the Transportation Committee and that he was recently contacted by a constituent who was questioning why he should have to pay over $600 for the tabs on his vehicle since he does not drive on the roads any more than someone who might own a 2009 Taurus. Osmek stated in his view there should be a limit on how much people pay for tabs and that his intention is to discuss that in the upcoming legislative session. The questions to be addressed are at what point is there a limit and should there be a ceiling. Mayor Walsh asked whether there is anything new with 5G technology. Osmek stated they did roll it out in Minneapolis and that they are hoping to expand the service area. Even if 5G is available in your area, that does not mean your phone will work on 5G because you will need to purchase a 5G phone. Crosby noted the tab fees are supposed to go for road maintenance and snow clearance and that he would like the legislators to balance those figures and make sure that money is not going into another department. Crosby stated he is also a major advocate for not expanding toll roads in Minnesota. Osmek noted the toll roads are tied to federal road money, but that he does not believe there will be much of an expansion in this area. There might be some addition to 35N as you go out of the Cities but they will not put a toll lane in on I-94 going up to Rogers even though that has been discussed. Crosby commented it is another revenue generator and that the money does not always go towards roads. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 11 Osmek indicated the committee did have a discussion about the gas tax and how that was supposed to go toward roads and bridges. There is some leakage, however, that goes into snowmobile clubs because the thinking is that snowmobilers buy gas and pay that tax and it was felt some of that money should go towards trails. It is the same situation with boats. The committee has been keeping an eye on where that money is going but Minnesota did not need a gas tax this year and does not need one next year. Osmek indicated he will continue fighting any increase in Minnesota’s current 28.5 cents gas tax. Crosby asked how much of that money was diverted to light rail. Osmek noted the light rail system did have an increase in revenue and an increase in ridership but that it is still heavily funded by the taxpayers. Osmek stated he also wanted to talk about the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District bill since people are misrepresenting it. The bill was never going to increase density on the lake. The LMCD has not performed a density study since 2004, and if they feel there is a density issue, why have they not done anther study to look at it. The bill was designed to allow the cities to be in control of their land management and to not let the LMCD board, which consists of 13 unelected people, telling cities what they can do with noise and traffic issues. Osmek stated he is not going to hand over land authority to 13 people who do not live in his town and do not represent him and that the cities should keep their authority. Osmek stated he also had representatives in his office from the Metropolitan Council. In Minnesota there a lot of cities that are the same size as Orono or smaller. A number of those cities are already built up and they will not be rezoning any land or putting in new developments. Osmek indicated he will be getting together with the Metropolitan Council in October and the goal is to put together a methodology that says if your zoning has not changed by more than 10 percent, then you do not have to do a Comprehensive Plan Update. The Metropolitan Council agrees with that and they will be working on a bill to help cities not have to go through that exercise. Hopefully by next year that will be worked out. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT 13. ADOPT 2020 PRELIMINARY TAX LEVY Olson stated by state law the City is required to adopt a preliminary property tax levy by September 30. The truth-in-taxation meeting will be held December 9 at 6:30 p.m., with the final levy being adopted that evening. Once the preliminary levy is set, it cannot be increased, and it can only be decreased. The property tax levy consists of three components. The first is the operating levy, which is adopted to fund the general fund operating budget. The second part is the Pavement Management Levy that is needed to fund the City’s Pavement Maintenance Plan. The final levy component is for the debt service of the City’s outstanding bonds. The City’s revenue budget is now around $9,143,000, which is a 6.6 percent increase over last year. As it relates to total intragovernmental revenue, new regulations do not allow cities to net grant money and it now has to be recorded as revenue and the expenditures need to be recorded, which is what largely constituted the increase in revenue. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 11 Property taxes are increasing by $299,000, which is larger than it has been in recent years. However, $80,000 of that increase is due to another budgeting shift. Orono had been budgeting for road maintenance out of the Pavement Management Plan. Starting in 2020, road maintenance will be taken out of the General Fund. Previous city councils were not funding it out of the General Fund and had been using bond revenue for maintenance because they did not want to raise taxes to fund road maintenance. The current City Council has done a good job of looking at long-term maintenance needs and providing funding for them. Property taxes consist of 51 percent of the budget. Over the years Orono has found other ways to fund the General Fund. One of those funding sources is public safety service charges, which consists of 28 percent of the budget. General government service charges is at seven percent and permits are at 6 percent. Surrounding cities are much higher in their dependence on property taxes to fund their General Fund, but Orono’s police contract revenue allows the City to be less dependent on property taxes. The expenditure budget is increasing by 6.6 percent, which is consistent with the revenue budget. One of the biggest increases for 2020 is elections. Next year there will be three elections - the presidential primary, the general primary, and federal elections, which amounts to an $62,000 increase. Police services are increasing significantly by $354,000, with at least half of that going towards wages and benefits. Another big increase for the police department is insurance costs, which amount to around $40,000. Over time the City’s insurance carrier has realized that police departments in general are behind a lot of big claims, and as a result, the City’s premiums have increased dramatically. Street maintenance has an increase of $95,000, mainly as a result of an accounting shift. The City Council removed $80,000 out of the Pavement Maintenance Plan and put it into the street maintenance budget. Olson stated those are the three main departments that are increasing significantly. Special Projects and Contingencies is decreasing by $70,000 since the City will not be hiring another employee as was originally anticipated. The City’s expenditure budget overall consists of 53 percent for the police department, five percent for fire protection, eight percent for building and zoning, and seven percent for street maintenance. Personnel costs is the most significant budget line item. The total of all proposed levies is $6,007,450. The General Fund operating budget is $4,679,000; the Pavement Management levy is $617,450, which is an increase of $73,000; and bond payments is $711,000 per year. That number will drop significantly by a quarter of a million dollars in 2023. Orono has traditionally been very conservative on the amount that they tax. A person’s property tax bill consists of Hennepin County at 40 percent, the City at 15 percent, the school at 37 percent, and other is nine percent. As it relates to the City’s tax capacity, in 2019 the City’s tax rate was 16.406 percent. Under the 2020 levy, that would increase to 16.677 percent, which is a little over a quarter percentage increase in the rate, which yields $372,000 in revenue. If someone has a $250,000 home that did not change in value, their taxes would increase by $6.38 on annual basis. On a $2 million home, that would amount to an increase of $64.00. Because some homes will increase in value, a five percent value was calculated to each of the examples. In that scenario, the $250,000 home would see a $29 increase and the $2 million home would see a $272.00 increase. Over the years the City’s tax rate has decreased from 17.9 percent in 2014 to 16.6 percent in 2020. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 11 Seals suggested that information be shared with the residents on the City’s website since it shows the trajectory is going down. Seals stated she does not feel that is the perception by the residents. Walsh noted Orono’s taxes on a $1 million house went down since 2014 by 5.36 percent. The City Council has used those monies to fund road repairs, infrastructure, technology, and the other services the City provides. Over the past four years the City’s tax rate has decreased by four percent. The City Council has been able to do that by good budgeting and being efficient with taxpayer dollars. In addition, the roads budget has been increasing even though residents have been paying less in taxes. The City is not bonding and little by little has been paying off that debt. Seals stated when people tear down a million-dollar home and then build a $5 million home, that helps keep the residents’ taxes down because it increases the City’s tax capacity. Walsh stated as the City’s debt decreases, that will allow the City to keep taxes lower. Orono is currently the third or fourth lowest taxed city in Hennepin County. Olson noted at the October 28 City Council work session, they will be reviewing utility fund budgets, Staff’s internal rate study, and the Capital Improvement Plan. At the November 25, 2019, work session, the Council will be discussing the fee schedule, and at the December 9, 2019, City Council meeting, the truth-in-taxation meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m., and the City’s final budget and final tax levy will be approved. There were no public comments. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7022, a Resolution Adopting the Preliminary 2019 Tax Levy Collectible in 2020. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. ADOPT 2020 PRELIMINARY GENERAL FUND BUDGET Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7023, a Resolution to Adopt the Preliminary 2020 General Fund Budget. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 15. LA19-000053 – CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT, AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK REGULATIONS Barnhart noted two weeks ago the City Council directed Staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption regarding the average lakeshore setback reflecting the desired language offered by the Mayor. The Council did not want to make any wholesale changes but wanted to provide an avenue to support improvements that do not increase the impact in neighboring properties in certain lot configurations. The City Attorney and Staff slightly revised that language to avoid unintended consequences and loopholes. Staff has prepared some examples applying the new language to different lots. In most situations, there is no change. In lots where the shoreline is convex, the new language is applied. This new setback is shown in red, with the old setback being depicted in black. In these three examples, the average lakeshore setback moves closer to the lake but does not impact the view. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 11 Staff recommends adoption as drafted. Walsh noted under Item (b) it states, in situations where the average lakeshore setback line bisects the principal building located on either adjacent lot, the next most adjacent lakeside bisect point shall be used. Walsh asked whether that should be the next most adjacent lakeside point of the bisected principal that does not bisect the house. Johnson stated that was one of his questions as well and asked what happens if the next most adjacent lakeside bisect point goes through the principal structure as well. Walsh stated they would have to keep moving further away until it does not bisect. Barnhart indicated that is how it was applied in the examples. Walsh suggested making that language clearer by changing it to read, the next most adjacent lakeside point of the principal that does not bisect the house or the building. Mattick stated they may want to remove the first bisect. Walsh commented it could say as long as it does not bisect the principal building. Mattick stated it could read, the next most adjacent lakeside point of the principal building shall be used for determining the average lakeshore setback. Walsh suggested adding the words, as long as it does not bisect the principal structure. Walsh asked whether anyone from the public would like to comment on this application. Kelly Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated they would like to get clarification on the change. If they are looking at the two homes next to their house, the new adjacent structure that received variances to go closer to the lakeshore, the new corner, rather than the previous corner, now becomes the new point of measurement, and that would be the easterly corner to their westerly corner. Hueler asked whether the lot in the middle, which was originally supposed to be a pad on a conforming lot but obtained variances to move closer to the lakeshore, would be able to go closer to the lake without a variance. Walsh stated they cannot move it any closer because the red line is the line in that situation and that line would remain the same. Crosby noted the black line shows what the line originally was and the red line shows what was granted. The red line is what would apply under the new ordinance. Kelly Hueler asked if the new line is what the variance allowed. Crosby stated it is. Kelly Hueler asked if that house can move closer to the lake. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 11 Walsh stated they cannot. If they had come before the Council under this new language, the only difference between the two is they would not require a variance under the new language. Kelly Hueler stated there needs to be clarity so there are not unreasonable variance requests due to confusion. Hueler stated they do not want to see people who have requested and been granted variances come in again for a variance. Walsh noted they have already received approval, and if they want to move their house any closer, they would require a variance. Kelly Hueler commented that is the concern they have. Walsh stated if it was a situation that was impacted by the change, they could come before the City Council. The City could potentially have some situations like that, and that it is not unlike when the City changed the hardcover rules. Johnson pointed out the overall hardcover would also come into play, because if someone wanted to push their house closer to the lake, that may require a longer driveway. Crosby noted they also have the 75-foot setback that they will have to comply with. Walsh stated the change might result in three feet to five feet differences but that there are not going to be huge changes to the line. In addition, the new language will help clarify things. Greg Hueler noted Staff had said there were 40 variance requests this year. Hueler asked how many of those variances related to this development. Barnhart indicated it was very few. Kelly Hueler commented there was a lot of confusion on a whole lot of levels on the project next to their house and their concern is about changing city code because of confusion on a project that was immensely confusing for a lot of reasons. Walsh stated most changes result from applications where the ordinance does not make sense or where an issue has not been raised before. Greg Hueler asked if the change in the code will decrease the number of variance requests. Walsh stated it could. Johnson noted one application dealt with oversized accessory structures where he wanted to add on to an existing building but was prohibited from doing that because he would have exceeded the maximum number of square feet for a single building. That text amendment will be before the City Council at their next meeting. Walsh commented there are also issues with slope stabilization that come up periodically and how long the process takes and the Council is discussing ways to streamline that process. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 11 Kelly Hueler stated they just want to make sure all citizens are treated equally. If people are respectful of the code and of their neighbors, a variance should be considered, and unreasonable variances should be limited. Mattick suggested at the end they could simply add, if the line continues to bisect building, the next most lakeshore point is to e used until the setback line does not bisect the adjacent building. Walsh stated that would be acceptable. Johnson asked if the City has a definition of where or what the lakeshore is. If not, the City Council should have a conversation about changing it to the ordinary high water level. Barnhart stated he does not know off the top of the head whether the City has a definition of lakeshore. Johnson commented they might want to further look into that. Johnson indicated he has spoken with several surveyors that are active in the community and one of the complications they can encounter is how they obtain that measurement if the adjoining neighbor does not agree to them coming on their property to measure from their corner. Barnhart stated his understanding is they obtain that from aerial photographs. Johnson stated to his knowledge this got started because City Staff was interpreting the city code one way for a long time and then the City started interpreting it differently. The surveyor with their direct reflex laser are able to get property corners, which makes it easier to go from a property corner to a property corner, but somebody has to get permission to do that. If you start throwing in 42-inch maximum height, the surveyor would have to stand on that property and measure the height, and they may not get that permission. Ultimately they will have to survey the house on both sides to be exact. At one point Staff was interpreting corner to corner as average lakeshore setback. Johnson stated the other thing he learned on the Council was that he was using the words line of sight or sightline, which is not in the code, and that he should be using average lakeshore setback. People get confused between the term line of sight and average lakeshore setback. Walsh noted the average lakeshore setback affects someone’s line of sight. Johnson stated at the Planning Commission meeting they had a neighbor on Casco Point that thinks they deserve a180-degree line of sight but there is nothing in the code that protects the sight. The average setback line is to keep houses from boxing in other homes, and the spirit of what the City Council is trying to do is make it understandable and fair to everybody. In his experience in talking to the surveyors, the City Council should take a harder look at this whole thing before they add any tweaks. Walsh stated the onus is on the surveyor to provide the information and that he is not sure how to change the code to make it easier to obtain. The Code needs to be clear on where that point is, and that he is not sure if ordinary high-water mark is clear either. Barnhart stated ordinary high water is a pretty standard term and it is the point where the 75-foot setback is measured from. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 11 Johnson stated the ordinary high-water mark is a constant, but some lakes do not have designated high- water marks. Orono may want to incorporate that into their code because they need to have some sort of consistent measuring point. Walsh stated if that is standard in Orono, they could use that regardless of what other cities have. Johnson stated the City should be conscious of asking people to do something that they might not be able to get and that he is not a proponent of changing it. If any changes are going to be made, he would like to take a wholesale look at it. Walsh stated he likes the City Attorney’s language that clarified that and that he likes ordinary high-water mark if the term shoreline is not defined. Johnson stated this started out in a work session and it went to the Planning Commission as three options of what to do and they vetted those out. The Planning Commission has not been a part of this conservation. Walsh stated the Planning Commission vetted out the general concept of the lines and that the City Council has received enough information from Staff to proceed forward. Mattick recommended this item come back before the City Council at their next meeting with the exact language. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to table Application No. LA19-000053, City of Orono, Text Amendment Related to Average Lakeshore Setback. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals reported Bederwood Park is currently under construction and that she has been approached by some residents wondering whether some new homes are going in there. The project consists of a new soccer field and improvements to the parking lot. Seals encouraged the residents to use the city parks more often since then they are less likely to go away. Johnson noted the department goals was on the Consent Agenda. Those goals help make sure there are some benchmarks and accountability. Johnson stated the City has received the funds for the easement vacation and that he would like to start a conversation about where that money should be earmarked, such as perhaps using it to improve other easements. Johnson noted there was money allocated on the survey for Big Island but the City has not accepted that grant yet. Rief stated the archeological survey is completed and that Staff is waiting on the final agreement for the grant. Johnson stated the City also worked out an arrangement with the School and the City’s engineer chipped in on that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 11 Crosby stated he has recently become aware of the need for the assisted living center to have a larger sign. During the day it is very difficult to see the sign and it is worse at night, especially if emergency personnel need to respond. Walsh stated the Long Lake Fire and Police Department softball game was this past Wednesday and the Orono Police Department won. The annual mayors’ rowing competition is this Sunday and the police and fire departments will be participating. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT 16. LABOR AGREEMENT WITH PATROL OFFICERS LELS LOCAL #40 Rief provided an update on the Labor Agreement with the Patrol Officers LELS Local No. 40. The City has agreed to a three-year term starting on January 1, 2020, along with wage increases over those three years of three percent, three percent, and two percent. Insurance contributions by the City was strongly negotiated and have been maintained at the City’s current cost of $1,472 for a family in 2020. The contribution for a single individual has not changed. The new established rate will be 50 percent of the increase for 2021 and 2022. The City’s general policy on increases has been kept across all union and nonunion personnel. A longevity step was added for police officers at 18 years. As it relates to vacation time, eight hours of vacation time has been added for employees over 20 years, with no changes to the rest. Compensatory time was modified for 12-hour shifts. Not agreed to was an increase the sick pay bank, an increase in the vacation bank, specialty pay for investigators and other personnel, and health savings account contributions. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Labor Agreement with Patrol Officers LELS Local #40. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT, CONTINUED Rief reported he has a meeting with the city managers this week along with his staff. A meeting is typically held once a year around the budget timeframe to see if there are any issues. Last year there was probably 25 city managers and administrators at the meeting. The meeting is a good opportunity to express any concerns Orono may have. Rief stated he will bring up the issues with the roads CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Mattick noted he occasionally speaks with representatives from the Minnesota League of Cities, and that if there are specific issues the City Council has, they should let him know. Recently there has been a lot of noise about some of the fees cities charge their residents and it is something that is coming under scrutiny. Fees charged by cities will likely be discussed at the 2020 legislative session. Fees can be a big component of a City’s revenue and there has been some discussion about how the fees on a building application are determined. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, September 23, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 11 ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:40 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Monday, September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, and Matt Johnson. Representing staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Adam Edwards, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Guests: Concept Landscape Representative Dale 1. Slope Stabilization Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart introduced the Slope Stabilization item and asked for guidance from the Council to amend the ordinance. Mayor Dennis Walsh stated that it would be good to go through the process and that it would be a good idea to revise and fix the ordinance. Council Member Matt Johnson added that there is a very limited amount of contractors that do this type of work and that it would be a good idea to improve those relationships with those contractors as well as work on ways for the emergency route. Dale of Concept Landscape explained the timeframe that it typically takes to complete the permitting process and commented that it took too long. Dale mentioned that it would really help if the process was shorter. Walsh mentioned that it would make the process go faster if we made sure staff had all of the information in front of them from the beginning. Walsh mentioned it would be a good idea to have those conversations with staff to gain input on this as well. Director of Public Works/ City Engineer Adam Edwards mentioned that there are two parts of this process, the engineering and the permitting processes and that the engineer portion can take up to a week or more for review. 2. Minnetonka Beach Water Services Agreement Discussion City Administrator Dustin Rief mentioned that Minnetonka Beach reached out over a year ago anticipating water services to be provided by Orono. Recently they have reached out again regarding the issue. Rief is looking to discuss options with the Council in regards to a water services agreement with Minnetonka Beach. Seals asked what the issue is. Rief explained that the Minnetonka Beach water tower is in considerable need of repair. Council Member Victoria Seals asked if the rates that are proposed will maintain our system. Seals also stated that she would like to see us do what is best for Orono. Orono City Council Work Session Monday, September 23, 2019 Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. Walsh mentioned that the question is if the City prefers to charge bulk rates for water or rates for usage of water that would be based on a tiered or flat system. Seals added that we should at least charge them what we charge our own residents. Johnson mentioned that it is a neighboring city in need and that it is important to keep that in mind. Rief added that we will figure the charges after we complete our rate study and make those rates comparable to what we will be raising our resident’s own rates to be. 3. Dakota Trail Extension Update Adam Edwards Director of Public Works/City Engineer presented the item. Edwards is looking for direction from the Council for staff to either continue with design and development of a trail connection along County Road 19 between Dakota rail regional trail and Livingston Avenue. Walsh mentioned that it is worth it to continue to complete this project. Adjourned: 6:58p.m. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: SKP Approved By: DJR 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 112647 to 112734, totaling $490,559.37. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #112668 Champion Coating $66,100.00 Payment for painting of South and North Water Plant. #112712 Orono Public Schools $10,000.00 Payment for replacement of fiber optic at Orono Schools. #112713 Orono Woods Apartment $136,789.19 Payment to Orono Woods for 2nd half of 2017 through 1st half of 2019 Tax Increment Financing. This was collected with prior years’ tax levies. #112714 Otten Brothers $9,225,43 Payment for trees at Lurton and Saga Hills Park, which is funded with the donation from the Orono Rotary. 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 A. Check Register Item No.: 3 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Maggie Ung, Accountant Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount City of Wayzata\DMV 10/04/2019 112647 092619 231-45650-441 Case #19-4341 2013 Mercedes Benz Forfeiture 27.00 Total 112647:27.00 Cornelia Klitzke 10/04/2019 112648 100119 101-22205 Escrow Refund Z19-000014 555 Oxford Road 1,000.00 Total 112648:1,000.00 Knoblauch Builders LLC 10/04/2019 112649 100419 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS18-54, D18-19, LA18-77 1335 10,700.00 Knoblauch Builders LLC 10/04/2019 112649 100419 101-39615 Escrow Refund RPS18-54, D18-19, LA18-77 1335 30.00- Total 112649:10,670.00 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 10/04/2019 112650 100419 601-49400-322 3rd Qtr Utility Bills Water 61.89 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 10/04/2019 112650 100419 602-49450-322 3rd Qtr Utility Bills Sewer 340.40 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 10/04/2019 112650 100419 651-49910-322 3rd Qtr Utility Bills Storm Water 340.41 Total 112650:742.70 Advance Auto Parts 10/14/2019 112653 6974-364669 701-49800-221 Wiring Clamp Task 31808 .96 Total 112653:.96 ADVANCED FIRST AID INC 10/14/2019 112654 0919-613 101-42110-340 Sign Heart Safe Road Sign Police Department 222.85 Total 112654:222.85 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 10/14/2019 112655 395885841 710-49970-413 PW Copier Lease 9/20/19-10/20/19 116.76 Total 112655:116.76 ALLSTREAM 10/14/2019 112656 16392864 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 300.62 ALLSTREAM 10/14/2019 112656 16392864 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 420.87 ALLSTREAM 10/14/2019 112656 16392864 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 70.15 ALLSTREAM 10/14/2019 112656 16392864 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 210.44 Total 112656:1,002.08 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 10/14/2019 112657 18785 101-41900-319 Administrative Fee 10/19 Central Services 2,067.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112657:2,067.00 BIRKELAND, ROBERT 10/14/2019 112658 100719 999-10015 Refund UB Acct 2-812970-00 / 1298 Wildhurst Trl 17.05 Total 112658:17.05 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240010 435-48971-304 2018 Street Improvements 18-019 2,399.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240013 101-43280-304 LA19-000022 Willow Bay Sanctuary Special Services 640.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240015 101-43280-304 Southways Development 18-3999 Special Services 1,227.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240018 101-43280-304 LA18-000034 2635 Kelly Parkway Special Services 471.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240022 101-43280-304 16-3858 Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 348.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240023 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Preserve Special Services 521.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240026 101-43280-304 LA18-000062 387 Orono Orchard Rd Special Services 360.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240027 101-43280-304 16-3868 Shadywood Villas Special Services 467.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240028 101-43280-304 LA18-000072 2709 Walters Port Lane Special Services 2,401.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240029 101-42400-304 RPS19-000081 2833 Goldenrod Way Building & Zoning 64.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240030 101-43280-304 Lakeview Addition 15-3723 Special Services 458.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240031 101-43280-304 16-3867 Tanager Estates Special Services 572.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240032 101-43280-304 LA19-001238 1905 Concordia St Special Services 448.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240035 651-16500 2019 Drainage Improvements 19-029 2,537.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240036 601-49400-305 2019 GIS Maintenance Water 1,260.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240036 602-49450-305 2019 GIS Maintenance Sewer 2,180.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240036 651-49910-305 2019 GIS Maintenance Storm Water 870.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240037 101-43170-304 2019 Drainage - Three Rivers Park District Engineering 64.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240041 602-16500 2019 Sewer Improvements 19-013 2,145.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240042 435-48972-304 2019 Street Improvements 19-001 4,388.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240043 435-48973-304 2020 Streets Improvements 20-001 2020 Street Improvments 21,347.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240046 225-45200-304 Bederwood Park Improvement 19-032 4,184.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240049 101-43170-304 Big Island Master Plan 19-033 Engineering 151.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240051 601-16500 CR 15 & 19 Reconstruct 19-021 993.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240051 602-16500 CR 15 & 19 Reconstruct 19-021 993.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240052 402-48055-304 OCB Project 18-021 OCB Road Reconstruction 258.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.10/14/2019 112659 0240057 101-43280-304 Orono Preserves Special Services 938.00 Total 112659:52,684.50 BOYER FORD TRUCKS INC 10/14/2019 112660 68476R 701-49800-222 Truck #427 Grille Task 32492 763.86 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112660:763.86 BRAD SCHOENHERR 10/14/2019 112661 091219 101-42110-226 SWAT Clothing - WHite, Schoenherr, Sonnek, Spen Police Department 1,243.39 Total 112661:1,243.39 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 10/14/2019 112662 2320729 101-45210-091 beer for resale Golf Course 205.20 Total 112662:205.20 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 071119-3 101-41500-437 MNGFOA Conference Lodging - M. Ung Finance Department 272.26 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 071119-4 101-41500-437 MNGFOA Conference Lodging - R. Olson Finance Department 272.26 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092319 101-41110-439 Work Session Food & Cookies - 9/23 meetings Mayor & Council 52.97 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092319-1 101-41110-439 Work Session Food 9/23/19 Mayor & Council 5.48 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092419 101-43000-437 APWA Fall Conference Public Works Department 255.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092419-1 101-45200-221 Keyback Key Rings Parks 24.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092619 101-45200-212 Non-Oxy Gas for Mower and Boat - Big Island Parks 24.63 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 092719 101-43000-224 Throttle Cable (Roller)Public Works Department 90.07 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 100119 101-41300-319 Condolence Card for C. Farniok & Family Administration 4.29 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 100219 101-43000-408 ROW Permit Public Works Department 330.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 100619 101-42110-402 Carwash for Squad #261 Police Department 13.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 100919 651-49910-240 PW Tools Storm Water 107.53 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 10/14/2019 112663 100919-1 701-49800-221 First Aid Kit Unit #110 80.59 Total 112663:1,533.06 CARGILL SALT 10/14/2019 112664 2904977640 601-49400-216 Nav Wtr Plant Salt Water 5,128.44 Total 112664:5,128.44 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 10/14/2019 112665 092419 602-49450-381 1222 Bracketts Pt Rd Gas 8/13-9/20 Sewer 20.67 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 10/14/2019 112665 3000883236 602-16500 1222 Bracketts Pt Rd Install Service & Guard Post 2,009.00 Total 112665:2,029.67 Century Link 10/14/2019 112666 091919 101-45210-321 GC phone/internet 9/19/19-10/18/19 Golf Course 232.07 Total 112666:232.07 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CHAD STENSRUD 10/14/2019 112667 090419 101-42110-226 investigator clothing Police Department 153.50 Total 112667:153.50 CHAMPION COATINGS INC 10/14/2019 112668 942-FINAL 601-16500 Water Plant Painting 19-023 66,100.00 Total 112668:66,100.00 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4026789786 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4026789786 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4030287195 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4030287195 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4030287195 101-43000-404 Mat Service - PW Public Works Department 14.40 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4030765567 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4030765567 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031298856 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031298856 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031412069 101-41900-404 Mats/Air Service - City Hall Central Services 21.92 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031412081 101-41900-401 Gray Mats for 2780 Kelley Pkwy Central Services 10.80 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031860134 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112669 4031860134 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 Total 112669:357.97 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 10/14/2019 112670 1900280 601-49400-489 Bacterial Water Testing Water 31.50 Total 112670:31.50 CITY OF WAYZATA 10/14/2019 112671 100919 602-49450-387 3rd Quarter 2019 Sewer Sewer 12,512.40 CITY OF WAYZATA 10/14/2019 112671 100919 601-49400-387 3rd Quarter 2019 Water Water 6,986.05 CITY OF WAYZATA 10/14/2019 112671 100919-1 602-49450-387 4th Qtr 2018 & 1st Qtr 2019 Sewer Adjustment Sewer 100.05 CITY OF WAYZATA 10/14/2019 112671 100919-1 601-49400-387 4th Qtr 2018 & 1st Qtr 2019 Water Adjustment Water 115.45 Total 112671:19,713.95 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 10/14/2019 112672 190930 101-43000-224 2019 Road Patching 19-009 Public Works Department 609.40 Total 112672:609.40 CORE & MAIN 10/14/2019 112673 L288174 601-49400-227 Valve Box, Screw Valve, Water Dome, Rod Water 1,439.53 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CORE & MAIN 10/14/2019 112673 L288698 601-49400-227 Adapter Water 553.81 Total 112673:1,993.34 DELTA DENTAL 10/14/2019 112674 4842130001 101-21709 4842130001 October 2019 Dental 3,053.06 DELTA DENTAL 10/14/2019 112674 4842130001 101-15998 4842130001 October 2019 Dental 436.40 Total 112674:3,489.46 DITTER INC.10/14/2019 112675 I2151 101-41900-404 Annual Service on Furnaces Central Services 872.10 DITTER INC.10/14/2019 112675 I2152 101-41900-404 Post Office Furnace Repair Central Services 90.00 Total 112675:962.10 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 10/14/2019 112676 0121502-IN 101-43000-224 Replacement Tonka Ave Sign Public Works Department 102.85 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 10/14/2019 112676 0121535-IN 602-49450-227 Sewer Manhole Marker Signs Sewer 189.35 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 10/14/2019 112676 0121562-IN 101-43000-224 No Outlet and Dead End Signs Public Works Department 706.50 Total 112676:998.70 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 10/14/2019 112677 714519 101-41900-352 Ordinance 231 Central Services 32.78 Total 112677:32.78 EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 10/14/2019 112678 46886 101-42110-402 Squads Repairs Police Department 1,058.24 Total 112678:1,058.24 EXPRESS EMPLOYMENT PROF 10/14/2019 112679 22862176 101-41300-319 Temp - Emp Development Event Administration 97.65 Total 112679:97.65 FAST SIGNS 10/14/2019 112680 100-30282 225-45200-223 Tree Walk Project 1,323.03 Total 112680:1,323.03 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 10/14/2019 112681 0344886 601-49400-227 Meter Head for 177 Glendale Water 116.64 Total 112681:116.64 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 10/14/2019 112682 3270-452894 701-49800-240 Shop Supplies - Grease Fitting 32.99 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 10/14/2019 112682 3270-455152 101-42110-221 Squad Supplies Police Department 110.15 Total 112682:143.14 GOPHER ACE 10/14/2019 112683 A64608 701-49800-240 Shop Supplies 35.96 GOPHER ACE 10/14/2019 112683 B535523 101-45220-223 Brush Site Door Knob Brush Site 4.76 GOPHER ACE 10/14/2019 112683 B535865 101-45220-223 Brush Site Door Knob Brush Site 29.85 GOPHER ACE 10/14/2019 112683 B536895 101-45210-201 Golf Supplies Golf Course 14.17 Total 112683:84.74 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 10/14/2019 112684 9090649 601-49400-489 locates Water 278.10 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 10/14/2019 112684 9090649 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 278.10 Total 112684:556.20 GRAINGER INC 10/14/2019 112685 9304401202 601-49400-227 Transfer Pump, Lithium Ion Battery Water 258.70 Total 112685:258.70 GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA 10/14/2019 112686 3609208860 101-45210-092 beverages for concessions Golf Course 223.20 Total 112686:223.20 GRIFFIN, SUSANNE 10/14/2019 112687 100819 101-32510 Refund TP19-000006 2224 Shadywood Rd 50.00 Total 112687:50.00 GROUP HEALTH INC 10/14/2019 112688 W816331 101-42110-135 EAP health for 08/2019 Police Department 10.00 GROUP HEALTH INC 10/14/2019 112688 W816432 101-42110-135 EAP health for 09/2019 Police Department 10.00 Total 112688:20.00 Haugo GeoTechnical Services LL 10/14/2019 112689 7919 225-45200-319 Bederwood Park Improvement 19-032 991.00 Total 112689:991.00 HEALTH PARTNERS 10/14/2019 112690 92798102 101-42110-135 Health Insurance 11/2019 Police Department 654.50 HEALTH PARTNERS 10/14/2019 112690 92798102 101-15998 Health Insurance 11/2019 3,660.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount HEALTH PARTNERS 10/14/2019 112690 92798102 101-21706 Health Insurance 11/2019 48,019.50 Total 112690:52,334.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 10/14/2019 112691 1000137607 101-42110-414 PD Radio Communication-9/19 Police Department 2,150.41 Total 112691:2,150.41 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 10/14/2019 112692 1000137734 101-41600-309 Jail Charges-Sep/2019 Law/Legal Services 75.00 Total 112692:75.00 High Road Heating & Cooling 10/14/2019 112693 10942 602-16500 GS #9 Generator 1,090.66 Total 112693:1,090.66 Hoff Barry P.A.10/14/2019 112694 15359 101-41600-306 Contempt Matter Law/Legal Services 477.00 Total 112694:477.00 Hubbard Electric Inc 10/14/2019 112695 5592 101-42110-404 Fire Alarm Wire Police Department 164.55 Total 112695:164.55 JACKIE YOUNG 10/14/2019 112696 093019 101-45200-319 Park Meeting 9/3/19 Parks 165.00 JACKIE YOUNG 10/14/2019 112696 093019 101-42400-319 PC Meeting 9/16/19 Building & Zoning 240.00 JACKIE YOUNG 10/14/2019 112696 093019 101-41300-319 CC Meeting 9/9/19 Administration 165.00 JACKIE YOUNG 10/14/2019 112696 093019 101-41300-319 CC Meeting 9/23/19 Administration 190.00 Total 112696:760.00 JIVASOFT CORPORATION 10/14/2019 112697 3232 101-42110-416 Annual Support Fee 11/14/19-11/13/20 Police Department 1,000.00 Total 112697:1,000.00 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 10/14/2019 112698 2971110 101-45210-091 Beer for Resale-GC Golf Course 206.60 Total 112698:206.60 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/14/2019 112699 21474719 701-49800-212 2017 Bio Credit 506.63 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/14/2019 112699 21474790 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 329.70 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 10/14/2019 112699 21474791 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel 1,044.56 Total 112699:1,880.89 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 10/14/2019 112700 093019 101-20809 September 2019 SAC 7,455.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 10/14/2019 112700 093019 101-39610 September 2019 SAC 74.55- Total 112700:7,380.45 Metro Sales Inc 10/14/2019 112701 INV1427858 710-49970-401 B&Z Copiers 9/19-12/18/19 184.82 Metro Sales Inc 10/14/2019 112701 INV1427859 710-49970-401 Copiers 9/19-12/18/19 748.51 Total 112701:933.33 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 10/14/2019 112702 2142 101-42400-310 Inspection Services August 2019 Building & Zoning 9,460.50 Total 112702:9,460.50 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 00047528 701-49800-221 Oxygen & Acetylene 30.69 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 00047529 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 51.15 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 00047530 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 7.13 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 00048949 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 53.46 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 00048950 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen Police Department 6.90 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 10/14/2019 112703 20121960 101-42110-221 Medical Oxygen, Hazardous Materials Charge Police Department 106.50 Total 112703:255.83 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 10/14/2019 112704 P03908 701-49800-222 Unit #450 Service Task 32475 15.94 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 10/14/2019 112704 P85497 101-45210-403 Tee Box PTO Switch Golf Course 30.16 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 10/14/2019 112704 P85688 101-45210-402 Tee Box Mower Solenoid Golf Course 167.38 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 10/14/2019 112704 P85779 701-49800-222 Swap Pins for Backhoe 2.35 Total 112704:215.83 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-34210 Sales Tax 9/2019 1.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-34650 Sales Tax 9/2019 100.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 601-39610 Sales Tax 9/2019 123.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 601-20806 Sales Tax 9/2019 1,009.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37910 Sales Tax 9/2019 868.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37920 Sales Tax 9/2019 491.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37930 Sales Tax 9/2019 108.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37940 Sales Tax 9/2019 41.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37960 Sales Tax 9/2019 17.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 10/14/2019 112705 093019 101-37970 Sales Tax 9/2019 7.00 Total 112705:2,765.00 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 10/14/2019 112706 21707 101-45200-404 Saga Hill Herbicide Application Parks 720.00 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 10/14/2019 112706 21719 101-45200-404 Saga Hill Mowing Parks 810.00 Total 112706:1,530.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163415 101-42110-221 PD Bike Tire Police Department 37.48 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163419 101-42110-340 Bikes for Kids Police Department 178.89 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163476 101-42110-221 Squad Supplies Police Department 8.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163525 101-42110-317 Dog Food Police Department 26.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163547 101-42110-317 Dog Leash Police Department 17.99 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163589 101-42110-221 Circuit Board for Repair - Speed Trailer Police Department 44.31 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163672 101-42110-240 Cleaning Wipes and Hardware Police Department 30.67 MOUND TRUE VALUE 10/14/2019 112707 163690 101-42110-221 Bike Repair - Grandview Student Police Department 27.98 Total 112707:373.29 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 10/14/2019 112708 1232924-00 701-49800-221 Fuse Return 266.11- MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 10/14/2019 112708 1234014-00 101-45210-240 Ball Washer Towels Golf Course 583.16 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 10/14/2019 112708 1234131-00 101-45210-402 Greensmaster 1000 Repair Golf Course 428.15 Total 112708:745.20 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/14/2019 112709 320363 601-49400-322 Mail Tape Water 4.79 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/14/2019 112709 320366 601-49400-322 UPS Water Water 11.41 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/14/2019 112709 320415 101-43000-226 Gloves - B. Maurer Public Works Department 20.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/14/2019 112709 320548 601-49400-227 Back Flow Preventer Water 14.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 10/14/2019 112709 320550 601-49400-227 Single Key Water 1.99 Total 112709:54.17 OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3732444960 601-49400-201 Cleaning Wipes Water 20.99 OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3732444960 602-49450-201 Cleaning Wipes Sewer 20.99 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3774024560 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 57.07 OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3818747840 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 114.75 OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3822633700 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - Toner - PD Police Department 143.98 OFFICE DEPOT 10/14/2019 112710 3822636320 101-42110-201 Office Supplies - PD Police Department 67.56 Total 112710:425.34 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 10/14/2019 112711 644095 701-49800-222 Pull Rope - Shackle Anchor Screw 113.28 Total 112711:113.28 ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 10/14/2019 112712 FIBER 601-49400-489 Fiber Optic Repair - OSD Water 10,000.00 Total 112712:10,000.00 Orono Woods Apartments LLC 10/14/2019 112713 100319 235-45690-489 TIF Payment 2nd Half 2017 - 1st Half 2019 136,789.19 Total 112713:136,789.19 OTTEN BROTHERS 10/14/2019 112714 100119 225-45200-223 Tree Walk Project 9,162.52 OTTEN BROTHERS 10/14/2019 112714 1-1589440 101-45200-223 Parks Material - Crystal Bay Parks 62.91 Total 112714:9,225.43 PAINT A LOT 10/14/2019 112715 1445 101-43000-408 Old Crystal Bay Rd Striping Public Works Department 1,626.59 Total 112715:1,626.59 PIRTEK 10/14/2019 112716 S2997006.00 602-49450-403 Hose Repair Sewer 237.56 Total 112716:237.56 POS PAPER 10/14/2019 112717 4001767 101-42110-201 Paper Rolls - Tickets Police Department 147.25 Total 112717:147.25 Premium Waters Inc 10/14/2019 112718 850551-09-1 101-42110-201 Spring Water Police Department 102.08 Total 112718:102.08 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/14/2019 112719 SEPTEMBE 101-41900-404 Garbage Service Central Services 374.08 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/14/2019 112719 SEPTEMBE 101-45200-404 Garbage Service Parks 452.54 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/14/2019 112719 SEPTEMBE 101-45210-404 Garbage Service Golf Course 76.33 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 10/14/2019 112719 SEPTEMBE 101-45220-404 Garbage Service Brush Site 34.00 Total 112719:936.95 Riverside Design 10/14/2019 112720 1514 101-41900-352 Badge Set Up Central Services 70.00 Riverside Design 10/14/2019 112720 1523 101-42110-352 No Parking Signs Police Department 260.00 Total 112720:330.00 ROB HOWELLS 10/14/2019 112721 093019 614-49840-319 3rd/Qtr Video Streaming Cable Franchise 920.00 Total 112721:920.00 SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 10/14/2019 112722 1860 701-49800-221 Warning Lights for Units 424, 426, 427 432.00 SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 10/14/2019 112722 1865 701-49800-221 Warning Lights for Units 428 159.60 Total 112722:591.60 SHI 10/14/2019 112723 B10676751 710-49970-221 Squad MDC's - Unit 246, 249, 243-258 14,550.00 Total 112723:14,550.00 SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 10/14/2019 112724 94824091-00 101-43000-224 Sidewalk/Trail Boundary Marker/Snow Removal Public Works Department 208.37 Total 112724:208.37 SRF CONSULTING GROUP INC 10/14/2019 112725 11400.00-11 408-48800-590 CSAH 112 PH2 Landscape 18-043 1,182.97 Total 112725:1,182.97 THE HOME DEPOT 10/14/2019 112726 092519 101-45200-223 Fence Post for Big Island Parks 167.16 THE HOME DEPOT 10/14/2019 112726 3071840 101-45200-221 Tee Box Survey Parks 88.96 THE HOME DEPOT 10/14/2019 112726 8311816 101-45220-223 Brush Site Door Knob Brush Site 33.42 Total 112726:289.54 THOMSON WEST 10/14/2019 112727 841041389 101-42110-311 West Information Police Department 204.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112727:204.96 TONY WITTKE 10/14/2019 112728 091719 101-42110-228 Shoot Supplies/Balloons Police Department 6.43 TONY WITTKE 10/14/2019 112728 100719 101-42110-437 UOF Training Reimb Police Department 17.89 Total 112728:24.32 TOWMASTER 10/14/2019 112729 420030 701-49800-221 Truck #427 Replacement Backup Camera 115.99 TOWMASTER 10/14/2019 112729 420038 101-43000-221 Unit 424/427 Chipper Box Public Works Department 5,468.00 TOWMASTER 10/14/2019 112729 420555 405-48500-550 Unit #428 Chipper 4,775.00 TOWMASTER 10/14/2019 112729 420557 405-48500-550 Truck #428 Replacement Sander 5,764.00 Total 112729:16,122.99 US Bank Equipment Finance 10/14/2019 112730 395949043 710-49970-413 Copiers 596.76 Total 112730:596.76 VALLEY RICH CO 10/14/2019 112731 27473 601-49400-405 Watermain Break - Shadywood Rd/Crystal Pl Water 17,456.84 VALLEY RICH CO 10/14/2019 112731 27523 601-49400-405 Watermain Break - 2200 Shadywood Rd Water 8,124.92 VALLEY RICH CO 10/14/2019 112731 27528 601-49400-405 Watermain Break - Navarre Ln & Olive Water 2,688.79 Total 112731:28,270.55 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 10/14/2019 112732 68286 101-42110-407 Sept 9th Missed Cleaning Police Department 95.19- VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 10/14/2019 112732 68298 101-41900-407 Sept 12th Missed Cleaning Central Services 95.19- VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 10/14/2019 112732 68424 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 10/14/2019 112732 68424 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 112732:2,284.62 WATER CONSERVATION SVC IN 10/14/2019 112733 9851 601-49400-405 Leak Locate 2344 Olive Ave Water 532.48 Total 112733:532.48 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.10/14/2019 112734 685253 101-45210-415 Golf Cart Rental Golf Course 1,647.00 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.10/14/2019 112734 685389 101-45210-415 Golf Utility Cart Rental Golf Course 295.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 9/24/2019 - 10/14/2019 Oct 10, 2019 10:42AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112734:1,942.00 Grand Totals: 490,559.37 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To reduce the statutory debt levy requirement for the Series 2014A GO Bonds. 2. Background. Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the annual amount needed for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds. The 105% requirement can be met through taxes, special assessments, transfers from other funds, or cash on hand. A portion of the 2014A bond proceeds were used for the construction of the Police Garage/Addition. Part of the funding for debt service payments of the bonds is an annual transfer of a portion of the Mound Police Service contract revenue to the debt service fund. To date, a total of $1,090,000 has been transferred. This transfer allows the City to levy an annual amount that is less than the statutory requirement. The preliminary levy approved on September 23, 2019 was based on the reduced amount. The County requires a copy of a resolution reducing the levy requirement. Approval of the resolution does not decrease the actual levy amount. It is needed to demonstrate that the City is meeting the 105% requirement. 3. Staff Recommendation. Approval of the attached resolution reducing the debt levy requirements for the Series 2014A GO bonds. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt a resolution to reduce the levy requirements for the Series 2014A General Obligation Bonds. Exhibits A. Resolution to Reduce the Levy Requirements for the Series 2014A General Obligation Bonds. B. Debt Levy Requirements Item No.: 4 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2014A Presenter: Ron Olson, Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERIES 2014A GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WHEREAS, the City has issued Series 2014A General Obligation Bonds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the annual amount need for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has been annually transferring additional amounts from the General Fund to pay a portion of the debt service on the 2014A General Obligation Bonds; and WHEREAS, the annual transfer, tax levy, and cash on hand combine to exceed the 105% requirement; and WHEREAS, the Statute allows a municipality to levy less than 105% of the debt service when other irrevocably pledged sources are available to meet the requirement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the required levy for the 2014A General Obligation Bonds be reduced to $162,900 for the collectable 2020 tax levy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held October 14, 2019. ATTEST: ________________________________ _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor BOND DESCRIPTION CERTIFIED LEVY GO Improvement Bond 2010 134,825.00 GO Improvement Bond 2014 162,900.00 GO Improvement Bond 2016 413,275.00 DEBT SERVICE TOTAL** 711,000.00$ ** This must match the totals for debt service reported on page 1. Per M.S. 475.61 all debt must be accounted for in the resolution. If the amount levied is less than the required amount from the payment schedule for the bond, you must submit a resolution stating that there are sufficient funds for that bond. This can be included in the same resolution with your levy. LEVY CERTIFICATION - DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE City of Orono, MN 1 Levy Schedule for Jul. 31, 20192020 City of Orono Date Original Amount Issued for 2020 Levy Scheduled 3802 12/30/2010 $4,315,000.00 $134,826.57General Obligation (Series 2017A) 3803B 6 /19/2014 $3,315,000.00 $298,823.45General Obligation (Series 2014A) 3804 11/17/2016 $2,680,000.00 $551,670.00General Obligation (Series 2016A) $985,320.02City of Orono Total: 134,825.00 162,900.00 413,275.00 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF TBE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7022 t kESHOR A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2019 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2020 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota,that the following sums be levied for the current year, collectible in 2020 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General Fund - Operating 4,679,000 Pavement Management Levy 617,450 G.O Improvement Bond 2010 134,825 G.O. Improvement Bond 2014 162,900 G.O. Improvement Bond 2016 413,275 TOTAL ALL LEVIES 6 007 450 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 23, 2019. ATTEST: I AA,.,W A,V-" Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 1 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To reduce the statutory debt levy requirement for the Series 2016A GO Bonds. 2. Background. Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the annual amount needed for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds. The 105% requirement can be met through taxes, special assessments, transfers from other funds, or cash on hand. The 2016A General Obligation Bonds we used to refund the Series 2008A Street Reconstruction Bonds. A portion of the original 2008A bond proceeds were used to replace water and sewer mains as part of the Casco Point Road Project. To pay for the Utility upgrades, the water and sewer funds have been transferring an annual amount to the debt service fund. This transfer allows the City to levy an annual amount that is less than the statutory requirement. The preliminary levy approved on September 23, 2018 was based on the reduced amount. The County requires a copy of a resolution reducing the levy requirement. Approval of the resolution does not decrease the actual levy amount. It is needed to demonstrate that the City is meeting the 105% requirement. 3. Staff Recommendation. Approval of the attached resolution reducing the debt levy requirements for the Series 2016A GO bonds. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt a Resolution to reduce the levy requirements for the Series 2016A General Obligation Bonds. Exhibits A. Resolution to Reduce the Levy Requirements for the Series 2016A General Obligation Bonds. B. Debt Levy Requirements Item No.: 5 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Reduce Debt Levy Requirement Series 2016A Presenter: Ron Olson, Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION TO REDUCE THE LEVY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERIES 2016A GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WHEREAS, the City has issued Series 2016A General Obligation Street Reconstruction refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, Minnesota Statute 475.61 requires the City to collect at least 105% of the annual amount need for principal and interest payment obligations on the bonds; and WHEREAS, the City has been annually transferring additional amounts from the Water and Sewer Utility Funds to pay a portion of the debt service on the 2016A General Obligation Bonds; and WHEREAS, the annual transfer, tax levy, and cash on hand combine to exceed the 105% requirement; and WHEREAS, the Statute allows a municipality to levy less than 105% of the debt service when other irrevocably pledged sources are available to meet the requirement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the required levy for the 2016A General Obligation Bonds be reduced to $413,275 for the collectable 2020 tax levy. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held October 14, 2019. ATTEST: ________________________________ _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor BOND DESCRIPTION CERTIFIED LEVY GO Improvement Bond 2010 134,825.00 GO Improvement Bond 2014 162,900.00 GO Improvement Bond 2016 413,275.00 DEBT SERVICE TOTAL** 711,000.00$ ** This must match the totals for debt service reported on page 1. Per M.S. 475.61 all debt must be accounted for in the resolution. If the amount levied is less than the required amount from the payment schedule for the bond, you must submit a resolution stating that there are sufficient funds for that bond. This can be included in the same resolution with your levy. LEVY CERTIFICATION - DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE City of Orono, MN 1 Levy Schedule for Jul. 31, 20192020 City of Orono Date Original Amount Issued for 2020 Levy Scheduled 3802 12/30/2010 $4,315,000.00 $134,826.57General Obligation (Series 2017A) 3803B 6 /19/2014 $3,315,000.00 $298,823.45General Obligation (Series 2014A) 3804 11/17/2016 $2,680,000.00 $551,670.00General Obligation (Series 2016A) $985,320.02City of Orono Total: 134,825.00 162,900.00 413,275.00 Op CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF TBE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7022 t kESHOR A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE PRELIMINARY 2019 TAX LEVY COLLECTIBLE IN 2020 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, Minnesota,that the following sums be levied for the current year, collectible in 2020 upon the taxable property in the City of Orono, for the following purposes: General Fund - Operating 4,679,000 Pavement Management Levy 617,450 G.O Improvement Bond 2010 134,825 G.O. Improvement Bond 2014 162,900 G.O. Improvement Bond 2016 413,275 TOTAL ALL LEVIES 6 007 450 The City Clerk is hereby instructed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the County Auditor of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held September 23, 2019. ATTEST: I AA,.,W A,V-" Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 1 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for a resolution to designate polling place locations for the 2020 Elections. 2. Background. Cities are required to designate polling places by December 31 of each year, even if nothing has changed. Also, this is the case in spite of 204B.11, Subd. 3. Essentially, polling place designations are effective until changed, but they also must be designated by December 31 of every year. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Resolution Designating Polling Locations for the 2020 Elections. Exhibit A. Resolution Item No.: 6 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Adopt Resolution to Designate Polling Places for 2020 Elections Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION DESIGNATING POLLING PLACES FOR THE 2020 PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION PRIMARY, STATE PRIMARY AND STATE GENERAL ELECTIONS WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes 204B.16, subd 1 requires the City Council, by ordinance or resolution, to designate polling places for the upcoming year; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling places locations may be made at least 90 days before the next election if one or more of the authorized polling places becomes unavailable for use; and WHEREAS, changes to the polling place locations may be made in the case of an emergency when it is necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; and WHEREAS, the presidential nomination primary is March 3, 2020, state primary is August 11, 2020 and the state general election is November 3, 2020. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Orono City Council hereby designates the following polling places for elections conducted in the city in 2020: Precinct 1 Long Lake Fire Station 340 Willow Drive North Orono, MN 55356 Precinct 2 Good Shepherd Lutheran Church 3745 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Precinct 3A Calvary Memorial Church 2420 Dunwoody Avenue Wayzata, MN 55391 Precinct 4A Orono Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate a replacement meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution that becomes unavailable for use by the City; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is hereby authorized to designate an emergency replacement polling place meeting the requirements of the Minnesota Election Law for any polling place designated in this Resolution when necessary to ensure a safe and secure location for voting; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the city clerk is directed to send a copy of this resolution and any subsequent polling place designations to the Hennepin County Elections Office. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono this 14th day of October, 2019. _________________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose. Consider the adoption of a resolution which designates the updated General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cites as the City’s method of managing and disposing of Orono’s municipal records, and to adopt Orono’s Records management policy which includes the conversion of Microfilm and hard copy to digital format. 2.Background. In an effort to comply with the Administration of Government Records, MN State Statute MS 138.17, it is necessary to adopt a plan for managing Orono’s governmental records including the proper destruction, preservation and reproduction of such municipal records. The Orono City Council adopted Resolution 1467 in March of 1983, however the resolution designates the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities as written in 1983. The resolution before Council tonight adopts the following pertaining to the City of Orono’s Records Management: •The updated General Records Retention Schedule for MN Cities which contains all updates from 1983 to present and includes future updates that may take place from time to time. •The adoption of electronic files as a substitute of original hard copy records as the official version of record retention for the City of Orono. •The adoption of a Records Management Policy. 3.Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the City Council approve of the resolution amending Resolution No. 1467 by adopting the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities and adopting electronic files as a permanent record retention method. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resolution amending Resolution No. 1467 by adopting the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities and adopting electronic files as a permanent retention method. Exhibits A.Resolution No. 1467 B.Records Management Policy C.Resolution Item No.: 7 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Adopt Records Management Policy and Resolution Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda Consent Agenda Y` `' Clt o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCILti. NO. 1467 F» Resolution Adopting Re cords Retention Schedule Whereas , Minnesota Statutes 138 . 163 reads as follows: 138 . 153 Preservation and disposal of public records It is the policy of the legislature that the disposal and preservation of public records be controlled exclusively by Minnesota Statutes , Chapter 138 and by Laws 1971 , Chapter 529 , thus , no prior , special or general statute shall be construed to authorize or prevent the disposal of public records at a time or in a manner different than prescribed by such chapter or by Laws 1971 , Chapter 529 and no general or special statute enacted subsequent to Laws 1971 , Chapter 529 shall be construed to authorize or prevent the disposal of public records at a time or in a manner different than prescribed in this chapter or in Laws 1971 , Chapter 529 unless it expressly exempts such records from - the provisions of such chapter and laws 1971 , Chapter 529 by specific reference to this section. Laws 1971 , c . 5?_9 3, eff. May 26, 1971 . Whereas , the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers have developed a standard record retention schedule for records common to most Minnesotamunicipalitieswhich hasbeenapproved by the Minnesota Department of Administration, the Minnesota Historical Society, the Minnesota State Auditor and the Mi nnesota Attorney General ; and Whereas , the classification of records as herein described are included in the above mentioned Records Retention Schedule; Now, Therefore Be It Resolved that the City of Orono Council doesherebyadopttheapprovedrecordsretention schedule developed by the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers as follows: ADMINISTRATION Affidavits of Publications Permanent Agenda Packet Permanent* Agendas 1 Yr Annexation Records - Permanent* Petitions, Correspondence , affidavits of publications , ordinances , and public hearings Cit o ORONO Y i RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL N o. f/G 7' Annual Reports 7 Yrs* ti, Application to Vacate Permanent Public Right-of-I 1ays Articles of Incorporation Permanent Attorney' s Opinions Permanent B ids & Quotes Tabulations 10 yrs Bills of Sale ti yrs Census Reports Permanent Certificate of Incorporation Permanent City Newsletters Permanent* CompJ.aints: General , Serivice 3 yrs Maintneance, Repair , etc. Copyrights (Until Permanent superceded Departmental Reports: a. Monthly 5 yrs b. Semi-Annual 5 yrs c. Annual Summary Permanent* Federal Agencies - Subject to Federal Correspondence, reports requirements submitted or received General Correspondence 1 yr Historical Data/Photographs Permanent* Incoporation Records Permanent Index to Files Same retention as file Lawsuits 7 yrs after settlement Legal Opinions and Reports Permanent Liens 1P1 yrs after expiration Y' C t o ORONO 4r=. r RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. I y 7 r.. Maintenance Records a. Building Lenght of Ownership + 6 yrs b. Vehicles Lenght of Ownership + after audit c. Equipment Lenght of Ownership + after audit Memorandums 2 yrs Minutes - Council , special Permanent* boards, committees and commission minutes Notice of Meetings 5 yrs Oath of Office - Elected yrs or Appointed Ordinances (Proposed but not 2 yrs Adopted) Ordinances and Resolutions Permanent* Signed (Originals) - Affidavit of Publication Organization Charts Permanent Petitions 5 yrs Press Releases 1 yr Proclamations 1 yr after recorded in minutes Public Hearing Records 2 yrs after recorded in minutes Of general nature) Record Disposal Sheet - Permanenf Shows date, type of record, and by whom destroyed Reference Materials Retain as long as material is of Administrative value (Yearly review) Special Committee Reports 3 yrs* State Agencies - Subject to State Correspondence and requirements reports submitted c t o oR,oNo RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. G '7 Street , Alley & Easement After filing of Vacation files proceedings Street Name Change 2 yrs Not approved) Wage Assignments 5 yrs ASSESSING Affidavits 3 yrs Applications for 3 yrs Classification Building Plans 1 yr Classification Lists 1 yr Correspondence 3 yrs Current Tax Lists 2 yrs Deferment Applications Until deferment is removed Divisions and Combinations 5 yrs Parkland Dedication Valuations 5 yrs Petitions - Valuations • 5 yrs Project Files - Sepcial Permanent Assessments Property Record Cards Permanent Receipts - Special Permanent Assessments Sales 1 yr Sales Studies Permanent Search Copies 1 yr i Clt o ORONO t.;7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL M1{ NO. li `7 Special Assessment Project Permanent 4:Approvals and Special Benefit Valuations Specia.l Assessment Rolls Life of Assessment + Audit Tax Abatement and Affidavit 3 yrs Trial or Stipulation Records 2 yrs including appraisals) Valuation Lists 3 rsY BONDS Bond and Interest Coupon ti yrs Register Bond Sale Transcripts Maturity of Issue Cancelled/Paid Bonds and 6 yrs after issue is paid Coupons Performance and Payment 6 yrs Bonds, License and Permit Bonds, Surety, Contractor License Bonds , Fidelity and Appearance Bonds BUILDING INSPECTIONS Building Blueprints Permanent Building Permits Permanent* Contractors License ti yrs Applications Inspection Reports l yr Other Construction Permits y yrs Property, Records Cards Permanent CONTRACTS Accepted Contracts and ti yrs Agreements - Bids and Specifications for Capital Improvements City o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. l'G Accepted Cont.racts & h yrs Agreements - Bids and Specifications for Services and Supplies Deeds of Easement Permanent Deeds of Municipal Property Permenent Franchises granted by 5 yrs Municipality Land Trust Property Record ti yrs Leases of Municipal Property 5 yrs to Others Leases of Property by S yrs Municipality Rejected Bids , Contracts and yrs Supporting Papers Titles to Municipal Vehicles Length of ownershop + after audit and Equipment COURT Criminal Case Files 1 1 yrs Justice of- Peace Docket Permanent* Books Justice of Peace Docket 7 yrs Files Municipal Court Accounting 5 yrs Records Municipal Court Civil Case 10 yrs Files Municipal Court Docket Books Permanent* ELECTION Absentee Ballots 1 yr C t o ORONOi RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.lr 7 4f Abstract of Election Returns Permanent Active Registrations Permanent Inactive Registrations 1 yr Candidate Affidavit of 1 yr Election Expense and Contribution Candidate Financial Reports 1 yr Certificates of Election 1 yr Change of Address Cards 1 yr Completed Voting Ballots 1 yr Declaration of Candidacy 1 yr Deleted Registration Cards 1 yr Election Boundaries and Permanent Precincts Flag Certificate 1 yr Nominating Petitions 1 yr Precinct Books (from County) 1 yr Precinct Map/Election Permanent* Boundaries Poll Books Permanent* Purge Lists 1 yr Registration Cards/Poll 1 yr List - Inactive Rejected Ballots 1 yr Unless election contested Return Reports 1 yr Tally Sheets. 1 yr Unless election contested o= ` C t o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r. NO. ,i 7 1':w Voting Certificates 1 yr FINANCIAL/ACCOUNTING Accounts Receivable yrs copies of billings) Accounts Receivable Journal yrs Annual Financial Budget Permanent* Appropriation Ledgers ti yrs Appropriation Ledger After fiscal audit by City Statements engaged auditor Audit Reports Permanent Bank Statements 5 yrs Billings Statements 6 yrs i .e . utilities) Cancelled Checks ti yrs Cash Receipts Analysis After fiscal audit Check Stubs 6 yrs City Financi.al Annual Report Permanent as Audited City Financial Monthly 2 yrs Report Clerks Receipts (copy) 6 yrs Clerks Register of Permanent Disbursement Clerks Register of Receipts Permanent original) Daily Cash Report 5 yrs Deposit Slips 6 yrs C t o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r No. y 7 Disbursement Classification Permanent Ledger Encumbrance (orders issued) 5 yrs Expenditure Reports After Fiscal audit General Journal Permanent General Ledgers Permanent Inventories - equipment ti yrs or 2 yrs after life of equipment, whichever is longer Liquor Store Records 6 yrs Monthly Budget Report 2 yrs Monthly Treasurer ' s Report 2 yrs Paid Invoices & Claim lOJ yrs Vouchers Park Board Aci_tivity 2 yrs Registration Forms Real Estate Permanent Receipts Classification Permanent ledger Receipts & Receipt Books 5 yrs Duplicate Receipt Books Record of Daily Cash 6 yrs Receipts and Depost Slips Register of Receipts Permanent orginial) Register of Receipts ti yrs duplicate) . Requisitions and Purchase 6 yrs Orders (orginal) i Clt o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO.y 7 Requisitions & Purchase 2 yrs Orders (duplicate ' with department) Savings Account Book 6 yrs Travel Expense Records 6 yrs Treasurers Receipts 5 yrs original) Verified Accounts & , 10 yrs Invoices Vouchers 5 yrs Work Orders 6 yrs Golf Ticket Stubs 3 yrs INSURANCE Automobile Insurance y yrs Employee Dishonesty Bonds 6 yrs Fire Insurance or Other 2 yrs Insured Perils General Liability Insurance 6 yrs Indemnity Insurance 5 yrs Worker Compensation Records 6 yrs PAYROLL Cancelled Checks 6 yrs Contracts — Employee 6 yrs Employee Payroll Journal Permanent Employee Payroll Ledgers Permanent Garnishments ti yrs L I • Ci.t o ORONO Y: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL v£ No. G 7 Hospitalization Monthly 4 yrs Insurance premium Report Insurance Claim Payment 6 yrs Records as Reported by Insurance Company Leave of Absence Permanent Minnesota Witholding Report 10 yrs Payroll Worksheets 6 yrs Personnel Record Card Permanent History of Employnent) PERA Reports Permanent Quarterly Payroll Reports 6 yrs Time Sheets 6 yrs United Fund Authorized 4 yrs Deduction Vacation and Sick Leave F yrs Slips/Reports W-2 Forms (duplicate copy) 5 yrs Worker Compensation Reports 6 yrs PERMITS & LICENSES Bicycl.e and Vehicle License 5 yrs or Permit Business Licenses 6 yrs Business Licenses 2 yrs Applic tions Pet and Animal License or 5 yrS Permit If License is Refused or 3 yrs Rejected o ir: Cit o ORONO RESOWTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. y 7 C• :,. Ftefused or Rejected 3 yrs Applications To Hold Public Gatherings yrs or Parades To sell Intoxicating and 6 yrs Non-Intoxicating Liquor To solicit Money for Various 6 yrs Causes To Use Public Parks , ti yrs Streams, Docks , etc PERSONNEL Affidavit of Publication of 3 yrs Job Opening Application for Employment 3 yrs Not hired) Applications of Persons on 2 yrs Eligibility List Applications of Those Hired 5 yrs after termination of employee Certification of Test . 2 yrs Results CETA 3 yrs Departmental Rules and Permanent Regulations Disciplinary Actions 3 yrs EEO Summary Data Permanent Eligibility Tests 2 yrs Employee Card File showing Permanent dates of Employment , Salary Promitions , etc . b F = Clt o ORONO xx. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. l:. W Employee Personnel Files 5 yrs Containing Applications, accident reports, citations, medical records, personal history , Employee Suggestion Form 2 yrs Employment References 3 yrs Forms/Letters Pertaining to Permanent Pensions Grievances Permanent Human Relations Forms 3 yrs Regarding Affirmative Action Labor Unions - Contracts and Permanent* Agreements Labor Unions - Disputes Permanent* Labor Unions - Minutes of Permanent* Meetings Letter of Appointment/ 5 yrs Promotion Miscellaneous Certificates/ 3 yrs Letters Miscellaneous Correspondence 1 yrs Miscellaneous Help. Wanted Ads 1 yr Payroll Information See Finance Pension and Retireinent Plans Permanent Performance Evaluations 3 yrs Scored Tests mon`ths Termination Letters/ 5 yrs After termination Resignations C t o ORONO f:r:: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 1 lo '1 Worker Compensation Claims See Insurance PLANNING AND ZONING Affidavits of Publication Permanent Conditional Use Permits Permanent Site Plans - Approved Permanent Site Plans - Not Approved 101 yrs Subdivision Files Permanent Variances Permanent Zoning Files Permanent PUBLIC SAFETY Abandoned Vehicles File 5 yrs Accident Reports 3 yrs Animal Control Requests 3 yrs Animal Impounds 3 yrs Bicycle Safety 2 yrs Blood Sample. Logs 3 yrs Breathalyzer Test Results - 5 yrs Positive Breathalyzer Test Results - 1 yr Negative Bureau o£ Criminal 5 yrs Apprehension Reports Citations 5 yrs Civil Defense 1Q yrs Court Date A1locations Permanent e aw C t o ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. L/ `7 Court Dispositions Permanent Court Docket (Trial Dates) Permanent Crime Prevention 3 yrs Criminal Case Files 10 yrs Criminal Record Check Log 3 yrs Death Investigations Permanent including fatal accidents) Fire & Medical Runs 10 yrs Follow-up Reports if Deaths , Permanent Large Losses or Arson Follow-up Reports if no 5 yrs Deaths or arson Initial Complaint Reports 5 yrs Internal Reports 3 yrs Juvenile Reports 5 yrs Liability Release 3 yrs Licenses 6 yrs Master Name File 10 yrs Missing Persons File 3 yrs Offense/Incident Reports 5 yrs* Homicide records must be retained permanetly Officer Activity Reports ' 5 yrs Permits 6 yrs Photos - Mug Shots 10 yrs Police Clearance Letters 5 yrs I II d ;. c t o oR,oNo RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL j`:,,'No. l yG y Y/ , Y:; Property Inventory Report 5 yrs Radio Logs 1 1 yrs Reports on Fires of 10 yrs Suspicious orgin Request to Inspect Police 3 y•rs Report Vehicle Impounds 5 yrs PUBLIC WORKS & ENGINEERING Affidavits of Mailing 6 yrs Affidavits of Publication h yrs Construction Blueprints for Permanent Completed City Buildings , Streets , Utilities , Parks , etc . Inspections & Testing Records 5 yrs after correction for Electrical , Elevators , Fire, Schools, Hospitals, Restaurants, Sewers, Safety and Security, etc . Maps Permanent Plats permanent Projects, Abandoned 3 yrs Project Records 3 yrs after completion Water and Sewer Analysis 5 yrs Reports UTILITIES Billings 6 yrs Meter Reading Cards/Sheets h yrs Receipts 6 yrs i :.. -- Ci.t o ORONOrd `: 3, RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL x 1467 i NO. Service Requests 5 yrs Water & Sewer Analysis 5 yrs Annual reports of utilities Permanent* NOTE: * - Retain Permanently or Transfer to State Archives. Be It Further Resolved that a copy of this resolution be submitted to the Minnesota Historical Society. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 14 day of March 198. C Mary C. But r , Mayor ATTEST: r.i, i, Alberta M. Strom, -City Clerk CITY OF ORONO RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY Adopted October 14, 2019 RECORDS MANAGEMENT POLICY Policy Statement The City of Orono requires that its records be managed in a systematic and logical manner according to plans developed by the departments that maintain those records, and consistent with applicable law. Reason for Policy/Purpose The City of Orono is committed to effective records management including meeting legal requirements for record retention and privacy protection, optimizing the use of space, minimizing the cost of record retention, and properly destroying outdated records. This policy applies to all records, regardless of whether they are maintained in hard (paper) copy, electronically, or in some other fashion. Policy/Procedures The City of Orono is subject to a range of Federal and State regulations regarding records management and retention, specifically Minnesota Statutes, Sections 138.163 to 138.226. To ensure compliance therewith, the City has adopted and follows the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities (the “Schedule”), published by the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association (MCFOA) and available on the MCFOA website, as the same may be updated from time to time. Each department should develop a records management plan appropriate for the particular records it maintains, in accordance with the Schedule and in cooperation with the City Clerk. Retention and Maintenance of Records The City of Orono requires that its records be maintained in a consistent and logical manner and be managed so that the City: • Meets legal standards for protection, storage and retrieval; • Protects the privacy of citizens and staff and as required by law; • Optimizes the use of space; • Minimizes the cost of record retention; and • Destroys outdated records in an appropriate manner. Departments that maintain records are responsible for establishing appropriate records management procedures and practices. Each department’s administrative manager or a designee must: • Be familiar with the City’s Records Management Policy; • Develop the department’s and/or office’s records management procedures and practices, consistent with this policy; • Educate staff within the department in understanding sound records management practices; • Restrict access to confidential records and information; • And coordinate the destruction of records as provided in the applicable departmental procedures. The City Clerk is available to work with individual departments to implement these requirements. Staff should feel free to address questions about retention and destruction schedules as needed. Confidentiality Requirement Many records subject to record retention requirements contain non-public confidential data under the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, or are otherwise protected by federal, state and local statutes, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the GrammLeach-Bliley (GLB) Act, and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). In addition to statutory requirements, any record that contains nonpublic, private and/or confidential data should be treated in accordance with the City’s privacy and security policies (see Data Practices Policy). Electronically Stored Information Recent years have witnessed a tremendous growth in the use of electronically stored information (“ESI”) by the City. The ease with which ESI may be created, the number of places where ESI may be stored, and new rules regarding the use of ESI in litigation, all require that the City manage its ESI effectively, efficiently and consistent with it legal obligations. Accordingly, all departments must include ESI in the development of their records management plans. It is the policy of the City that photographic or other reproductions of original documents for storage in electronic format shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as the original document reproduced, such that the original document, once reproduced, need not be retained in paper form. Departments shall make photographic or other reproductions of all new records created and shall store such records in electronic format pursuant to this policy. Further, departments, in conjunction with the City Clerk’s office, shall develop and follow an orderly process for the photographic or other reproduction of existing original records for storage in electronic format, and for the disposal and/or destruction of all reproduced original records pursuant to this policy. Preservation of Records Relevant to Legal Matters Any record that is relevant to any pending or anticipated litigation, claim, audit, agency charge, investigation or enforcement action shall be retained at least until final resolution of the matter. In these circumstances, the Office of the City Attorney will notify relevant departments and work with staff to identify and preserve any records (including electronic records) and other information that could be relevant to the matter. This will include a directive that the relevant unit’s normal document destruction policies or protocols temporarily be suspended. Employees who become aware that an investigation or legal proceeding has commenced or is anticipated against their department or unit promptly must notify the Office of the City Attorney so that all records with potential relevance to the investigation or legal proceeding can be preserved as necessary. Disposal and Destruction of Records If you have determined that, consistent with the City’s Records Management Policy, and with the records management practices and procedures applicable to your department, it is appropriate to dispose of any records, they can be destroyed in one of the following ways: 1. Recycle non-confidential paper records; 2. Shred or otherwise render unreadable confidential paper records; or 3. Erase or destroy electronically stored data. If you have questions about your responsibilities, please contact the department manager or department designee. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 1467 BY ADOPTING THE GENERAL RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE FOR MINNESOTA CITIES AND ADOPTING ELECTRONIC FILES AS PERMANENT RETENTION METHOD WHEREAS, to comply with the Records Management Statute Minn. Stat. § 138.17, it is necessary to adopt a plan for managing governmental records including the proper retention and disposal of municipal records; and WHEREAS, the Records Management Statute Minn. Stat. § 138.17 establishes the Records Disposition Panel and requires all government entities to follow an orderly process in disposing of government information; and WHEREAS, the State of Minnesota has approved for use by all Minnesota Cities the “General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities,” which provides cities adopting said schedule an orderly method of managing and disposing of municipal records; and WHEREAS, the “General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities” is regularly updated; and WHEREAS, the Minn. Stat. § 138.17 and 325L.17 permit retaining electronic records substituted for the original records as a permanent record retention method; and WHEREAS, City staff have recommended that the City adopt electronic files as a substitute of original hard copy records as the official version of record retention for the City of Orono; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO, MINNESOTA: 1. That the City Council hereby adopts the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities, published by the Minnesota Clerks and Finance Officers Association (MCFOA) and available on the MCFOA website, as the same may be updated from time to time. 2. That the City Council hereby adopts the Records Management Policy appended hereto and directs all departments of the City to manage, maintain and dispose of records in accordance therewith. 3. That the City Council hereby adopts electronic files as a substitute for original hard copy records as the official method of permanent record retention for the City of Orono, and the Record Management Policy appended hereto, which establishes that photographic or other reproductions of original documents shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as originals. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4. The City Council authorizes and directs all departments of the City to establish and follow an orderly process for the photographic or other reproduction of existing original records for storage in electronic format, and for the disposal and/or destruction of all reproduced original records pursuant to the updated Record Management Policy appended hereto. 5. The City Council reaffirms its commitment to use the “General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities” as its record retention procedure and authorizes the disposal of existing records by destruction, sale or salvage pursuant to the same. Adopted by the Orono City Council on the 14th Day of October, 2019. CITY OF ORONO: ___________________________ Mayor, Dennis Walsh ATTEST: _____________________________ City Clerk, Anna Carlson AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. Consider approving the purchase of a ScanPro 2200 Microfilm Scanning System to assist staff with the conversion of Microfilm slides to electronic files. 2. Background. Temporary Personnel began converting paper documents to electronic files in 2015 and are nearing completion with the property address files. There are Microfilm slides (16mm & 35mm) found within the majority of the property address files that will require a Microfilm scanner to complete the conversion of files. In addition, there are thousands of other documents including minutes, packets, etc. that are currently kept on Microfilm that will also need to be converted by a Microfilm scanner. The City Clerk sought after quotes for Microfilm conversion services, equipment rentals, and a scanner purchases. All estimated quotes received for Microfilm conversions services and rentals have come in considerably higher than anticipated. Based on the amount of time spent to-date on the conversion project, staffing needs, and proper records management, staff feels that purchasing a scanner outright is the best solution for the City. 3. Cost. The table below shows each option for conversion of Microfilm. MidAmerica’s quote to purchase a scanner is $9,570.00. Company Description Estimated Quote Indigital Scanning Services (Indexing provided) $ 190,332.00 SideKick Scanning Services $ 98,848.00 MidAmerica Scanning Services $ 68,777.28 Indigital Scanning Services (No Indexing) $ 51,912.00 Crowley 3 Month Rental $ 22,100.00 NextScan 3 Month Rental (Onsite) $ 21,760.00 NextScan 3 Month Rental (Remote) $ 18,060.00 MidAmerica Leasing Option Per Month for Year 1 $ 468.93 Leasing Option Per Month for Year 2 $ 329.65 Leasing Option Per Month for Year 3 $ 280.59 MidAmerica ScanPro 2200 Scanner $ 9,570.00 4. Funding. This purchase will be funded through the Information Technology (IT) Fund, which is a new fund that was created for 2019. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that the City Council approve of the purchase of the ScanPro 2200 Microfilm Scanning System for $9,570.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Item No.: 8 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Approve Purchase of ScanPro 2200 Microfilm Scanning System Presenter: Dustin Rief City Administrator Agenda Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR Motion to approve the purchase of the ScanPro 2200 Microfilm Scanning System for $9,570.00. Exhibits A. Quote from Mid-America B. ScanPro 2200 Brochure Price Quotation Customer Name & Address: Date:7/31/2019 City of Orono F.O.B. PO #: Sales Rep:Dustin Raygor Expiration:30 days Terms:Net 30 Taxable: Item Qty.Unit Price Total Price A.ScanPro 2200 Microfilm Scanning System *ScanPro 2200 main unit *High resolution 6.6 megapixel camera *7X-105X Optical Zoom Lens *7X-1575X Digital Zoom Lens *AUTO-Scan Pro auto scanning at 100 images per minute *UCC 610 Universal Carrier supports 16mm/35mm film, m-style cartridges, fiche, jackets, aperture cards and micro opaques *Intuitive Windows computer interface with customizable film selection wizard *Continual image focus even during optional zoom (FOCUS-Lock) *Single-click scan, print and save buttons *Print, scan and save to multiple file formats *Mid-America's certified technician handles installation and training *Two Year Warranty with Onsite Maintenance Covering Parts, Labor, Travel and Software Updates 1 ScanPro 2200 Ea $9,570.00 $9,570.00 **Comes with 6 months of The Advantage Membership no charge. After those 6 months, there is an Advantage Membership fee of $249 per year Leasing Options Two Year Lease Per Month $468.93 Three Year Lease Per Month $329.65 Four Year Lease Per Month $280.59 **Leasing options are contingent upon qualification **Purchase option at the end of the lease for one dollar **Onsite maintenance agreement for entire term of each lease option 952-249-4600 Package Includes: WWW.MID-AMERICA.COM acarlson@ci.orono.mn.us Description Fax:(612)378-3100 2500 Broadway ST NE Minneapolis, MN 55413 Phone:(612)378-3800 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Attn: Anna Carlson Protect your investment with a Service Contract. Call Mid-America Today at 612-378-3800 Authorized Signature____________________________ Date___________ Item Qty.Unit Price Total PriceDescription Installation Includes: *Installing software and scanner on customer PC Training Includes: *Training customer power users on how to be an administrator within the Authorized Reseller: *Mid-America is the sole authorized reseller of the ScanPro Products in the Service *All installation and service work performed by Mid-America's full-time, factory Insurance With 40 years of experience, Mid-America provides the following insurance: *General liability *Training customer end-users on ScanPro system operation *Installing and configuring ScanPro hardware and accessories *Creating job profiles to match customer microform types *Installing ScanPro software on customer PC *Professional liability ScanPro software *Train ScanPro power users on how to create and modify profiles State of Minnesota trained and certified technicians *Worker's compensation *Cyber liability *Automobile liability Protect your investment with a Service Contract. Call Mid-America Today at 612-378-3800 Authorized Signature____________________________ Date___________ “” Wow! Your team at e-ImageData really knows how to keep elevating your products and now with the new AUTO-Carrier and automating research of fiche and film. This is why we own 10 of your ScanPros. — Jessica, Brigham Young University “”The AUTO- Carrier is ingenious! — Duke University Library Read. Scan. Print. Convert. MEET THE CURRENT SCANPRO ALL-IN-ONE MODELS Select the ScanPro model that has the features and solutions to meet your expectations. The most popular replacement for old reader/printers. Not only is the ScanPro 2200 All-In-One™ the most budget-friendly scanner on the market, the 2200 All-In-One has all the necessary features needed to read, scan, print and convert your film collections. If budget is a concern, the 2200 All-In-One is the affordable solution. This top-of-the-line solution encompasses all of our exclusive features including the 26 megapixel camera* that provides the clearest images in the industry. If you’re looking for the most precise images available, the ScanPro 3000 All-In-One is for you. Got Blips? The ScanPro i9300 All-In-One is the best, and only, solution to handle your blipped film collection. It features the same 26 megapixel camera* as the 3000 All-In-One which means it produces the clearest image on the market. And, it can handle your entire film collection! ✝ Actual scanned image segments Other microfilm scanners✝ ScanPro 3000✝ Microfilm Scanners The microfilm revolution is here. Whether you need a low-cost option or the top-of-the-line microfilm scanner, we have the universal solution that’s just right for you. See the difference with our award-winning scanners that offer exclusive features and innovative technology only available through e-ImageData. Our ScanPro® product line has been specifically designed to meet not only your current application needs but your future needs as well — making it the only microfilm scanner you will ever have to buy. * The 26 megapixel high performance camera uses advanced pixel-shifting technology to capture higher megapixel images. e-ImageData starts with its 6.6 megapixel image sensor, largest in the industry, to capture and integrate 4 unique optical images into a single 26 megapixel camera image, the clearest image in the industry. “”The ScanPro 3000 is a miracle product! — Cleveland Public Library “ ” I would recommend the AUTO-Carrier to any entity who has a need and a desire to get the best possible product on the market. — Jana Wells, Imaging Supervisor, Warren County Records Center and Archives, Lebanon, Ohio ScanPro 2200 All-In-One shown with roll film carrier and AUTO-Carrier SEE the ScanPro difference today by scheduling a demo! Contact us at 1-800-251-2261 or your local reseller! For a list full list of features, benefits, and specifications of all ScanPro models, please visit www.e-imagedata.com www.facebook.com/eimage.data @eImageData 340 Grant Street • Hartford, WI 53027 • p) 800-251-2261 • f) 262-673-3496 Do it all with the award-winning, automatic, desktop conversion scanner! SCANPRO ALL-IN-ONE INCLUDES: • Base Model — Choose the model that best fits your application needs (2200, 3000 or i9300) • Motorized Roll Film Carrier — –UCC 510:16/35 Combination roll film and fiche/aperture cards –UCC 610:16/35/35M Cartridge combination roll film and fiche/aperture • AUTO-Carrier™ — Automatic scanning of fiche and jackets THE SCANPRO DIFFERENCE 3Reliable 3High-Performance 3Easy-to-Use 3Best-in-Industry 3-year warranty The ScanPro All-In-One microfilm scanners provide all the capabilities you need to get your work done quickly and efficiently. Both an on-demand reader, scanner, printer for all film types AND a high-speed desktop conversion scanner for roll film, fiche and jacketed fiche, the All-In-One scanners save time and save money. S C A NPRO A DVAN T A G E MEMBERSHIP S C A NPRO A DVAN T A G E MEMBERSHIP SEE the Difference with the • ScanPro® Advantage Membership — Experience advanced software such as AUTO-Scan® Pro and PowerScan Productivity Suite (PPS) with full access to updates and continuous upgrades. To retain these benefits, an active $249 yearly membership is required. The first six months is automatically included for free. Features Added with ScanPro Advantage Membership ScanPro USB 3.0 Scanner Model Features 2200 3000 i9300 IMS Pro (1, 2, 3 level blip based scanning & fi le naming)1 N/A N/A 3 AUTO-Scan® QA (interactive quality assurance tools)1 3 3 3 AUTO-Review (quality review of images on roll of fi lm)3 3 3 AUTO-Scan Pro roll fi lm at 100 images/min1 3 3 3 AUTO-Scan Pro fi che at 100 images/min2 3 3 3 AUTO-Scan Pro jacketed fi che at 70 images/min2 3 3 3 Multi-page PDF with and without OCR fi le formats 3 3 3 Multi-page TIFF fi le format 3 3 3 Duplex support for automatic scanning1, 2 3 3 3 Automatic brightness & contrast while scanning1,2 3 3 3 INFO-Link™, WORD-Search™ & Copy-to-Clipboard 3 3 3 SPOT-Edit™ (selective live image editing)3 ✪✪ Optical zoom range increase from 7x-32x to 7x-105x 3 ✪✪ Film orientation (portrait and landscape)3 ✪✪ Additional programmable print & scan buttons 3 ✪✪ Scan to e-mail, scan to cloud 3 ✪✪ 1-click AUTO: Straighten/Crop/Brightness/Contrast 3 ✪✪ Previous/Next 3 ✪✪ Scan size 3 ✪✪ ✪ ScanPro Standard Features 1 Requires Roll Film Carrier 2 Requires AUTO-Carrier ™ 3 Features Added with ScanPro Advantage Membership N/A Not Available ScanPro 2200 All-In-One Specifications Hardware 6.6 megapixel camera: 6.6 MP sensor, largest pixels in the industry, over 7 times larger than the nearest competitor Zoom range: Optical 7x to 32x Scannable media reduction range: Optical 7x to 32x, combined optical and digital 7x to 105x Camera orientation: Portrait or landscape for best image clarity USB 3.0/USB 2.0/USB 1.0: Convenient, front access port for flash drives Image rotation: Optical straightening of images for best image clarity Illumination: Soft, bright, film-optimized, monochromatic LEDs with lifetime warranty and optically clear carrier glass for best image clarity Precision-Guide rollers: Low inertia 12 ball bearing design protects film, easy-to-thread, provides precision control of film position and movement Available Carriers and Media AUTO-Carrier™: Automatic scanning support for fiche, jackets, aperture cards, micro opaques, also enhances roll film performance UCC 510: 16/35 combination motorized roll film, fiche, jackets, aperture cards, and micro opaques UCC 610: 16/35/35M cartridge combination motorized roll film, fiche, jackets, aperture cards, and micro opaques Standard Software Features User interface: Intuitive Windows computer interface with customizable film selection wizard. Just a single-click to automatically set up your scanner using custom presets that retain all settings including optical zoom and focus. Presets are selected simply by clicking a picture of the customer’s film. FOCUS-Lock™: Continual image focus even during optical zoom Fit-to-window: Displayed image covers the entire monitor screen leaving no blank area Magnifier: Digital zoom 7x to 480x, read small text and examine fine details. Scan and print what is seen in the magnifier window. Digital image rotation: Click to rotate 90°, 180°, 270°, and 360° Mirror: Click to mirror image Software selectable resolution: 150 dpi to 1200 dpi, 8-bit grayscale, 1-bit black and white Scan and save file formats: PDF, TIFF, JPEG and more, single and multi-page, single page OCR (OCR using ABBYY® FineReader Engine) Watermark and copyright: Customizable warning support for scans and prints Single-click print button: Print seamlessly using preset printer and to specific printer paper drawer with the required paper size Single-click scan buttons: Scan and save seamlessly using preset file name, format, and path or by specifying filename, format, and path Features added by ScanPro Advantage Membership (First 6 months is free, $249/year thereafter) AUTO-Scan® Pro: Automatically scans roll filmb, fichec and jacketsc Auto-brightness, straighten, crop, and duplex film File formats: PDF, TIFF, JPEG and more, single and multi-page, with and without OCR (OCR using ABBYY FineReader Engine) Unlimited scans, up to 100 IPM roll filmbc and fichec, and up to 70 IPM jacketsc AUTO-Scan QA: Interactive quality assurance tools for automatic scanning to guarantee you won’t miss an image AUTO-Review: Mode used to perform a quality review of a newly processed roll of film by automatically moving from one image to the next and displaying each image for a customizable period of time PowerScan Productivity Suite (PPS): WORD-Search™, INFO-Link™, Copy-to-Clipboard, (OCR using ABBYY FineReader Engine) Zoom range: Optical 7x to 105x Scannable media reduction range: Optical 7x to 105x Camera orientation: Portrait and landscape selectable providing best image clarity for both portrait and landscape images Magnifier: Digital zoom 7x to 1575x, read small text and examine fine details. Scan and print what is seen in the magnifier window. SPOT-Edit™: Live image editing, select any area (or multiple areas), adjust brightness, contrast, redact or whiteout for any selection with a single-click AUTO-Adjust™: Automatically adjusts brightness, contrast, straightens, and crops with single click Automatic straighten: Select fully automatic or semi-automatic Previous/Next: Click to quickly and accurately move 1 to 9 images MergeClips™: Paste, annotate, arrange, and size multiple scans onto a single page Software selectable resolution: 150 dpi to 2000 dpi, 8-bit grayscale and 1-bit black and white Scan and save file formats: PDF, TIFF, JPEG and more, single and multi-page, single and multi-page OCR (OCR using ABBYY FineReader Engine) Specify scan dimensions: Explicitly specify the size of the printed or scanned document image Two additional single-click print buttons: Print seamlessly using preset printer and to specific printer paper drawer with the required paper size Two additional single-click scan buttons: Scan and save seamlessly using preset file name, format, and path Single-click scan to cloud button: Save seamlessly to cloud using preset file name and format Single-click scan to email button: Scan and save seamlessly to email securely using external or embedded email app ScanPro 2200 All-In-One Product Information Desktop All-In-One Operating Footprint 7.5in x 16.5in x 16.5in / 19cm x 42cm x 42 cm (H x W x L) Operating Systems Versions, 32 and 64 bit: Win 7 to Win 10; Editions: Enterprise, Professional, Home Computer Interface USB 3.1 Gen 1 (also called USB 3.0) Power/Weight 100-240VAC 50/60Hz / 32lb/14.5kg Film Path Straight film path (film not pulled across glass edges) and low inertia 12 ball bearing design protects film Energy Efficiency ENERGY STAR® Certified Product Safety OSHA workplace safety certified to US/CA standards Warranty 3-year factory warranty (includes carriers) b – Requires Roll Film carrier c – Requires AUTO-Carrier Patents 8,269,890 8,537,279 9,179,019 9,197,766 9,158,983 9,323,725 © 6/2019 e-ImageData Corp. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of a forfeited vehicles. 2. Background. The Police Department has 3 forfeited vehicles that can be disposed. The vehicles were seized and forfeited by the Orono Police Department from a drivers that had multiple violations for Driving While Intoxicated. The police department would recommend vehicles be sent to an auto auction. 3. Project Scope. Disposal of a forfeited vehicles. • 2013 Mercedes L63 SUV VIN# 4JGDA7EB8DA111070 • 2002 Ford F150 VIN# 2FTRX18L12CA95610 • 2000 Mercury Sable VIN# 1MEFM55S1YG63383 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the disposal of a forfeited vehicles. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to dispose of a forfeited vehicles. Vehicles will be sent to an auto action. Item No.: 9 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Forfeited Vehicles Presenter: Correy Farniok, Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR Purpose. The Orono Police Department has 5 bicycles that have been turned in to the department. The bikes were found or abandoned within the city. The following bicycles have not been claimed. All of the bicycles and have been in the department’s possession for more than 60 days. The police department considers the bicycles as abandoned property and would like to dispose of them by donating to Free Bikes for Kids for repair and distribution back to children and young adults. The bicycles that cannot be fixed/used will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. • 19-7418 item 1 bicycle • 19-8068 item 1 bicycle • 19-7112 item 1 bicycle • 19-7200 item 1 bicycle • 19-6983 item 1 bicycle Staff Recommendation. Recommend a motion to approve the donation of bicycles to Free Bikes for Kids to be repaired and distributed to children and young adults and those that cannot be repaired will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the donation of bicycles to Free Bikes for Kids to be repaired and distributed to children and young adults and those that cannot be repaired will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. Item No.: 10 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Disposal of Bicycles Presenter: Correy Farniok, Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval accepting Officer Josh Needham letter of resignation. Background. Josh Needham was hired as a police officer by the City of Orono in 2013. On September 27, 2019, Officer Josh Needham submitted a letter and two week notice to resign from the Orono Police Department. Josh’s last day is October 11, 2019. The police department wishes Josh Needham the best of luck at St. Paul Police Department and for his service to the citizens of Orono, Mound, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. Staff Recommendation. I recommend accepting the resignation of Josh Needham effective October 11, 2019. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resignation of Josh Needham effective October 11, 2019. Item No.: 11 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Accept Officer Josh Needham’s Resignation Presenter: Correy Farniok, Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to hire a full-time police officer. An opening exists for a full-time police officer after Josh Needham resigned on October 11, 2019. 2. Background. Aleah Lange is currently working as a part-time police officer. Aleah has worked with the Orono Police Department since September 2018. Aleah is excited about the opportunity to work full- time for the Orono Police Department. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend to promote Aleah Lange to a full-time police officer at with a start date of October 15, 2019. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve promoting of Aleah Lange as a full-time police officer at the rate of $31.11(after 1 year step) per hour with a start date of October 15, 2019 Item No.: 12 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Request to Promote Full-Time Police Officer Presenter: Correy Farniok, Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to accept donation of materials and volunteer labor from the Orono Rotary. 2. Background. Authority for cities to accept donation is granted by Minnesota Statute 465.03 which authorizes Minnesota cities to “accept or devise of real or personal property and maintain such property for the benefit of its citizens in accordance with the terms prescribed by the donor.” All donations must be accepted by resolution with a 2/3 vote of the Council. 3. Donation Description. The Orono Rotary Donated 28 trees and 12 species signs as well as volunteer labor to plant the trees and install the signs at Lurton Park and Saga Hills Park. The value of the donation is $10,000. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the attached resolution to Orono Rotary Donations. Exhibits A. Resolution Accepting Donation Item No.: 13 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Accept Orono Rotary Donation to Lurton and Saga Hills Parks Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Engineer/ Public Works Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT PARK DONATIONS WHEREAS, The City of Orono is generally authorized to accept donations of real and personal property pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 465.03 for the benefit of its citizens; and WHEREAS, The following persons have offered to contribute the materials and labor set forth below to the city: Name of Donor Amount Orono Rotary $10,000 in Trees, Signs and Labor WHEREAS, All such donations have been contributed for the improvement of Orono’s Lurton Park and Saga Hills Park, as allowed by law; and WHEREAS, The City Council finds that it is appropriate to accept the donations offered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY the City Council of Orono, Minnesota that the City acknowledges and accepts the donations as listed the for the improvement of the Orono’s Lurton Park and Saga Hills Park. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono on October 14, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the final payment and closeout of the 2018 Long Lake Ravine Stabilization Project. 2. Background. Over the years erosion has led to the development of a ravine with in Summit Beach Park leading into Long Lake from Old Long Lake Road. The existing ravine is approximately 500’ long that has eroded to a depth of approximately 10 feet. This erosion contributes to increased sediment and phosphorus loads and reduced dissolved oxygen in runoff, and is extremely detrimental to water quality of Long Lake. To optimize the budget and reduce disruption to the community the project was coordinated with CSAH 112 PH2 project. Council approved design and engineering in October 2017. Council awarded the project to Schneider Excavating on June 25th, 2018. Work was substantially complete in 2018 with some restoration in 2019. Hennepin County tied the storm pond and associated pipes to the project in 2019. The project is complete and all relevant paperwork completed. 3. Project Scope. To repair the ravine, the proposed design will include a stable cross-section, installation of limestone grade control weirs with plunge pools, and planting of deep rooting native vegetation. 4. Cost. The final pay request if for $5114.88. This includes payment of the retainage. Total payments to Schneider excavation including this pay request are $102,297.50. 5. Funding. This project was funded through the Stormwater Fund. 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that council authorize final payment and close out of the Long Lake Ravine Stabilization Project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion authorize final payment for $5114.88 to Schneider Excavating for the 2018 Long Lake Ravine Stabilization Project. . Exhibits A. Pay Request Item No.: 14 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Long Lake Ravine Stabilization – Final Pay Application /Closeout Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval to complete additional archeology work required by the State for the Big Island Project. 2. Background. In early 2017 the Big Island Committee was established to evaluate and develop plan to improve the Park and meet the goals of the 2011 Big Island Management Plan. The group worked with staff, consultants and coordinated with MCWD to develop a master plan to guide improvements at the park. The Council approved the Big Island Master Plan on April 23, 2018. In 2018 the City received a grant for an archeological survey. In February of 2019 council authorized the application for a DNR Grant. In June 2019 the DNR notified the City that we had been selected for grant funding at $200,000. As part of the grant process the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) conducted a preliminary review of the project and provided direction that additional archeological information will be required prior to any construction in the park. Some of that requirement was met by the MHM survey completed this year but not all. To that end Bolton and Menk has prepared a Not to Exceed Proposal for the additional required work. The additional archeological work can be completed concurrent with the other design and engineering work. 3. Scope. a. Project Scope. The scope of the project and the grant application is: ADA accessible pathway, overlook / pavilion area improvement, interpretive signage and ADA restroom facilities. b. Additional Archeological Work Scope. Back ground and literature review, inspection and shovel testing of the project area, and preparation of report meeting SHPO requirements. 4. Cost. The not to exceed proposal is for $15,380. Exhibit A. 5. Funding. The additional Archeology costs would paid from the Parks Enterprise Fund. 6. Way Forward. When What September 2019 Survey October/November 2019 Grant Agreement Signed October-December 2019 Design and coordination with partners NLT December 2019 Confirm Donor funding / Approve project for solicitation February 2019 Award June- September 2020 Construction 7. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the Council approve the additional Archeological work proposal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve proposal from Bolton and Menk for Archeological work for a fee not to exceed $15,380. Exhibits A. Bolton and Menk Proposal References (Available on Big Island Website) A. Big Island Management Plan, 2011 B. Big island Master Plan, 2018. Item No.: 15 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Approve Big Island Park Additional Archeology Work Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda H:\ORNO\2019 New Projects\Fee Estimate - Big Island Phase 1 Study.docx September 18, 2019 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Phase I Archaeological Survey & Evaluation of Pier, Park & Veterans’ Camp Site Big Island Dear Mr, Edwards, Bolton & Menk will provide continued support of the City’s initiative to construct Big Island Park improvements by offering our cultural resources services, Ground disturbing activities have potential to disturb archaeological deposits at the site; the State Historic P reservation Office (SHPO) has requested a Phase I Archaeological Survey tailored to the proposed improvements, as well as an evaluation of the site. Currently proposed improvements include the following: • Trails o Crushed limestone trails o Trail gate o Trail bollards/barriers • Overlook Area o Picnic table o Shade structure/viewing platform o Sitting stones • Dock Area Improvements o Informational sign o Security camera • Interpretive Signage o Wayfinding/interpretive signs • Restrooms o Vault toilets (visitor center & overlo ok) Our Cultural Resources Team will complete a Phase I Archaeological Survey in a responsible, efficient manner. Austin, our archaeological Principal Investigator with thirteen years of experience in cultural resources management, will oversee the investigation and will work with you until the survey is completed and your goals are met. Work will be completed pursuant to the Minnesota Field Archaeology Act. Private Cemeteries Act, and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. In additional to intensive Phase I-level fieldwork, Bolton & Menk will also utilize information collected by Maritime Heritage Minnesota (MHM) and conduct additional investigation to address questions raised by SHPO in their July 5, 2019, letter. The proposed scope of work does not currently include evaluation of any archaeological contexts other than the known pier, park and Big Island September 18, 2019 H:\ORNO\2019 New Projects\Fee Estimate - Big Island Phase 1 Study.docx veterans’ camp – for instance, any pre-contact or other archaeological sites identified at by the Phase I that cannot be avoided may require additional investigation not covered by this proposal. Approach Each Phase I Survey begins with a background and literature review that seeks information regarding previous surveys and known sites within approximately one mile of the project area. This existing data will be reviewed to inform the survey methodology and will be quantified to develop an archaeological probability model. Typical environmental variables increasing archaeological probability include height above surroundings, proximity to water, and well-draining soils – basic variables reducing probability typically include steep slopes and poor drainage. In addition to this basic work that is completed for all surveys, we will review MHM’s site reports and collect additional information to complete an evaluation of the pier, park and veterans’ camp site. A visual inspection of the study area will precede hand excavation of shovel tests. Shovel testing will be necessary where ground surface visibility is limited, and archaeological probability is high. The survey will be responsive to geomorphology, archaeological probability and pa st disturbance at the site. Upon completion of the survey, a report will be prepared for submittal to SHPO. This report will summarize the results of the background review and fieldwork. The report will provide recommendations based on survey findings and will be in accordance with the Office of the State Archaeologist and SHPO Manual for Archaeological Projects in Minnesota. Additional Services If additional archaeological or potentially significant historic artifacts are identified, then the following work must be performed at the Phase I level: • Laboratory Work • State Archaeological Site Form Completion • Curation • Agency Coordination If archaeological materials are identified, then these additional fees typically cost between $6 00 and $1,750 per site at the Phase I level, depending upon the nature of the site – these fees would be in addition to the fees for basic services provided below. If potential significance of archaeological sites cannot be ruled out at the Phase I level and the resources cannot be avoided, then a Phase II evaluation may be required. A new scope of work, schedule, and associated fees can be negotiated for Phase II tasks. This proposal does not include any work toward a Phase II or Phase III. If known features identified by MHM cannot be avoided, then hand excavation of formal test units may be needed to further investigate the potentially impacted features. Schedule Typically, soils must be thawed through at least the top one meter from ground surface and the ground surface must be free of snow in order for archaeological to take place. This investigation will take ten weeks to complete, beginning upon notice to proceed or when ground conditions allow, whichever is latest. Big Island September 18, 2019 H:\ORNO\2019 New Projects\Fee Estimate - Big Island Phase 1 Study.docx Fee Estimate Our fee estimate, to be billed on an hourly, not to exceed basis, is as follows: Subtotal basic services......................................................................................... $15,380.00 Additional Services (if needed) ............................................................................... See above Please let us know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. Austin Jenkins, M.S. Angie Bersaw, AICP Cultural Resources Planner Principal In-Charge AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project. 2. Background. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer treatment for the majority of communities (including Orono) in metropolitan area. Since 2005, MCES has identified Orono as one of the communities who contribute excessive Inflow and Infiltration (I & I). The City has been executing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation project annually to reduce I&I. Each year the City works to identify inflow and infiltration points within the sanitary sewer system thoughout our annual inspection program. These sites then inform our rehabilitation efforts for the year. 3. Scope. The project includes the rehabilitation (sealing) of 45 sanitary sewer manholes. (Exhibit A) 4. Cost. The city received bids from 3 Contractors (Exhibit B). The lowest bid was for $ 198,630 from Pember Companies. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of NTE $ 17,900 for construction oversight. (Exhibit C) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Engineering $ 18,500 Not to exceed, Previously approved Pember Companies Construction $ 198,630 Pending award Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $ 17,900 Not to exceed Total $ 235,030 5. Funding. The project is funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The CIP and Annual Public works plan have $281,377 allocated for this year’s project. The project 2019 year end balance is $1,839,932 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend council accept the design phase services proposal from COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to Award the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project to Pember Companies for $ 198,630 and to authorize Bolton and Menk to perform construction oversite for a fee not to exceed $ 17,900. Exhibits A. Project Map B. Bid Summary C. Bolton and Menk Proposal. Item No.: 16 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: 2019 Sewer Rehabilitation Award Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Bid Tab 2019 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Contractor Total Bid Amount Pember Companies $ 198,630 Minger Construction $ 207,440 Widmer Construction $ 258,500 H:\ORNO\2019 New Projects\2019-10-8 Construction Services.docx October 8, 2019 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2019 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project - Construction Phase Services Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction phase of the 2019 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the public with timely and accurate information. Construction Observation Construction observation will be provided. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction-related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction-related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: • Administering a pre-construction meeting • Administering project meetings • Preparation of pay estimates • Contractor communications • Liaison with City Staff and Council Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the City of Orono’s contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and in GIS. 2019 Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project October 8, 2019 Page 2 H:\ORNO\2019 New Projects\2019-10-8 Construction Services.docx Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed fee of $17,900 to be billed on an hourly basis. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider an amendment to the City Code related to Average Lake Shore Setback. 2. Background. At its meeting on September 9th, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance for adoption, reflecting desired language offered by the Mayor. On September 23rd, an ordinance was presented, triggering additional discussion. Based on this discussion, adjustments were made to the final ordinance, including a definition of Lakeshore (replaced with Ordinary High Water Line, a defined term) and how to respond when multiple lakeward points yield a bisecting line. There was some discussion about how the nearest lake ward projection of the adjacent homes are determined. In instances when the surveyor cannot obtain permission to accessor a neighboring property, the city has and will continue to accept information based on satellite imagery. As directed by the Council, the resulting ordinance does not introduce wholesale changes to the Average Lake Shore regulations and will impact a small percentage of lake lots. 3. Public Comment. All written comments received have been provided. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends adoption as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should adopt the ordinance as drafted. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance References Planning Commission packet dated Aug 19, 2019 City Council packet dated September 9, 2019 City Council packet dated September 23, 2019 Item No.: 17 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000053 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Average Lakeshore Setback Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES 1 2 CITY OF ORONO 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 6 PERTAINING TO AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK 7 8 9 10 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: 11 12 SECTION 1. Chapter Sec. 78-1279 Placement of Buildings and structures on lots 13 shall be amended to read as follows: 14 15 (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to 16 the lakeshore Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline 17 of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots; The most lakeward protrusion except that tThis 18 does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing 19 grade, stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average 20 lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The 21 average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward 22 protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. 23 a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-24 of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most 25 lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved 26 lakeshore lot. 27 b. In situations where the average lake shore setback line bisects the principal structure 28 building located on either adjacent lot, the next most adjacent lake side point of the 29 bisected principal structure building shall be used for determining the average 30 lakeshore setback. If the line continues to bisect the structure, the next most lakeside 31 point is to be used until the setback line does not bisect the building on an adjacent lot. 32 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its 33 passage and publication. 34 ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2019 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the 35 City Council of Orono, Minnesota. 36 37 ATTEST: 38 39 40 41 ______________________________ _____________________________ 42 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 43 44 45 Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2019. 46 Exhibit A LA19-53 October 14, 2019 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider an ordinance altering the maximum size for accessory buildings. 2. Background/ Council Vote. At their meeting on June 10, 2019 the City Council, when reviewing a variance request, questioned the oversize accessory building (OAB) maximums codified in section 78-1434. The variance would have allowed an OAB to be larger than permitted by code, but was denied due to failure to address practical difficulties. At its workshop on August 12th, the Council discussed the OAB regulations, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance for consideration that would remove the maximum size for a single accessory building. Staff was also directed to contact the original variance applicant to inform him of the potential change. In the development of the ordinance, staff noted that there is a cap on the size of the accessory building, as the table does not contemplate lots larger than 14 acres. Staff proposes establishing a percentage for these largest lots, consistent with the current pattern, found in Exhibit E. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 on a motion to approve the ordinance. The members of the Commission were in agreement that the real issue was massing, and the single building maximum didn’t necessarily address the situation. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the ordinance as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the ordinance and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance B. PC Staff report C. PC Minutes 9-16-19 D. Council work session minutes 8-12-19 E. Lot Percentage Exhibit References PC Exhibits 9-16-19 Item No.: 18 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000062 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Oversized Accessory Building Size Regulations Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES 1 2 CITY OF ORONO 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 6 PERTAINING TO OVERSIZE ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE 7 8 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: 10 11 SECTION 1. Sec. 78-1434 Building Size Restrictions shall be amended by deleting the 12 table under subparagraph (2) in its entirely and replacing said table to read as follows: 13 14 15 Lot Area Maximum Maximum (acres) Individual OAB Footprint Area Allowed Cumulative Total of All Accessory Building (square feet) Footprint Areas on a Property (square feet) 0—1.99 1,000 2,000 2.00—3.00 1,200 2,400 3.01—3.50 1,400 2,800 3.51—4.00 1,600 3,200 4.01—4.50 1,800 3,600 4.51—5.00 2,000 4,000 5.01—6.00 2,200 4,400 6.01—7.00 2,400 4,800 7.01—8.00 2,600 5,200 8.01—9.00 2,800 5,600 9.01—10.00 3,000 6,000 10.01—11.00 3,200 6,400 11.01—12.00 3,400 6,800 12.01—13.00 3,600 7,000 13.01—14.00 3,800 8,000 14.01 or more 4,000 8,000 1.30% of lot area 16 SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its 17 passage and publication. 18 ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2019 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the 19 City Council Exhibit A LA19-62 October 14, 2019 2 City Council of Orono, Minnesota. 20 21 ATTEST: 22 23 24 25 ______________________________ _____________________________ 26 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 27 28 29 Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2019. 30 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: September 16, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000062, City of Orono, Text Amendment related to Oversized Accessory Building size Public Hearing Background Included in the City Code regulations related to oversized accessory buildings (OAB, defined as any accessory building larger than 1,000 sq ft), is a table that prescribes a maximum amount of accessory building footprint and the maximum amount of footprint for a single building, based on the size of the lot. This table is found at Section 78-1434. The City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance to remove the maximum individual OAB footprint area on August 12th. This change was initiated based on the review of a recent variance for an addition to an accessory building that would have allowed the building to exceed the maximum allowed for a single building, but would have fallen within the guidelines for total square footage on the lot. The variance was denied because the applicant was unable to satisfy practical difficulty standards. The City Council observed that two large buildings would have more of an impact to massing that a single large building. Analysis Staff has prepared a draft ordinance that amends the table, removing the column establishing a maximum for a single building. While only one oversized accessory buildings are permitted on a lot; by default, this single accessory building could be built equal to the maximum allowed for that lot, based on the table in Section 78-1434. During the development of this ordinance, Staff noted that the maximum allowable square footage for accessory buildings in any lot larger than 13 acres is 8,000 sq ft. The Planning Commission could comment on whether lots larger than 13 acres could have accessory building footprints as a function of a percentage of the lot size, rather than a hard cap. Staff’s draft includes a percentage based on the current regulation, shown in the last line of the table. Application Summary: The draft ordinance would increase the maximum size for a single oversized accessory building to correlate to the maximum amount of oversized accessory building for a given parcel size. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. FILE # LA19-000062 September 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed ordinance? 2. Does the Planning commission feel a percentage of lot size cap is appropriate for our largest residential lots? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council should understand that this ordinance could double the size of oversized accessory buildings in residential lots. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Lot Percentage exhibit MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 8. LA19-000062 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT, ACCESSORY BUILDING SIZE REGULATIONS, 8:56 P.M. – 9:08 P.M. Barnhart noted earlier this summer the Planning Commission reviewed a variance request for an accessory building where the applicant wanted to add on to an existing oversized accessory structure. With the addition, the accessory building would have exceeded the maximum square footage for a single building allowed under the ordinance, but the total square footage fell within the maximum allowable for the property. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial of that variance because they did not determine there to be a practical difficulty. Some of the comments from the Planning Commission were that the ordinance did not make sense and those comments were forwarded to the City Council and they agreed. The City Council directed Staff to make an amendment to the City Code by adjusting the regulatory table by removing the maximum for an individual building. Staff has drafted an ordinance that adjusts the existing table and removes the current maximum for a single building and the current maximum cumulative total based on the size. It should be pointed out for the Commission’s understanding that the column on the right is now the maximum for a single building simply because a property owner could elect to construct a large single building. Staff also noted during its review that the current ordinance allows for a maximum cumulative total for 13.01 acres or more of 8,000 square feet, which is also the same for 14.01 acres or more. Staff is proposing removing the hard cap of 8,000 square feet for lots 14 acres or above and making that 1.30 percentage. Staff used that percentage because that is the pattern established by current code. Staff is proposing adoption of the ordinance as drafted. Gettman stated he believes the table is off by one decimal point in the fourth column. Barnhart indicated he will re-examine the table and verify the numbers. Gettman stated he understands the maximum, but he does not know why there is a minimum. Barnhart stated the minimum acres is 3.01 and the maximum acres is 3.5. If you are allowed a 2,800 square foot oversized accessory building and have the minimum amount, that person would have 2.14 percent of the lot covered by the oversized accessory building. Gettman stated other than the misplaced decimal point, the table is very clear. McCutcheon commented this table makes more sense. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:03 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Thiesse asked whether the maximum amount or the cumulative square footage is what applies and that the City does not care about how many buildings they have. Barnhart indicated that is true. Thiesse stated he believes this revision was based on one request for a variance and there was confusion about the practical difficulty in that situation. The state is very specific on what a practical difficulty is, and the applicant was not going to meet it because he created the problem himself. The criteria are whether the area is going to be used in a reasonable manner, if the person did not create the practical difficulty, and if it fits within the character of the neighborhood. If someone meets all of those, they have met the practical difficulty. Orono is considered a lakeshore city and a rural oasis. Thiesse stated when he thinks of a rural oasis, that means a house, a barn, a grainery, and maybe a couple of sheds. Those buildings were located and constructed for function, but they became the City’s motto for massing and is symbolic of a rural oasis. The new ordinance goes from a cluster of buildings to a possible singular large building, which is changing the meaning of a rural oasis. Gettman commented he likes the new language. Bollis stated he also likes the new language, it makes sense, and it will help eliminate some issues. Erickson indicated he would support Staff’s recommendation. McCutcheon stated in his view this makes more sense and he would support it. Ressler stated if you look at the corresponding acreage to allowable cumulative building footprint area, those numbers do not seem alarming and he is in support of it. Barnhart noted the table will not be part of the code and is intended for illustrative purposes. Bollis moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000062, City of Orono, Text Amendment, Accessory Building Size Regulations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Allowable sq ft Min Max Min Max % Min % max 0 1.99 - 86,684 2,000 2.31% 2 3 87,120 130,680 2,400 2.75%1.84% 3.01 3.5 131,116 152,460 2,800 2.14%1.84% 3.51 4 152,896 174,240 3,200 2.09%1.84% 4.01 4.5 174,676 196,020 3,600 2.06%1.84% 4.51 5 196,456 217,800 4,000 2.04%1.84% 5.01 6 218,236 261,360 4,400 2.02%1.68% 6.01 7 261,796 304,920 4,800 1.83%1.57% 7.01 8 305,356 348,480 5,200 1.70%1.49% 8.01 9 348,916 392,040 5,600 1.60%1.43% 9.01 10 392,476 435,600 6,000 1.53%1.38% 10.01 11 436,036 479,160 6,400 1.47%1.34% 11.01 12 479,596 522,720 6,800 1.42%1.30% 12.01 13 523,156 566,280 7,000 1.34%1.24% 13.01 14 566,716 609,840 8,000 1.41%1.31% 14.01 610,276 - 8,000 1.31% Lot Area (acres Lot area (sq ft) Percentage of lot area Oversized Accessory Buildings and Percentage of Lot Area AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider an ordinance removing gardens as a principal use while protecting the existing community garden. 2. Background. At their workshop on August 12, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance related to gardens as a principal use. Gardens were added as a permitted use in 2011, as the Council considered initiating a community garden on city property. Gardens were not defined, and recently have been used to circumvent dock regulations in the city. Existing gardens as a principal use will be permitted to continue as a non-conforming use, provided they are not abandoned for a period longer than12 months. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-0 on a motion to approve the ordinance. The members of the Commission were in agreement that gardens should not be the principal use of a lot. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the ordinance as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the ordinance and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance B. PC Staff report C. PC Minutes 9-16-19 D. Council work session minutes 8-12-19 E. Non-conforming regulations Item No.: 19 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000064 – City of Orono, Text Amendment, Gardens as a Principal Use Regulations Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES 1 2 CITY OF ORONO 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 6 PERTAINING TO GARDENS AS A PRINCIPAL USE 7 8 9 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: 10 11 SECTION 1. Section 78-227 Permitted uses [in the R-1A zoning district] shall be 12 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 13 (2) Gardens. 14 15 SECTION 2. Section 78-252 Permitted uses [in the R-1B zoning district] shall be 16 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 17 (2) Gardens. 18 19 SECTION 3. Section 78-302 Permitted uses [in the LR-1A zoning district] shall be 20 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 21 (2) Gardens. 22 23 SECTION 4. Section 78-327 Permitted uses [in the LR-1B zoning district] shall be 24 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 25 (2) Gardens. 26 27 SECTION 5. Section 78-347 Permitted uses [in the LR-1C zoning district] shall be 28 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 29 (2) Gardens. 30 31 SECTION 6. Section 78-366 Permitted uses [in the LR-1C-1 zoning district] shall be 32 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 33 (2) Gardens. 34 35 SECTION 7. Section 78-392 Permitted uses [in the RR-1A zoning district] shall be 36 amended by deleting text to read as follows: 37 (2) Gardens. 38 39 SECTION 8. Section 78-417 Permitted uses [in the RR-1B zoning district] shall be 40 amended by deleting and adding text to read as follows: 41 (2) Gardens (2) Community Gardens located on city property. For the purposes of this 42 chapter, Community Gardens shall mean vegetable or flower gardens operating on city 43 property by the city or with an approved license agreement authorized by the City Council. 44 45 SECTION 9. Section 78-564 Permitted uses [in the RS zoning district] shall be 46 amended by deleting and adding text to read as follows: 47 (1) Gardens. (1) 48 49 City Council Exhibit A 19-64 October 14, 2019 2 SECTION 10. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its 50 passage and publication. 51 ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2019 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the 52 City Council of Orono, Minnesota. 53 54 ATTEST: 55 56 57 58 ______________________________ _____________________________ 59 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 60 61 62 Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2019. 63 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: September 16, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000064, City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Gardens as a Principal Use Public Hearing Background In 2011, the City Council (land use case 11-3504) adopted an ordinance that introduced Gardens as a permitted use in all residential zoning districts. This amendment was created to allow the development of a community garden on city owned property. No definition of a garden was included in the ordinance amendment. Since gardens are a permitted principal use, a principal structure (house, school, church, etc.) is not required, and all of the allowed accessory uses are permitted, including docks, sheds, etc. which may defeat the purpose of the zoning district, to provide housing or cultural options for the community. The City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance removing gardens as a principal use at their workshop on August 12th. Based on the 2011 amendment, one community garden was established, on City property east of Willow Drive. This community garden still operates, and the Council recently approved an extension to the license agreement. Analysis Staff has prepared an ordinance that strikes the reference to gardens as a principal use in 8 of 9 residential zoning districts. In the district that houses the Community Garden, RR-1B, staff proposes defining community garden, and allowing community gardens, while striking the general “Garden”. The Planning Commission should comment on whether this deviation is appropriate. These options are provided on lines 40-50 of the attached draft ordinance, Exhibit A. Without this alternative text, the community garden could not be expanded, or relocated. In these situations, a variance is not a remedy, as state statute does not permit “use” variances. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Application Summary: This ordinance would remove Gardens as a principal use in all residential zoning districts, and add Community Gardens as a permitted use in the RR-1B zoning district. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. FILE # LA19-000064 September 16, 2019 Page 2 of 2 Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission have comment on the alternative text? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted, allowing community gardens as defined in the RR-1B zoning district. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Reference Case 11-3504 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 9. LA19-000064 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT, GARDENS AS PRINCIPAL USE REGULATIONS, 9:08 P.M. – 9:11 P.M. Barnhart stated current City Code allows gardens in many residential zoning districts. This amendment was created to allow the development of a community garden on city-owned property. No definition of garden has been included in the ordinance amendment. Since gardens are a permitted principal use, a principal structure is not required and the allowed accessory uses include docks, sheds, etc., which may defeat the purpose of the zoning district. Staff has prepared an ordinance that strikes the reference to gardens as a principal use in eight of nine residential zoning districts. In the zoning district that houses the community garden, Staff proposes defining community garden and allowing community gardens while striking the general term of “Garden”. Community gardens are allowed with a license. The Planning Commission should discuss whether this change is appropriate. Without the alternative text in the proposed amendment, the community garden could not be expanded or relocated. In these situations, a variance is not a remedy as state statute does not permit “use” variances. To date, no public comments have been received. Staff recommends adoption of the ordinance as drafted. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 9:09 p.m. Bollis asked if they are removing gardens as a use without a principal structure. Barnhart stated they are. Bollis asked if they are not defining garden at all. Barnhart indicated they are not. Bollis commented he is a little confused because it is not defined. Barnhart stated the language removes gardens as a permitted use without a principal structure with the exception of community gardens. The draft ordinance incorporates the use of community garden on city- owned property and requires a license. Thiesse moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000064, City of Orono, Text Amendment, Gardens as a Principal Use Regulations. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 (a) (1) (2) (3) (b) (1) (2) (3) a. b. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (c) (1) DIVISION 2. - NONCONFORMING USES AND RELATED MATTERS Sec. 78-71. - Nonconforming structures and uses. General provisions. Purpose. It is the purpose of this section to regulate nonconforming structures and uses, and to specify those requirements, circumstances and conditions under which nonconforming structures and uses will be operated and maintained. The Zoning Code establishes zoning districts and specific uses which are permitted within each district. It is necessary and consistent with the establishment of these districts that nonconforming structures and uses not be permitted to continue without restriction. Effective date. Any structure or use lawfully existing upon the effective date of this section shall not be, enlarged, expanded, extended, or altered in any manner which increases its nonconformity, but may be continued at the size and in the manner of operation existing upon such date except as hereinafter specified or, subsequently amended. Any land or buildings which were actually and legally devoted to a nonconforming use on January 1, 1975, and which were thereafter specifically allowed to continue said nonconforming use under the terms of a conditional use permit issued by the city council, shall be allowed to continue under the terms of said conditional use permit. Safety repairs. Nothing in the Zoning Code shall prevent the placing of a structure in safe condition when said structure is declared unsafe by the building official. Nonconforming uses. Change to conforming use. When any lawful nonconforming use of any structure or land in any district has been changed to a conforming use, it shall not thereafter be changed to any nonconforming use. Change to new nonconforming use. An existing nonconforming use may not be changed to another nonconforming use. Relocation of nonconforming use. No nonconforming use shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of this section's adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of this section. Nonconforming non-structural hardcover may be relocated, including full replacement, to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was conducted at the time of this section's adoption, provided that: The hardcover is nonconforming only by reason of the percentage of land devoted to the use or the square footage of the use. The relocation does not physically enlarge the size of the nonconforming use. The relocation does not substantially change the character of the nonconforming use. The relocation does not create a new nonconformity with respect to size or placement by relocating to a different hardcover zone as such zones are defined in section 78-1288. The relocation complies with all applicable setback requirements for the district in which it is located. No relocation, in whole or part, is made within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake or tributary. Decrease in nonconforming use. A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to decrease the nonconformity of use. Once the nonconforming use of such structure or parcel of land has been so changed, said use shall not thereafter be altered to so as to increase the nonconformity from its decreased state. Discontinuation of nonconforming use. Whenever a lawful nonconforming use of a structure or land is discontinued and remains discontinued for a period of 12 months, any future use of said structure or land shall be in conformity with the provisions of the Zoning Code. Normal maintenance. Normal maintenance of a building or other structure containing or related to a lawful nonconforming use is permitted, including incidental alterations which do not physically extend or intensify the nonconforming use. Alterations to lawful nonconforming units. Alterations may be made to a conforming building containing lawful nonconforming units, provided they will not increase the number of units or the nonconformity. Expansion of nonconforming uses. Nonconforming uses may not be expanded or enlarged. However, a lawful nonconforming gun club may apply to the city council to modify its hours of operation or to expand its operations within the existing defined parameters of the property. Nonconforming structures. Involuntary damage or destruction. Whenever a lawful nonconforming structure shall have been damaged by fire, flood, explosion, (2) (3) a. 1. 2. 3. b. 1. 2. 3. (4) (5) (a) (b) earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, it may be reconstructed and used as before if within 12 months after such calamity the property owner applies for a building permit to replace the structure. If no permit is applied for within the time period then the whole structure shall be demolished, and any construction thereafter shall be in full compliance and accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code. Remodeling and reconstruction. This subsection is intended to apply to the voluntary and intentional removal of all or portions of a lawful nonconforming structure. Whenever a lawful nonconforming structure shall be destroyed by means other than fire, flood, explosion, earthquake, war, riot, or act of God, to any extent then such structure may be restored only if a building permit is applied for within 180 days of the commencement of the destruction. If no permit is applied for in the 180 days then the structure shall be built in full compliance and accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Code. Expansion of nonconforming structures. "Expansion of nonconforming structures" includes any increase in a dimension, size, area, volume, or height; any placement of a structure or part thereof where none existed before; any addition of a site feature such as but not limited to a deck, patio, fence, driveway, parking area, or swimming pool; any improvement that would allow the land to be more intensely developed; and any exterior storage, signs, or lighting. No expansion of nonconforming structures shall be permitted except as specifically listed and allowed herein: Expansion of nonconforming single family residence structures. Lawful, nonconforming single family residential structures may be expanded, provided: That the expansion does not occupy any space within a non-conforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally, and complies with all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. That if the structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. That in cases where the lot line setback of a structure is less than 50 percent of the required setback for that zoning district, the city will require at a minimum that applicant shall make up the discrepancy by enlarging the opposite required yard depth to result in an aggregate yard depth equivalent to the combined required yard. Expansion of residential accessory structures. Lawful, nonconforming residential accessory buildings may be expanded provided: That the expansion does not occupy any space within a non-conforming area that was previously not occupied either vertically or horizontally, and complies with all height, setback, and hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. That if the accessory structure is nonconforming only with respect to substandard lot area or width for the district in which it is located, the expansion shall meet all height, setback, hardcover and lot coverage requirements of the district in which it is located. That in cases where an accessory structure encroaches upon the lot line setback, the city will require at a minimum that the existing accessory structure shall be modified so that it becomes completely conforming with respect to setbacks. Relocation. No nonconforming structure shall be moved to another lot or to any other part of the parcel of land upon which the same was constructed at the time of this section's adoption unless such movement shall bring the nonconformance into compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Code. Prior permit. Any proposed structure which will, under this section, become nonconforming but for which a building permit has been lawfully granted not more than six months prior to the effective date of this section, may be completed in accordance with the approved plans; provided construction is started within six months of the effective date of this section, and continues to completion within two years. Such structure shall thereafter be a legally existing nonconforming structure. (Ord. No. 33 3rd series, § 1, 2-27-2006; Ord. No. 85 3rd series, § 1, 2-14-2011; Ord. No. 154 3rd series, § 1, 8-10-2015) Editor's note— Ord. No. 33 3rd series, § 1, adopted Feb. 27, 2006, repealed the former § 78-71, and enacted a new § 78-71 as set out herein. The former § 78-71 pertained to nonconforming uses and derived from Code 1984, § 10.03(5). Sec. 78-72. - Lots of record. A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the register of deeds or the registrar of titles for Hennepin County prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the council if required. A lot of record located within an R (Residential) or RR (Rural Residential) district but not within the Shoreland Overlay district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, or any of the LR-Lakeshore Residential districts, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as (1) (2) a. b. c. (3) a. b. c. 1. 2. 3. 4. (c) (1) a. b. c. d. (2) a. b. c. d. (3) a. to area or width may be utilized for a single-family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council or administrative approval by the planning director, such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: In R districts of one acre or less and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval if all other requirements of the underlying zoning district are met, including but not limited to required yards, setbacks, lot coverage by structures, hardcover, etc. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. In R or RR districts of greater than one acre and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R or RR district in the city in excess of one acre which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; It is served by public sanitary sewer; and It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other applicable Code provisions. In R or RR districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R or RR district in the city not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of this chapter and shall not be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval. Administrative approval may be granted for a lot of record not meeting the lot area and width requirements if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: The lot area and lot width each meet at least 50 percent of the district standard. Suitable primary and alternate septic sites are identified on the property and are protected from future development by execution of a covenant. All other zoning ordinance requirements must be met, including but not limited to the following: Setbacks. Hardcover. Lot coverage by structures. Accessory structure requirements. A lot of record located in any shoreland district, including the Shoreland Overlay district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, and any of the LR- Lakeshore Residential districts, that does not meet the requirements of this chapter for lot size or lot width shall be subject to the following regulations: A nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size and width requirements, provided that: All setback requirements can be met; A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. All other zoning district standards can be met. In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development, if it meets the following requirements: The lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120; The lot must be connected to a public sewer, if available, or must be suitable for the installation of a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government controls; and Impervious surface coverage must meet all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover must not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area; and Development of the lot must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. A lot subject to either subsections 78-72(c)(1) or (2) remains subject to the hardcover restrictions of this chapter, as follows: Where the hardcover square footage allotment as calculated based on the assigned tier exceeds 25 percent of the entire lot area, hardcover shall be limited to 25 percent of the entire lot area. b. (4) (5) (6) (7) (1) (2) (3) No portion of the impervious surface square footage allowed shall be placed within in 75 feet of a lake OHWL or tributary bank, except for those items normally allowed in such location as regulated elsewhere in this chapter. A lot subject to subsection 78-72(c)(2) not meeting the requirements of subsection 78-72(c)(2) must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more conforming lots as much as possible. Notwithstanding subsection 78-72(c)(2), contiguous nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas under a common ownership must be able to be sold or purchased individually if each lot contained a habitable residential dwelling at the time the lots came under common ownership and the lots are suitable for, or served by, a sewage treatment system consistent with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 115.55 and Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, or connected to a public sewer. In all variance requests, zoning and building permit applications or conditional use requests, the property owner shall address, when determined as appropriate by the city engineer or city staff, stormwater runoff management, reduction of impervious surfaces, setback increases, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities, and other conservation-designed actions. A portion of a conforming lot may be separated from an existing parcel as long as the remainder of the existing parcel meets the lot size and sewage treatment requirements of the zoning district for a new lot and the newly created parcel is combined with an adjacent parcel. (Code 1984, § 10.03(6)(A); Ord. No. 9 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004; Ord. No. 92 3rd series, § 1, 3-26-2012; Ord. No. 95 3rd series, § 1, 10-8-2012; Ord. No. 108 3rd series, § 1, 7-8-2013) Sec. 78-73. - Separation limited. The separation by the transfer or sale of nonconforming, undeveloped lots not served by public sanitary sewer, aligned in a contiguous arrangement, undivided by a public or private road or road easement and under same or common ownership is not permitted without council approval. Council approval is not required if the separation of such lots results in individual building sites that satisfy the area and width requirements of this chapter. (Code 1984, § 10.03(6)(C)) Sec. 78-74. - Farming. All farms in existence on January 1, 1975, shall be permitted to continue operation subject to the following conditions: No new stock farms shall be created or existing stock farms enlarged more than 25 percent over the total number of animals that existed on the farm as of January 1, 1975, with animals over one year old except under the provisions of a conditional use permit. In considering any such permit, the maximum number and type of animals to be kept shall be determined by the council. The site design and method of operation shall be reviewed, and the council shall find that the proposed or existing stock farm will not in its opinion be detrimental to the public safety and the general welfare. The establishment of any new building for the housing of animals or fowl shall be located 150 feet from the nearest lot line. Products produced on the farm may be sold at retail. One temporary roadside stand may be established for conducting such business. One temporary business sign not over eight square feet in area may be located in the front yard during the period when products are for sale. Off-street parking must be provided for. (Code 1984, § 10.03(18)) Secs. 78-75—78-95. - Reserved. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By DJR 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a front yard setback. 2. Background. The property is located in the RR-1A. RR1-A requires 5 acres and a 100 foot front yard setback. The subject property includes an existing farm house that is be remodeled that sits entirely within the required front yard. The applicants are proposing to enclose the existing deck on the back side of the home as a screened in porch and add a landing for a back door from the home. Due to the location of the existing, legal nonconforming home, there is no conforming building space to allow for additions since the home sits entirely within the 100 foot front yard setback. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on August 20, 2019. This application will expire October 20, 2019. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed project and unanimously voted in favor. 5. Public Comment No public comment was made. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to adopt or amend the included approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Site Plan C. Draft Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits E. Application F. Practical Difficulties Documentation G. Proposed Survey H. Proposed Plans and Elevations I. Adjacent Property Signatures J. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 20 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000068 – Eric Johnson, 580 Orchard Park Road, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden, Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-395 FILE NO.LA19-000068 WHEREAS, on August 20, 2019, Eric Johnson (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 580 Orchard Park Road and legally described as: Lot 12, Block 1, Orchard Park (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to allow for improvements in the front yard setback; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the Planning Commission, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000068. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 4.7 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 330 feet. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 4. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Front yard setback 5. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The existing conditions of the structure creates difficulties for conforming improvements to the home. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to expand the structure on a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the request to permit construction of the additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the front yard setback, appears to be reasonable as the project will not change the current setbacks. The property’s existing conditions due to the placement of the home creates difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the existing conditions due to the location of the home is unique and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Few of other properties in the neighborhood have similar setback challenges, the subject property will not be out of character with the neighborhood. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 located. This condition is not applicable, as the single family home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property has no building space for a conforming addition to the existing building. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property includes an existing house that is nonconforming for its location. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this to be true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the variance does not imminently threaten health, safety, or morals. . 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed addition does not create any new setbacks to the building only new structural massing. 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- 395 to allow improvement to the rear on the house within the front yard setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 8/2/2019 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for 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 (October 14, 2020). CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of October, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MW 919.92 sq ft 136.91 sq ft 29.48 sq ft DW RANGE 5'- 0 " 754.51 sq ft GA S ELECTRIC DRIVEWAY GARAGE F R O N T P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 3 0 . 1 5 R E A R P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 3 1 . 7 5 SIDE PROPERTY LINE 631.2 SIDE PROPERTY LINE 631.57 CR E E K / D R A I N A G E D I T C H O R C H A R D P A R K R O A D DRIVEWAY 1 0 0 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 1 0 0 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 50' SIDE SETBACK 50' SIDE SETBACK GARAGE HO U S E 20' DETACHED GARAGE SIDE SETBACK (IF LESS THAN 1000SF) 00 SCALE: 1" = 50' SITE PLAN "AFTER" NEW PORCH RE F R RA N G E 11 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 5 " 10'-0 1/4"10'-6 3/4" 25 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 21'-0 1/2" 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 5'-5 1/2" 17'-6" 14 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 7'-9" CPT-ACT 7'-9 3/4"CLG 7'-10" CLG 6'-11" CLG 7'-10 1/2" CLG MAIN LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 00 COZINE/ JOHNSON/ SEVER RESIDENCE FAMILYROOM DINING KITCHEN LIVINGROOM UP DO W N SLOPED FLOOR FRONT ENTRY ~9 " S T E P LANDING GA S ST E P STEP DECK WELL HOUSE SLAB COVER 2X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . AS S U M E D 2X10 @ 16" O.C. ASSUMED 2X10 @ 16" O.C. ASSUMED ROOF STRUCTURE ELECTRIC WOOD FLOOR TYPICAL LI N O WO O D WOOD LINO WOOD CPT BACK ENTRY WELL HOSE BIBB 36"H CAB RE A R W A L K MW DW RANGE 4 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 4 " 12'-4" 5' - 0 " 3'-10"+/-5'-0" 4 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 4 " 12'-4" 5' - 0 " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL PLAN "AFTER"00 GA S ELECTRIC DINING KI T C H E N LIVINGROOM FRONT ENTRY NEW SCREENED PORCH NEW LANDING ST E P HAND RAIL WELL NE W R E A R W A L K STUDIO/MUD BATH STEP 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 6' - 4 1 / 4 " 10 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 17'-10 1/4" 7'-3 1/2" 7' - 1 0 " 25 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 7'-4 1/4" 7'-4" 6'-4 1/4" CLG 6'-4 3/4" CLG 6'-3 3/4" 6'-3 3/4" 12 " K N E E W A L L 4'-2 1/2" CLG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 00 UPPER LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 CLOSET UL BATH STAIR HALLDO W N SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG AC C E S S RAISED LEDGE CO N F I R M D E P T H WOOD FLOOR TYPICAL ACCESS SL O P E D CL G SL O P E D C L G FLAT CLG FLAT CLG ATTIC WO O D TILE WOOD WOOD 2X4 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. 7'-4 1/2" STACK? UPPER LEVEL PLAN "AFTER" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 00 NEW SCREENED PORCH ROOF DECK OR PITCHED ROOF. EXISTING ROOF NEW LOWER BACK ENTRY ROOF MASTER BEDROOM GUEST BEDROOM/ STUDIO UL BATH STAIR HALL WALK-IN CLOSET 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 12 ' - 9 " SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION00 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 NEW DOOR NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDWNEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW SCREENED PORCH IN EXISTING DECK FOOTPRINT NEW LOWER ROOF EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 1X4 SKIRTING NEW LANDING NEW ROOF SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION00 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 NEW SCREENED PORCH IN EXISTING DECK FOOTPRINT EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING GUARD RAIL THIS SIDE ONLY (IF OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE) MW 919.92 sq ft 136.91 sq ft 29.48 sq ft DW RANGE 5'- 0 " 754.51 sq ft GA S ELECTRIC DRIVEWAY GARAGE F R O N T P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 3 0 . 1 5 R E A R P R O P E R T Y L I N E 3 3 1 . 7 5 SIDE PROPERTY LINE 631.2 SIDE PROPERTY LINE 631.57 CR E E K / D R A I N A G E D I T C H O R C H A R D P A R K R O A D DRIVEWAY 1 0 0 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 1 0 0 ' F R O N T S E T B A C K 50' SIDE SETBACK 50' SIDE SETBACK GARAGE HO U S E 20' DETACHED GARAGE SIDE SETBACK (IF LESS THAN 1000SF) 00 SCALE: 1" = 50' SITE PLAN "AFTER" NEW PORCH RE F R RA N G E 11 ' - 3 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 5 " 10'-0 1/4"10'-6 3/4" 25 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 21'-0 1/2" 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 5'-5 1/2" 17'-6" 14 ' - 8 1 / 4 " 7'-9" CPT-ACT 7'-9 3/4"CLG 7'-10" CLG 6'-11" CLG 7'-10 1/2" CLG MAIN LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" 00 COZINE/ JOHNSON/ SEVER RESIDENCE FAMILYROOM DINING KITCHEN LIVINGROOM UP DO W N SLOPED FLOOR FRONT ENTRY ~9 " S T E P LANDING GA S ST E P STEP DECK WELL HOUSE SLAB COVER 2X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . AS S U M E D 2X10 @ 16" O.C. ASSUMED 2X10 @ 16" O.C. ASSUMED ROOF STRUCTURE ELECTRIC WOOD FLOOR TYPICAL LI N O WO O D WOOD LINO WOOD CPT BACK ENTRY WELL HOSE BIBB 36"H CAB RE A R W A L K MW DW RANGE 4 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 4 " 12'-4" 5' - 0 " 3'-10"+/-5'-0" 4 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 4 " 12'-4" 5' - 0 " SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" MAIN LEVEL PLAN "AFTER"00 GA S ELECTRIC DINING KI T C H E N LIVINGROOM FRONT ENTRY NEW SCREENED PORCH NEW LANDING ST E P HAND RAIL WELL NE W R E A R W A L K STUDIO/MUD BATH STEP 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 6' - 4 1 / 4 " 10 ' - 0 1 / 2 " 17'-10 1/4" 7'-3 1/2" 7' - 1 0 " 25 ' - 1 1 / 4 " 7'-4 1/4" 7'-4" 6'-4 1/4" CLG 6'-4 3/4" CLG 6'-3 3/4" 6'-3 3/4" 12 " K N E E W A L L 4'-2 1/2" CLG SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 00 UPPER LEVEL PLAN "BEFORE" 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 BEDROOM 1 BEDROOM 2 CLOSET UL BATH STAIR HALLDO W N SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG SLOPED CLG AC C E S S RAISED LEDGE CO N F I R M D E P T H WOOD FLOOR TYPICAL ACCESS SL O P E D CL G SL O P E D C L G FLAT CLG FLAT CLG ATTIC WO O D TILE WOOD WOOD 2X4 RAFTERS @ 16" O.C. 7'-4 1/2" STACK? UPPER LEVEL PLAN "AFTER" SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 00 NEW SCREENED PORCH ROOF DECK OR PITCHED ROOF. EXISTING ROOF NEW LOWER BACK ENTRY ROOF MASTER BEDROOM GUEST BEDROOM/ STUDIO UL BATH STAIR HALL WALK-IN CLOSET 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 12 ' - 9 " SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" EAST ELEVATION00 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 NEW DOOR NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDWNEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW WNDW NEW SCREENED PORCH IN EXISTING DECK FOOTPRINT NEW LOWER ROOF EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 1X4 SKIRTING NEW LANDING NEW ROOF SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0" SOUTH ELEVATION00 580 ORCHARD PARK RD. ORONO, MN 55356 8-2019 NEW SCREENED PORCH IN EXISTING DECK FOOTPRINT EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING GUARD RAIL THIS SIDE ONLY (IF OVER 30" ABOVE GRADE) 3. LA19-000068 ERIC JOHNSON, 580 ORCHARD PARK ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:31 P.M. – 7:38 P.M. Eric Johnson, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a front yard setback. The property is located in the RR-1A zoning district, which is a 5-acre district, and has a 100-foot front yard setback. The property includes an existing farmhouse that is being remodeled. It sits entirely within the required front yard setback. According to Hennepin County, the home was built in the1940s. The applicants are proposing to enclose the existing deck on the back side of the home as a screened-in porch and add a landing for a back door from the home. Due to the location of the existing legal nonconforming home, there is no conforming building space to allow for additions since the home sits entirely within the100-foot front yard setback. The proposed improvements will fit within the existing setbacks. No new setbacks are proposed. The property is outside the Shoreland regulations and has no hardcover limits. To date no public comments have been received. Three neighbors have signed off on the project. Planning Staff recommends approval. Ressler asked if the garage would be actually intensifying the use. Oakden stated the garage and deck are existing and they are proposing to screen in a porch over the deck and add a rear landing off of the back of the house. Alicia Cozine, 580 Orchard Park Road, stated she would be happy to answer any questions. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:35 p.m. Thiesse stated he has no concerns with the application and it is a reasonable request. The property is large enough and the project will not be visible to anybody and is a great amenity to the house. Gettman and Bollis indicated they have no issues with the application. Erickson commented similar to a garage, a screen porch in Minnesota in the summer is an asset and he would support the application. McCutcheon stated he supports the application. Ressler indicated he is in support of the application. Bollis moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000068, Eric Johnson, 580 Orchard Park Road, variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: August 20, 2019 Date Application Considered as Complete: August 20, 2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: October 30, 2019 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: September 16, 2019 Subject: LA19-000068, Eric Johnson, 580 Orchard Park Road, Variance, Public Hearing Background The property is located in the RR-1A. RR1-A requires 5 acres and a 100 foot front yard setback. The subject property includes an existing farm house that is be remodeled that sits entirely within the required front yard. According to Hennepin County the home was built in 1940s. The applicants are proposing to enclose the existing deck on the back side of the home as a screened in porch and add a landing for a back door from the home. Due to the location of the existing, legal nonconforming home, there is no conforming building space to allow for additions since the home sits entirely within the 100 foot front yard setback. The proposed improvements will fit within the existing setbacks. No new setbacks are proposed. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required Existing Proposed Front 100’ 49.1’ No Change Side (North) 50’ 30.2 No Change Side (South) 50’ 101’ No Change Rear 100’ 543’ No Change The property is outside of the shoreland district and does not have any hardcover limitations. The property is roughly 4.7 acres. Properties over 2 acres in size do not have any structural limitations. Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-395) The City Code has a 100’ foot setback from the front property line. The existing home sits within the front yard setback. The applicant is requesting to build a covered porch on top of the existing deck which would create new structure within the setback area. 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 Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a front yard setback Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval LA19-000038 June 17, 2019 Page 2 of 4 anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The existing conditions of the structure creates difficulties for conforming improvements to the home. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to expand the structure on a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; the request to permit construction of the additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the front yard setback, appears to be reasonable as the project will not change the current setbacks. The property’s existing conditions due to the placement of the home creates difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the existing conditions due to the location of the home is unique and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Few of other properties in the neighborhood have similar setback challenges, the subject property will not be out of character with the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the single family home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. LA19-000038 June 17, 2019 Page 3 of 4 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property has no building space for conforming addition to the existing building. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property and an existing farmhouse that is nonconforming for its location. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this to be true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the variance does not imminently threaten health, safety, or morals. . 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed addition does not create any new setbacks to the building only new structural massing. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The existing home is located in a nonconforming location. The existing farm house sits completely within front yard setback. Due to the location of the existing home, there is no conforming location to allow for additions to the home. The proposed additions on top of the deck creates minimum impacts to the property with no change to the setbacks. The improvements proposed are reasonable improvements to residential structures and are not likely to negatively impact the neighborhood. It appears that the standards have been satisfied. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variances? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits LA19-000038 June 17, 2019 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Adjacent Property Signatures Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding an average lakeshore setback variance to construct additions to the existing home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete on August 21, 2019. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on October 20th. 3. Background/ Summary. The original home on the property was constructed prior to 1900. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to the existing home. The property is a peninsula connected to 2165 North Shore Drive by a 6 foot wide strip of land. This property is situated across the bay and is the only adjacent property for determining the average lakeshore setback. The home at 2165 North Shore is located approximately 170 feet from the OHWL; according to the City Code improvements must be located equal to or further back from the lake than the 2165 North Shore Drive home. The existing home is situated as close as 46 feet to the OHWL however the additions/improvements are at least 77 feet from the OHWL but within the average lakeshore setback. The additions will meet the 75-foot setback; however they will require an average lakeshore setback variance. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 16th the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance. 5. Public Comment. No comments from the neighbors were received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report Item No.: 21 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000071 – Laurel Ulland Architecture/Martha Meyers Head, 2090 Shoreline Drive, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda References PC Exhibits 09/16/19 A. Application Summary & Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Proposed Survey D. Proposed Plans E. Average Lakeshore Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations (also on survey) G. Aerial Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map 2040 Community Management Plan CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA19 -000071 WHEREAS, Martha Myers Head is the Trustee of the Martha M. Head 2014 Qualified Personal Residence Trust (hereinafter the “Applicant”) the owner of the property located at 2090 Shoreline Drive and legally described in Exhibit A, attached (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, on August 21, 2019, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 1279 to allow construction of home additions lakeward of the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance for the proposed project; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000071. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2.The Property is located in the LR-1A Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3.The Property contains 3.76 acres in area. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 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. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed location of the home additions do not block lake views of the adjacent property owners, and therefore is harmonious with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The average lakeshore setback variance is consistent with the goals in the comprehensive plan to protect lake views. 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 variance requests are residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique nature of the property as a large peninsula on the lake. The relatively large flood hazard area and existing improvements on the property creates difficulties in locating a conforming structure. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location of the structures on the Property and configuration of the lot were not created by the property owner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The visual impacts resulting from the additions proposed within the average lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Rather, the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 home will not impact views from the lake nor will it appear to be more visually obtrusive than the existing buildings on the property. 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 a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The Property’s location and orientation as a peninsula, functionally an island, is unique. Due to the nature of the Property on the point, the application of the average lakeshore setback requirement causes a practical difficulty. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The Property’s location on the lake is unique and applies primarily to this Property; the application of the setback requirement combined with the challenges of the flood hazard area restrict the ability to improve the Property without a variance, creating a practical difficulty. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The home can be reconstructed in kind. However, the minimal relief from the ordinance allows for functional improvements to the footprint, retaining the character of the lot and are consistent with the existing home. Relating to the average lakeshore setback, this condition is 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 proposed project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” Granting of the variance will resolve and alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty caused by the application of the average lakeshore setback applied to the 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 additions to the home lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the survey dated 08/02/19 by Egan, Field & Nowak Inc., and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits B & C. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, 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 approvals will expire on that date October 14, 2020). 3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution shall constitute a violation of the zoning code, shall automatically terminate any authority granted herein, and shall be punishable as a misdemeanor. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of October, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2090 Shoreline Drive (legal description): That part of Government Lot 1, Section 15, Township 117, Range 23, and of the accretions in said Section 15, described as follows: Commencing at Meander Corner No. 63 located on the north line of said Section 15; thence North 89 degrees 59 minutes 59 seconds West, assumed bearing along said north line, a distance of 458.47 feet to the westerly right-of-way line of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba (Great Northern) Railway; thence South 17 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 1292.86 feet to the point of beginning of the land to be described; thence North 72 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 6 feet, more or less, to the shore line of Lake Minnetonka; thence westerly, southerly, northerly and easterly, along said shore line to a point on said westerly right-of-way line distant 360 feet, more or less, southwesterly from the point of beginning; thence North 17 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East, along said westerly right-of-way line, a distance of 360 feet, more or less, to the point of beginning. The Northerly and Easterly boundary lines are marked by judicial landmarks set pursuant to Torrens Case No. 20918. Together with a nonexclusive appurtenant easement for ingress and egress in that part of said Government Lot 1 described as follows: Beginning at a point on said westerly right-of-way line, distant 1628.91 feet south from the north line of said Section 15, as measured along said westerly right-of-way line; thence South 72 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 50.00 feet; thence North 62 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 35.36 feet; thence North 17 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East a distance of 178.60 feet; thence South 72 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds East a distance of 25.00 feet to the easterly right-of-way line of the St. Paul, Minneapolis and Manitoba (Great Northern) Railway; thence South 17 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West, along said easterly right-of-way line, a distance of 203.60 feet; thence South 62 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds West a distance of 35.36 feet; thence North 72 degrees 52 minutes 19 seconds West a distance of 75.00 feet to said westerly right-of-way line; thence North 17 degrees 07 minutes 41 seconds East, along said westerly right-of- way line, a distance of 25.00 feet to the point of beginning as set forth in CR Doc. No. 8518737 and as modified by Decree in Torrens Case No. 20918, Doc No 4535441; Hennepin County, Minnesota. Sh e e t Da t e ByPr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . PR O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3. 0 RA M P T O P O R C H D O O R (W R A P S A R O U N D T R E E A N D SC U L P T U R E ) 8. 0 0 12 6. 0 0 12 4. 0 0 12 SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " PR O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N A3 . 01 1 A4 . 0 1 A4 . 1 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 1 A4 . 3 NE W A D D I T I O N T O T H E W E S T NE W A D D I T I O N TO T H E N O R T H NO T E : S H E D R O O F I N T H I S A R E A ( O V E R D E N ) TO B E R E M O V E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N O F L A R G E R MA I N G A B L E , B U T R E B U I L T T O M A T C H E X ' G S L O P E AN D P R O F I L E O F A D J A C E N T , E X I S T I N G S H E D R O O F EX I S T I N G H O U S E NE W U P P E R F L O O R SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " PR O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N A3 . 11 S h e e t D a t e B y P r o j e c t L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 1 7 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h M i n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 6 1 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p w w w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . I s s u e R e g i s t r a t i o n # T h i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . L U A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . P R O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N M a r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 2 0 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3. 1 6. 0 0 12 12 . 0 0 12 1 A4 . X 1 A4 . X NE W , W I D E R G A B L E T O R E P L A C E EX I S T I N G G A B L E ( P R O F I L E O F E X ' G GA B L E S H O W N D A S H E D Sh e e t Da t e ByPr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . PR O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3. 2 SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " PR O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N A3 . 21 12 . 0 0 12 4. 0 0 12 1 A4 . 0 1 A4 . 1 EX I S T I N G S L I D I N G D O O R R E P L A C E D WI T H I N S U L A T E D , C U S T O M W O O D C L A D OV E R H E A D D O O R - V E R I F Y I F A D E Q U A T E CL E A R A N C E E X I S T S 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 1 A4 . 3 EX I S T I N G H O U S E NE W A D D I T I O N NE W , W I D E R G A B L E T O R E P L A C E EX I S T I N G G A B L E ( P R O F I L E O F E X ' G GA B L E S H O W N D A S H E D EX I S T I N G H O U S E NE W U P P E R F L O O R SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " PR O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N A3 . 31 S h e e t D a t e B y P r o j e c t L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 1 7 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h M i n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 6 1 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p w w w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . I s s u e R e g i s t r a t i o n # T h i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . L U A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . P R O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N M a r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 2 0 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3. 3 4. 0 0 12 5. 0 0 12 8. 0 0 12 6. 0 0 12 6. 0 0 12 12 . 0 0 12 1 A4 . X 1 A4 . X 3 A4 . 2 4 A4 . 2 NE W A D D I T I O N T O T H E N O R T H NE W A D D I T I O N TO T H E W E S T S h e e t D a t e B y P r o j e c t L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 1 7 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h M i n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 6 1 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p w w w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . I s s u e R e g i s t r a t i o n # T h i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . L U A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7 / 1 7 / 1 9 pl a n no r t h SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " M a r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 2 0 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 ac t u a l no r t h BA S E M E N T ST O R A G E LA U N D R Y BA T H GA R A G E ST O R A G E GA R D E N UT I L I T Y SC R E E N E D PO R C H LO W E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A2 . 0 1 L O W E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A 2. 0 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E NE W P A S S A G E WA L L K E Y EX ' G C O N S T R U C T I O N NE W C O N S T R U C T I O N PA T C H A N D R E P A I R NE W M A S O N R Y W A L L HW W. F I L T R A T I O N EL E C T R I C A L S E R V I C E T O B E BU R I E D A N D R E L O C A T E D T O MA I N H O U S E 1 5 ' - 7 " 3 5 ' - 9 " 6 2 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 2 6 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 2 0 ' - 2 " EX I S T I N G FU R N A C E VE R I F Y N E W W A L L P O S I T I O N R E L A T I V E TO E X I S T I N G B A T H W I N D O W . A L I G N W / EX I S T I N G N O R T H G A R D E N / U T I L I T Y W A L L IF P O S S I B L E ( S H O W N I N S E T ) IN S U L A T E E X ' G S P A C E A N D AD D H E A T / C O O L I N G F O R T H I S , PA S S A G E A N D K I T C H E N A B O V E 54 ' - 0 " N O T T O S C A L E EX I S T I N G FU R N A C E ST A I R U P EX T E R I O R ST A I R U P EX I S T I N G , T O R E M A I N EX I S T I N G , T O R E M A I N EX I S T I N G , T O R E M A I N (N O T E : I F G A R A G E I S T O R E M A I N , WA L L S A N D C E I L I N G W I L L N E E D TO H A V E 1 H R . F I R E P R O T E C T I O N EX I S T I N G , T O R E M A I N EX I S T I N G , T O R E M A I N EX I S T I N G , TO R E M A I N EL E C T R I C A L S E R V I C E MO V E D T O T H I S L O C A T I O N (V E R I F Y ) NE W I N S U L A T E D 2 X 6 WA L L S O N N E W F R O S T FO O T I N G NE W C O N C . S L A B ON G R A D E 72 X 8 0 72 X 8 0 SE E A B O V E F O R WA L L P O S I T I O N NE W D E C K P O S T S A N D P I E R FO O T I N G S ( V E R I F Y D E C K C O N D I T I O N AN D R E B U I L D A C C O R D I N G L Y ) RE F R A M E E X ' G F L O O R AB O V E ( A T A M I N I M U M ) EX I S T I N G W I N D O W S - V E R I F Y I F R E M A I N OR R E P L A C E D SE A L W I N D O W SE A L W I N D O W NE W B A Y AB O V E RE L O C A T E D D E C K BE A M NE W R A I L I N G T O M A T C H GU E S T H O U S E NE W C O N C . S L A B (V E R I F Y ) X AX . X X AX . X EX I S T I N G C H I M N E Y T O B E R E M O V E D . BU I L D N E W F O U N D A T I O N A D J A C E N T TO E X I S T I N G RE P L A C E O R R E S T O R E E X ' G S L I D I N G GA R A G E D O O R ( V E R I F Y - H O W T O M A K E WE A T H E R T I G H T ? ) RE B U I L D T H I S W A L L W / H E L I C A L P I E R & G R A D E BE A M F O O T I N G A N D S T O N E V E N E E R C L A D 2 X 6 FR A M E D W A L L 11 A4 . 0 A4 . 1 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 1 A4 . 3 NE W W I N D O W I N E X ' G DO O R O P E N I N G NE W A D D I T I O N N E W A D D I T I O N NE W A D D I T I O N NE W A D D I T I O N NE W D O O R I N EX ' G W I N D O W OP E N I N G EX ' G S T O N E P I L A S T E R FO U N D A T I O N ST E P F O U N D A T I O N AN D E L E V A T E S L A B AS R E Q ' D F O R B E D R O C K 8 " 8 " 8 " 1 ' - 0 " 5 ' - 6 " 17 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 8"1' - 2 " 8 " 1 ' - 2 " 6 " 8' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 8 " 4 ' - 5 " 8" pl a n no r t h SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " ac t u a l no r t h KI T C H E N SC R E E N E D PO R C H DE C K MA I N L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A2 . 11 MA I N L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N Sh e e t Da t e ByPr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m Is s u e Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 2. 1 WA L L K E Y EX ' G C O N S T R U C T I O N NE W C O N S T R U C T I O N PA T C H A N D R E P A I R NE W M A S O N R Y W A L L SU N R O O M LI V I N G R O O M DI N I N G R O O M BE D R O O M DE N MA S T E R BE D R O O M 1 CL O S . OF F I C E 5 ' - 6 " P. R . MA S T E R BA T H R O O M 1 ST A I R DO W N 33 " O V E N / MI C R O W A V E 39 " R E F R I G . D. W . 3' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 3' - 1 1 1 / 4 " NE W W A L L 1 2 " S O U T H OF E X ' G ( T O B E R E M O V E D ) 3 2 X 8 0 NE W W A L L 1 2 " S O U T H OF E X ' G ( T O B E R E M O V E D ) NE W 5 ' - 6 " S L I D I N G D O O R TO R E P L A C E E X ' G NE W D E C K R A I L I N G S Y S T E M TO M A T C H G U E S T H O U S E (A Z E K / T I M B E R T E C H P R E M I E R ) SH E L F MO V E W I N D O W C L E A R OF N E W W A L L BE N C H S E A T ST A I R U P 4 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 4 " RA M P ? GA S L O G T O B E I N S T A L L E D IN E X ' G F I R E P L A C E ( R E - L I N E CH I M N E Y A S N E C E S S A R Y ) MO V E D O O R 32 X 8 0 32 X 8 0 3 0 X 8 0 2 8 X 8 0 32 X 8 0 32 X 8 0 3 6 X 8 0 3 6 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 ST A I R DO W N 28X83 3 3 . 5 X 7 8 3 3 X 8 2 3 0 X 7 8 . 5 RE B U I L D P . T . W O O D S T E P S WI T H I N E X ' G S T O N E W A L L S BU I L T - I N L I N E N AN D D I S P L A Y C A B S N E W 7 2 X 8 4 P O C K E T D O O R S CE N T E R D O O R S O N B A Y TH I C K E N E D W A L L I F R E Q U I R E D FO R L A U N D R Y P L U M B I N G A B O V E 3 0 . 5 X 7 8 . 2 5 HO O K S SH E L V E S ST O R A G E UN D E R C A B RE F R I G . MO V E W A L L 6 " T O T H E W E S T , BU T D O N ' T I M P A C T T H E P O W D E R RO O M I N T E R I O R NE W W A L L , B E A M I N S A M E LO C A T I O N A S E X I S T I N G X AX . X X AX . X SH E L V E S EX ' G 3 0 X 8 0 PO C K E T D O O R S 11 A4 . 0 A 4 . 1 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 1 A4 . 3 EX I S T I N G H O U S E NE W A D D I T I O N N E W A D D I T I O N NE W A D D I T I O N NE W 9 9 S . F . AD D I T I O N NE W 2 1 5 S . F . AD D I T I O N DN . 6 " S T E P S TO G R A D E 1 ' - 9 1 / 2 " 6' - 4 " 7' - 6 1 / 2 " 1' - 6 " 7 ' - 3 " 2 ' - 1 0 " 3 ' - 1 " 3' - 0 1 / 2 " 6 " 6 " 8' - 0 " 2 1 ' - 2 " 4 ' - 5 " 6' - 9 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 0 " VE R I F Y W / E X ' G R O O M D I M E N S I O N 8' - 0 " 7 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 6 " 8 ' - 1 " S h e e t D a t e B y P r o j e c t L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 1 7 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h M i n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 6 1 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p w w w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . I s s u e R e g i s t r a t i o n # T h i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . L U A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7 / 1 7 / 1 9 pl a n no r t h ac t u a l no r t h SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " M a r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 2 0 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 UP P E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A2 . 21 U P P E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A 2. 2 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E WA L L K E Y EX ' G C O N S T R U C T I O N NE W C O N S T R U C T I O N PA T C H A N D R E P A I R NE W M A S O N R Y W A L L MA S T E R B A T H 2 BE D R O O M 1 BA T H R O O M SC R E E N E D PO R C H 1 MA S T E R B E D R O O M 2 BE D R O O M 2 BA L C O N Y WA L K - I N CL O S E T LI N E N CA B . HA L L CL O S E T ST O R A G E W. C . W. C . X AX . X X AX . X X AX . X ST A I R DO W N DO R M E R LO W LO W LO W DO R M E R 90 " C E I L I N G TO B E F L A T 11 A4 . 0 A 4 . 1 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 SC R E E N E D PO R C H 2 1 A4 . 3 3 A4 . 2 4 A4 . 2 EX I S T I N G H O U S E NE W A D D I T I O N 4 ' - 6 " 4' - 7 " 4 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 6 1 / 2 " 5' - 6 " 10 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 2 ' - 3 1 / 2 " S h e e t D a t e B y P r o j e c t L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 1 7 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h M i n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 6 1 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p w w w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , s p e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . I s s u e R e g i s t r a t i o n # T h i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . L U A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d r e t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , i n c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e d e s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t t h e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7 / 1 7 / 1 9 pl a n no r t h ac t u a l no r t h SC A L E 1 / 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " M a r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 2 0 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 RO O F P L A N A2 . 31 R O O F P L A N A 2. 3 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E WA L L K E Y EX ' G C O N S T R U C T I O N NE W C O N S T R U C T I O N PA T C H A N D R E P A I R NE W M A S O N R Y W A L L X AX . X X AX . X NE W 1 2 / 1 2 G A B L E EX I S T I N G 6 / 1 2 GA B L E EX I S T I N G 6 / 1 2 GA B L E EX I S T I N G 6 / 1 2 GA B L E EX I S T I N G 1 2 / 1 2 GA B L E NE W 1 2 / 1 2 GA B L E EX I S T I N G 8 / 1 2 HI P R O O F (V E R I F Y ) EX I S T I N G 6 / 1 2 HI P R O O F NE W 6 / 1 2 S H E D R O O F TO M A T C H E X ' G NE W 1 2 / 1 2 GA B L E NE W 5 / 1 2 SH E D R O O F NE W 4 / 1 2 HI P R O O F NE W 1 / 1 2 FL A T R O O F EX I S T I N G 6 / 1 2 GA B L E NE W 8 / 1 2 HI P R O O F (V E R I F Y ) X AX . X 1 A4 . 0 1 A4 . 1 1 A4 . 2 2 A4 . 2 3 A4 . 2 4 A4 . 2 1 A4 . 3 NO T E : S H E D R O O F I N T H I S A R E A ( O V E R D E N ) TO B E R E M O V E D F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N O F L A R G E R MA I N G A B L E , B U T R E B U I L T T O M A T C H E X ' G S L O P E AN D P R O F I L E O F A D J A C E N T , E X I S T I N G S H E D R O O F Sheet Date By Project Laurel Ulland Architecture 1718 Logan Avenue South Minneapolis, 55403 612 874 1086 p www.laurelulland.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Issue Registration # This drawing is provided as an Instrument of Service by Laurel Ulland Architecture and is intended for use on this project only. LUA are the authors and owners of these instruments and retains all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright. Any reproduction, use or disclosure of the designs, arrangements or information contained herein without the prior written consent of LUA Is strictly prohibited.PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION Martha Head Residence 2090 Shoreline Drive, Orono, MN 55391 FORMATTED FOR 18X24 SHEET SIZE A 3.0 RAMP TO PORCH DOOR (WRAPS AROUND TREE AND SCULPTURE) 8.00 12 6.00 12 4.00 12 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED WEST ELEVATION A3.0 1 1 A4.0 1 A4.1 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 1 A4.3 NEW ADDITION TO THE WEST NEW ADDITION TO THE NORTH NOTE: SHED ROOF IN THIS AREA (OVER DEN) TO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LARGER MAIN GABLE, BUT REBUILT TO MATCH EX'G SLOPE AND PROFILE OF ADJACENT, EXISTING SHED ROOF EXISTING HOUSENEW UPPER FLOOR SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED SOUTH ELEVATION A3.1 1 Sh e e t Da t e By Pr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . PR O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3.1 6.00 12 12.00 12 1 A4.X 1 A4.X NEW, WIDER GABLE TO REPLACE EXISTING GABLE (PROFILE OF EX'G GABLE SHOWN DASHED Sheet Date By Project Laurel Ulland Architecture 1718 Logan Avenue South Minneapolis, 55403 612 874 1086 p www.laurelulland.com I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Issue Registration # This drawing is provided as an Instrument of Service by Laurel Ulland Architecture and is intended for use on this project only. LUA are the authors and owners of these instruments and retains all common law statutory and other reserved rights, including copyright. Any reproduction, use or disclosure of the designs, arrangements or information contained herein without the prior written consent of LUA Is strictly prohibited.PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION Martha Head Residence 2090 Shoreline Drive, Orono, MN 55391 FORMATTED FOR 18X24 SHEET SIZE A 3.2 SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED EAST ELEVATION A3.2 1 12.00 12 4.00 12 1 A4.0 1 A4.1 EXISTING SLIDING DOOR REPLACED WITH INSULATED, CUSTOM WOOD CLAD OVERHEAD DOOR - VERIFY IF ADEQUATE CLEARANCE EXISTS 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 1 A4.3 EXISTING HOUSE NEW ADDITION NEW, WIDER GABLE TO REPLACE EXISTING GABLE (PROFILE OF EX'G GABLE SHOWN DASHED EXISTING HOUSE NEW UPPER FLOOR SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" PROPOSED NORTH ELEVATION A3.3 1 Sh e e t Da t e By Pr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . PR O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E A 3.3 4.00 12 5.00 12 8.00 12 6.00 12 6.00 12 12.00 12 1 A4.X 1 A4.X 3 A4.2 4 A4.2 NEW ADDITION TO THE NORTH NEW ADDITION TO THE WEST Sh e e t Da t e By Pr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7/ 1 7 / 1 9 plan northSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 55 3 9 1 actu a l nort h BASEMENT STORAGE LAUNDRY BATH GARAGE STORAGE GARDEN! UTILITY SCREENED! PORCH LOWER LEVEL RENOVATION PLAN A2.0 1 LO W E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A 2.0F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E NEW PASSAGE WALL KEY EX'G CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION PATCH AND REPAIR NEW MASONRY WALL HW W. FILTRATION ELECTRICAL SERVICE TO BE BURIED AND RELOCATED TO MAIN HOUSE 15 ' - 7 " 35 ' - 9 " 62 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 26 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 20 ' - 2 " EXISTING FURNACE VERIFY NEW WALL POSITION RELATIVE TO EXISTING BATH WINDOW. ALIGN W/ EXISTING NORTH GARDEN/UTILITY WALL IF POSSIBLE (SHOWN INSET) INSULATE EX'G SPACE AND ADD HEAT/COOLING FOR THIS, PASSAGE AND KITCHEN ABOVE 54'-0" NOT TO SCALE EXISTING FURNACE STAIR UP EXTERIOR STAIR UP EXISTING, TO REMAIN EXISTING, TO REMAIN EXISTING, TO REMAIN (NOTE: IF GARAGE IS TO REMAIN, WALLS AND CEILING WILL NEED TO HAVE 1 HR. FIRE PROTECTION EXISTING, TO REMAIN EXISTING, TO REMAIN EXISTING, TO REMAIN ELECTRICAL SERVICE MOVED TO THIS LOCATION (VERIFY) NEW INSULATED 2X6 WALLS ON NEW FROST FOOTING NEW CONC. SLAB ON GRADE 72X80 72X80 SEE ABOVE FOR WALL POSITION NEW DECK POSTS AND PIER FOOTINGS (VERIFY DECK CONDITION AND REBUILD ACCORDINGLY) REFRAME EX'G FLOOR ABOVE (AT A MINIMUM) EXISTING WINDOWS - VERIFY IF REMAIN OR REPLACED SEAL WINDOW SEAL WINDOW NEW BAY ABOVE RELOCATED DECK BEAM NEW RAILING TO MATCH GUEST HOUSE NEW CONC. SLAB (VERIFY) X AX.X X AX.X EXISTING CHIMNEY TO BE REMOVED. BUILD NEW FOUNDATION ADJACENT TO EXISTING REPLACE OR RESTORE EX'G SLIDING GARAGE DOOR (VERIFY - HOW TO MAKE WEATHER TIGHT?) REBUILD THIS WALL W/ HELICAL PIER & GRADE BEAM FOOTING AND STONE VENEER CLAD 2X6 FRAMED WALL 1 1 A4.0 A4.1 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 1 A4.3 NEW WINDOW IN EX'G DOOR OPENING NEW ADDITION NE W A D D I T I O N NEW ADDITION NEW ADDITION NEW DOOR IN EX'G WINDOW OPENING EX'G STONE PILASTER FOUNDATION STEP FOUNDATION AND ELEVATE SLAB AS REQ'D FOR BEDROCK 8" 8" 8" 1' - 0 " 5' - 6 " 17'-5 1/2" 8" 1'-2" 8" 1' - 2 " 6" 8'-6" 21 ' - 8 " 4' - 5 " 8" plan northSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" actu a l nort h KITCHEN SCREENED! PORCH DECK MAIN LEVEL RENOVATION PLAN A2.1 1 MAIN LEVEL RENOVATION PLAN Sheet Date By Project Laurel Ulland Architecture 1718 Logan Avenue South Minneapolis, 55403 612 874 1086 p www.laurelulland.com Issue Martha Head Residence 2090 Shoreline Drive, Orono, MN 55391 FORMATTED FOR 18X24 SHEET SIZE A 2.1 WALL KEY EX'G CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION PATCH AND REPAIR NEW MASONRY WALL SUNROOM LIVING ROOM DINING ROOM BEDROOM DEN MASTER! BEDROOM 1 CLOS. OFFICE 5' - 6 " P.R. MASTER! BATHROOM 1 STAIR DOWN 33" OVEN/ MICROWAVE 39" REFRIG. D.W. 3'-0"3'-0"3'-11 1/4" NEW WALL 12" SOUTH OF EX'G (TO BE REMOVED) 32X80 NEW WALL 12" SOUTH OF EX'G (TO BE REMOVED) NEW 5'-6" SLIDING DOOR TO REPLACE EX'GNEW DECK RAILING SYSTEM TO MATCH GUEST HOUSE (AZEK/TIMBER TECH PREMIER) SHELF MOVE WINDOW CLEAR OF NEW WALL BENCH SEAT STAIR UP 4' - 0 " 4' - 6 " 2' - 4 " RAMP? GAS LOG TO BE INSTALLED IN EX'G FIREPLACE (RE-LINE CHIMNEY AS NECESSARY) MOVE DOOR 32X80 32X80 30 X 8 0 28 X 8 0 32X80 32X80 36 X 8 0 36 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 3 6 X 8 3 STAIR DOWN 2 8 X 8 3 3 3 . 5 X 7 8 3 3 X 8 2 3 0 X 7 8 . 5 REBUILD P.T. WOOD STEPS WITHIN EX'G STONE WALLS BUILT-IN LINEN AND DISPLAY CABS NE W 7 2 X 8 4 PO C K E T D O O R S CENTER DOORS ON BAY THICKENED WALL IF REQUIRED FOR LAUNDRY PLUMBING ABOVE 3 0 . 5 X 7 8 . 2 5 HOOKS SHELVES STORAGE UNDERCAB REFRIG. MOVE WALL 6" TO THE WEST, BUT DON'T IMPACT THE POWDER ROOM INTERIOR NEW WALL, BEAM IN SAME LOCATION AS EXISTING X AX.X X AX.X SHELVES EX'G 30X80 POCKET DOORS 1 1 A4.0 A4.1 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 1 A4.3 EXISTING HOUSE NEW ADDITION NE W A D D I T I O N NEW ADDITION NEW 99 S.F. ADDITION NEW 215 S.F. ADDITION DN. 6" STEPS TO GRADE 1' - 9 1 / 2 " 6'-4"7'-6 1/2" 1'-6" 7' - 3 " 2' - 1 0 " 3' - 1 " 3'-0 1/2" 6" 6" 8'-0" 21 ' - 2 " 4' - 5 " 6'-9 1/2"18'-0" VERIFY W/ EX'G ROOM DIMENSION 8'-0" 7' - 7 1 / 2 " 6" 8' - 1 " Sh e e t Da t e By Pr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7/ 1 7 / 1 9 plan north actu a l nort hSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 UPPER LEVEL RENOVATION PLAN A2.2 1 UP P E R L E V E L R E N O V A T I O N P L A N A 2.2F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E WALL KEY EX'G CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION PATCH AND REPAIR NEW MASONRY WALL MASTER BATH 2 BEDROOM 1 BATHROOM SCREENED! PORCH 1 MASTER BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 2 BALCONY WALK-IN! CLOSET LINEN CAB. HALL! CLOSET STORAGE W.C. W.C. X AX.X X AX.X X AX.X STAIR DOWN DORMER LOW LOW LOW DORMER 90" CEILING TO BE FLAT 1 1 A4.0 A4.1 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 SCREENED! PORCH 2 1 A4.3 3 A4.2 4 A4.2 EXISTING HOUSE NEW ADDITION 4' - 6 " 4'-7" 4' - 0 " 13'-6 1/2" 5'-6" 10'-6" 5' - 6 " 2' - 3 1 / 2 " Sh e e t Da t e By Pr o j e c t La u r e l U l l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e 17 1 8 L o g a n A v e n u e S o u t h Mi n n e a p o l i s , 5 5 4 0 3 61 2 8 7 4 1 0 8 6 p ww w . l a u r e l u l l a n d . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d by m e o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n an d t h a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d A r c h i t e c t un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f M i n n e s o t a . Is s u e Re g i s t r a t i o n # Th i s d r a w i n g i s p r o v i d e d a s a n I n s t r u m e n t o f S e r v i c e b y L a u r e l Ul l a n d A r c h i t e c t u r e a n d i s i n t e n d e d f o r u s e o n t h i s p r o j e c t o n l y . LU A a r e t h e a u t h o r s a n d o w n e r s o f t h e s e i n s t r u m e n t s a n d re t a i n s a l l c o m m o n l a w s t a t u t o r y a n d o t h e r r e s e r v e d r i g h t s , in c l u d i n g c o p y r i g h t . A n y r e p r o d u c t i o n , u s e o r d i s c l o s u r e o f t h e de s i g n s , a r r a n g e m e n t s o r i n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d h e r e i n w i t h o u t th e p r i o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f L U A I s s t r i c t l y p r o h i b i t e d . 7/ 1 7 / 1 9 plan north actu a l nort hSCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" Ma r t h a H e a d R e s i d e n c e 20 9 0 S h o r e l i n e D r i v e , O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 9 1 ROOF PLAN A2.3 1 RO O F P L A N A 2.3F O R M A T T E D F O R 1 8 X 2 4 S H E E T S I Z E WALL KEY EX'G CONSTRUCTION NEW CONSTRUCTION PATCH AND REPAIR NEW MASONRY WALL X AX.X X AX.X NEW 12/12 GABLE EXISTING 6/12 GABLE EXISTING 6/12 GABLE EXISTING 6/12 GABLE EXISTING 12/12 GABLE NEW 12/12 GABLE EXISTING 8/12 HIP ROOF (VERIFY) EXISTING 6/12 HIP ROOF NEW 6/12 SHED ROOF TO MATCH EX'G NEW 12/12 GABLE NEW 5/12 SHED ROOF NEW 4/12 HIP ROOF NEW 1/12 FLAT ROOF EXISTING 6/12 GABLE NEW 8/12 HIP ROOF (VERIFY) X AX.X 1 A4.0 1 A4.1 1 A4.2 2 A4.2 3 A4.2 4 A4.2 1 A4.3 NOTE: SHED ROOF IN THIS AREA (OVER DEN) TO BE REMOVED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LARGER MAIN GABLE, BUT REBUILT TO MATCH EX'G SLOPE AND PROFILE OF ADJACENT, EXISTING SHED ROOF Date Application Received: 08/21/19 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/21/19 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/20/19 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 September 2019 Subject: #LA19-000071, Laurel Ulland Architecture/Martha Meyers Head, 2090 Shoreline Dr, Variance: Average Lakeshore Setback Public Hearing Background The original home on the property was constructed prior to 1900. While a portion of the lot is below the 1% Annual Chance Floodplain Elevation of 931.5’, the existing home has been elevated above the flood elevation. The applicant is proposing to construct additions to the existing home. The additions will be located outside the 75-foot setback; however they will require an average lakeshore setback variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305, 78-1279, & 78-1605 - Setbacks: LR-1A Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 50’ ±380’ ±400’ Additions Lakeshore 75’ 46.9’ 77’ Addition Average Lakeshore Based on the home at 2165 NSD, the structures on the subject property must be at least ±170 feet from the lake. The improvements to the existing home will be approximately 93 feet closer to the lake. Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Actual 165,138 s.f. (3.76 acre) IRREGULAR Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres, therefore structural coverage limits do not apply. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct additions on the existing home. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. #LA19-000071 16 Sept 2019 Page 2 of 4 Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 165,138 s.f. 41,284 s.f. (25 %) 22,223 s.f. (13.4%) 10,766 s.f. w/in 75’ 22,498 s.f. (13.6%) 10,766 s.f. w/in 75’ The hardcover calculations have been adjusted to account for the exclusion of all of the retaining walls as is permitted. Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The subject property is a peninsula connected to 2165 North Shore Drive by a 6 foot wide strip of land. This property is situated across the bay and is the only adjacent property for determining the average lakeshore setback. The home at 2165 North Shore is located approximately 170 feet from the OHWL; according to the City Code improvements must be located equal to or further back from the lake than the 2165 North Shore Drive home. The existing home is situated as close as 46 feet to the OHWL however the additions/improvements are at least 77 feet from the OHWL but within the average lakeshore setback. See Exhibit E showing the building area outside the average lakeshore setback. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed location of the home additions do not block lake views of the adjacent property owners, and therefore is harmonious with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The average lakeshore setback variance is consistent with the goals in the comprehensive plan to protect lake views. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The variance requests are residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique nature of the property as a large #LA19-000071 16 Sept 2019 Page 3 of 4 peninsula on the lake. The relatively large flood hazard area and existing improvements on the property creates difficulties in locating a conforming structure. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the structures on the property and configuration of the lot were not created by the property owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual impacts resulting from the additions proposed within the average lakeshore setback will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Rather, the home will not impact views from the lake nor will it appear to be more visually obtrusive than the existing buildings on the property. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 4. 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. 5. 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 is an allowed conditional use in the LR-1A District. 6. 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. 7. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The Property’s location and orientation as a peninsula, functionally an island, is unique. Due to the nature of the Property on the point, the application of the setback requirements causes a practical difficulty. 8. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The Property’s location on the lake is unique and applies primarily to this Property; the application of the setback requirements combined with the challenges of the flood hazard area restrict the ability to improve the Property without a variance, creating a practical difficulty. 9. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The home can be reconstructed in kind. However, the minimal relief from the ordinance allows for functional improvements to the footprint, retaining the character of the lot and are consistent with the existing home. Relating to the average lakeshore setback, this condition is met. 10. 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 proposed project will not impair the health, safety, comfort, or morals of the public. 11. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Granting of the variance will resolve and alleviate a demonstrated practical difficulty caused by the application of the extreme average lakeshore setback applied to the Property. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. #LA19-000071 16 Sept 2019 Page 4 of 4 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 and Conditional Use Permit Analysis Staff finds that the peninsula configuration of the property functions much like an island yet shares a 6 foot connection with the property across the bay at 2165 North Shore Drive establishing the average lakeshore setback requirement. The existing or proposed improvements on the subject property do not block views of the lake from the home at 2165 NSD as it is across the water from the home. Staff finds this satisfies the practical difficulty requirement for the average lakeshore setback. Engineer Comments The City Engineer will review this project at the building permit phase if appropriate. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the average setback variance for the construction of the additions to the home. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans Exhibit E. Average Lakeshore Exhibit Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations (also on survey) Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map References 2040 Community Management Plan MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 6. LA19-000071 MARTHA HEAD, 2090 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 8:45 P.M. – 8:49 P.M. Martha Meyers Head, Applicant, was present Curtis stated the applicant is proposing to conduct some additions to the existing home. The additions will be located outside the 75-foot setback but they will require an average lakeshore setback variance. Based on the structures located at 2165 North Shore Drive, the structures on the subject project must be at least 170-plus from the lake. The improvements to the existing home will be approximately 93 feet closer to the lake. Staff finds that the peninsula configuration of the property functions much like an island. This lot and the lot at 2165 North Shore Drive share a 6-foot connection across the bay, which establishes the average lakeshore setback requirement. The existing or proposed improvements on the subject property do not block views of the lake from the home at 2165 North Shore Drive as it is across the water from the home. Staff finds this satisfies the practical difficulty requirement for the average lakeshore setback. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Laurel Ulland, Architect, stated the original house was constructed before 1900 and was added on a couple of times. The present property owner would like to renovate it. The house is located on a very unique piece of property. The portion of the property that is buildable is a very small spot in the middle of the land. The property owner would like to maintain and renovate the improving house where it stands. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:47 p.m. Thiesse stated he has no questions, concerns or comments. Gettman and Bollis stated they have no issues with the application. Erickson stated he supports approval of the application. McCutcheon indicated he also supports it. Ressler commented the application is pretty straight forward. Gettman moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000071, Martha Head, 2090 Shoreline Drive, variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By DJR 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct 2 new decks to an existing home. 2. Background. The applicant is proposing to build two new decks onto an existing home. The deck on the lakeside of the home is 16x20 and will attach to an already existing narrow deck. The second deck is located on the rear (streetside) of the property as an entrance to the home. The proposed new decks are conforming to all other setbacks and zoning requirements. The neighboring property to the south is vacant. The abutting northern neighbor sits over 340’ back from the lake, establishing the ALS at that distance. The applicants property sits entirely forward of the abutting northern neighbor (895 Forest Arms) eliminating any conforming locations with respect to the ALS, due to this configuration, the subject lot is not buildable without an ALS variance. The grade of the land is sloped down toward the lake. The current home sits lower (roughly 10 feet) than the northern neighboring property. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The application was deemed complete on September 4, 2019. The review period will expire on November 4, 2019. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The planning commission reviewed and discussed the proposed application. The commission unanimously recommend approval for the application. 5. Public Comment. The neighbor at 895 Forest Arms has submitted a letter of support to the project. No other public comment was received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Amend or adopt the included approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Site Plan C. PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits E. Application F. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form G. Proposed Survey/Site Plan H. Proposed Plans and Elevations I. Narrative J. Addition Images K. Neighbor Property email L. Plat Map and Addresses Item No.: 22 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000072 – Brenden Lawrence, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden, Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA19-000072 WHEREAS, on September 4 2019, Brendon Lawrence (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 4265 Forest Lake Drive and legally described as: Lot 8, Block 2 Forest Arms (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow for 2 new decks forward of the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000072. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 1.16 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 190 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Average Lakeshore Setback 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes difficulties in its substandard size and width, and location of adjacent homes. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to use a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of new decks within the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the neighboring homes’ orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The neighboring home locations prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The circumstances are unique to the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance requested in order to permit construction of new additional decking to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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 is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s orientation and the setback from the lake of the adjacent home creates difficulties for the Applicant to improve the property consistent with the homes in their neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s relationship between the existing home and the setback of the adjacent properties create difficulties for the owners. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting an average lakeshore variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The requested variance is necessary, and does not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. 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 for two new decks on the lake and rear side of the home forward of the average lakeshore setbacks, 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 8/12/2019 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for 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 (October 14, 2020). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this ______ day of ________________, 20__. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 7. LA19-000072 BRANDON LAWRENCE, 4265 FOREST LAKE DRIVE, VARIANCE, 8:49 – 8:56 P.M. Michelle Brandstetter was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to construct two decks onto the existing home. The deck on the lakeside of the home is 16 x 20 feet and will attach to some already existing narrow decking. The second deck is located on the rear (street side) of the property as an entrance to the home and for curb appeal to the property. The proposed new decks are conforming to all other setbacks and zoning requirements. The neighboring property to the south is vacant. The abutting northern neighbor sits over 340 feet back from the lake. The existing property sits entirely forward of the abutting northern neighbor eliminating any conforming locations. Due to this configuration, the subject lot is not buildable without an average lakeshore setback variance. The grade of the land is sloped down toward the lake. The current home sits roughly ten feet below the northern neighboring property. The existing hardcover is 17.5 percent and with the new proposed decks it will be 19 percent, which is well below the maximum of 25 percent. Staff finds due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks, there are practical difficulties supporting granting the average lakeshore setback variance. The neighbor to the north has submitted an e-mail in support of the project. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. Michelle Brandsetter stated she is here tonight representing the property owners and that she has nothing to add to Staff’s report. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:54 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:45 p.m. McCutcheon stated he does not have a problem with the application. Erickson indicated he supports Staff’s recommendation. Ressler stated it is a minor change and he would be in support of it. Bollis stated he supports it. Gettman and Thiesse indicated they have no issues with the application. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000072, Brandon Lawrence, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, variance. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: August 21, 2019 Date Application Considered as Complete: September 4, 2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: November 4, 2019 To: Jon Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: September 16, 2019 Subject: LA19-000072, Brenden Lawrence, 4265 Forest Lake Drive, Variance, Public Hearing Background The applicant is proposing to build two new decks onto an existing home. The deck on the lakeside of the home is 16x20 and will attach to some already existing narrow decking. The second deck is located on the rear (streetside) of the property as an entrance to the home and for curb appeal to the property. The proposed new decks are conforming to all other setbacks and zoning requirements. The neighboring property to the south is vacant. The abutting northern neighbor sits over 340’ back from the lake. The existing property sites entirely forward of the abutting northern neighbor (895 Forest Arms) eliminating any conforming locations. Due to this configuration, the subject lot is not buildable without an ALS variance. The grade of the land is sloped down toward the lake. The current home sits lower (roughly 10 feet) below the northern neighboring property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330- Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Street 30’ 36.3’ 30’ Side (north) 18’ 42.3’ No Change Side (south) 18’ 47’ No Change Lakeshore 75’ 68’ New Deck- 80’ Average Lakeshore Currently nonconforming, not met Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width: MET DISTRICT LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) 140’ Actual 50,183 s.f. (1.16 acre) 190’ @ 75’ / 183’@ OHWL Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to construct 2 new decks to an existing home. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. LA19-000048 July 15, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 50,183 s.f. (1.16 acre) 12,545.75 s.f. (25 %) 6,940 s.f. (17.5 %) 7610 s.f. (+670) (19.1 %) Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1279) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lake ward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The applicant is proposing new deck additions forward of this setback line. The current home encroaches into this setback due to the significant setback established by the neighbor to the north, that home is over 340 feet from the lakeshore. The new proposed home on the property is set at 68 feet from the lakeshore. The home to the north is set so far behind the property the ALS eliminates a reasonable building envelope. The northern neighbor has submitted an email of support for the project. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes difficulties in its substandard size and width, and location of adjacent homes. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance to use a nonconforming lot of record is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of new decks within the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the neighboring homes’ orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties. LA19-000048 July 15, 2018 Page 3 of 4 b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The neighboring home locations prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The circumstances are unique to the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance requested in order to permit construction of new additional decking to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s orientation and the setback from the lake of the adjacent home creates difficulties for the Applicant to improve the property consistent with the homes in their neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s relationship between the existing home and the setback of the adjacent properties create difficulties for the owners. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting an average lakeshore variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The requested variance is necessary, and does not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. 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 Analysis Staff finds due to the nature of the lot and the applied setbacks there are practical difficulties supporting granting the average lakeshore setback variance for construction of a new decks to the existing home. LA19-000048 July 15, 2018 Page 4 of 4 Public Comments The northern neighbor as submitted an email in support of the project. 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? Specifically pertaining to the average lakeshore setback. 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Addition Images Exhibit G. Neighbor Property email Exhibit H. Plat Map and Addresses AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: L. Oakden Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By DJR 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading and filling within the floodplain and mitigation for a 100-year floodplain for construction of a new detached garage. 2. Background. The applicant is proposing the build a 2 car detached garage on the property. The site is substandard is size, width, and has a protected tributary along the northern property line creating a limited building envelope. In order to meet all the required setbacks the detached garage is partially located within the 100 year floodplain. The garage will be elevated out of the floodplain with fill. Placing fill in the floodplain requires a condition use permit (78-1118(5)). The 26x26 building is proposed to be raised roughly 2 feet. The public hearing, initated at the Planning Commission was continued to the Council meeting to ensure compliance with the DNRs 60 day review period. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The action was deemed complete August 1, 2019. Staff granted a 60-day review extension until November 30, 2019. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Commission discussed the project and made a unanimous recommendation to approve the condition use permit. 5. Public Comment. No public comment was received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council open and close a public hearing, and following comment, approve the proposed project. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should hold a public hearing and adopt or amend the proposed approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Survey and Plans C. PC Draft Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits E. Application F. Proposed Survey/Site Plan G. Proposed Plans and Elevations H. Submitted Hardcover Calculations I. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 23 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000060 – Tom Druk, 3348 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing, Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden, Planner Agenda Section: Public Hearing CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1118 FILE NO. LA19 -000060 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2019, Tim Druk (“Applicant”), applied for a conditional use permit from the City Code for the property addressed 3348 Bayside Road and legally described as: Lots 9, 10, and 11, Block 6, Bayside Addition to Lake Minnetonka (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a condition use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section78-1118 to allow filling in the floodplain; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, the City Council continued a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, 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 conditional use permit 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 #LA19-000060. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.47 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 120 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following Conditional Use Permit: a. Filling in the 100 year floodplain 6. In considering this application for conditional, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The use of the property for a home and detached garage is consistent with the residential district. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Filling in the floodplain is a conditional use. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The property is served by municipal services, no impacts have been identified or are anticipated to the stormwater system. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; There is adequate services to support the intended use. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; Altering and mitigating in the floodplain is not expected to generate any public services or cost. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed detached garage follows all other city code requirements and fits with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This is true. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This is true. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Not expected to impact adjacent uses. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Use is contained within with property boundaries. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This is true. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; There is roughly 50 cubic yards of total material being manipulated on the property for altering the floodplain. This is considered a minor amount of material and should not create excessive traffic or parking. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The applicant is proposing to mitigate the area that is to be filled by creating for volume of area to use as floodplain all within the property boundaries. This will minimize the environmental impact of the project. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No exterior lights are proposed for the condition use. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This statement is true. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1118 to allow to fill in the floodplain, 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 7/29/2019 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for 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 conditional use permit will expire on that date (October 14, 2020). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of October, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 1. LA19-000060 TIM DRUK, 3348 BAYSIDE ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:32 P.M. – 6:40 P.M. Tim Druk, Applicant, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading and filling within the floodplain and mitigation of the 100-year floodplain for construction of a new two-car detached garage. The site is substandard in size, width, and has a protected tributary along the northern property line creating a limited building envelope. In order to meet all the required setbacks, the detached garage is partially located within the 100-year floodplain. The garage will be elevated out of the floodplain with fill. Placing fill in the floodplain requires a conditional use permit. The 26’ x 26’ is proposed to be raised approximately two feet. The DNR has been notified of the request and the public hearing must remain open until the City Council meeting due to the notification process. Staff finds the proposed plans meet the conditions for filling in the floodplain. The applicant is mitigating the work by creating more floodplain area within the property. They are also raising the floor of the garage to place the building above the floodplain elevation. The applicant is working to place the building within the required setbacks leaving them minimal options to work outside the floodplain. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and had the following comments: 1. Sediment erosion control measures should include a double silt fence. 2. The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval and permitting for their erosion control and floodplain alteration rules. A copy of any approvals or permits required should be submitted prior to issuance of the permit. 3. Any materials deposited or shored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method while under construction. No public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations. Ressler noted it meets all side setbacks, hardcover, and that the conditional use permit is required because of the grading and fill within the floodplain. Oakden indicated that is correct and that they will be raising the grade by approximately two feet. Gettman asked if there is an existing garage. Oakden indicated there is no garage but there is an existing residence with a parking pad. McCutcheon asked if there is currently water in the ditch east of the proposed garage. Oakden stated there is some water currently in the ditch. The protected tributary runs to the north and there is a 75-foot setback from that. The 100-year floodplain is what is being encroached upon. Erickson asked what the sea elevation is for this property. Oakden indicated the garage will be 942’ at the slab and the 100-year elevation is 940’. Tim Druk, Applicant, stated it is actually his son who purchased the home and that he has nothing to add to Staff’s report. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:37 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. The public hearing was continued to the September City Council meeting. Thiesse commented a garage is not a luxury in Minnesota but a necessity. The garage appears to be pretty modest and is situated as best as it can be on this property. Gettman indicated he concurs and that this appears to be the best location for it. Bollis stated he also is in agreement and that a garage is pretty practical. Would recommend approval. Erickson concurred with Commissioner Thiesse that in Minnesota the lack of a garage is a hardship and he would support Staff’s recommendation. McCutcheon stated if the applicant will be taking the fill from the property, that may be pretty tricky since the lot is already pretty flat. Druk stated to his understanding they will be taking out poor soils and bringing in good soil. Ressler noted a building in a floodplain triggers floodplain insurance. As far as the location goes, it is not encroaching on any setbacks and is pretty straight forward. Thiesse moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000060, Tim Druk, 3348 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. To: John Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: September 16, 2019 Subject: LA19-000060, Tom Druk, 3348 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Background The applicant is proposing the build a 2 car detached garage on the property. The site is substandard is size, width, and has a protected tributary along the northern property line creating a limited building envelope. In order to meet all the required setbacks the detached garage is partially located within the 100 year floodplain. The garage will be elevated out of the floodplain with fill. Placing fill in the floodplain requires a condition use permit (78-1118(5)). The 26x26 building is proposed to be raised roughly 2 feet. The fill will come from the site. . LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305- Setbacks for Accessory Building: DISTRICT LR-1A Required Proposed Front 50’ 83.1’ Rear 15’ 16’ Side Street 30’ 38’ Side 15’ 79.8’ Section 78- 305 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200’ Actual 20,831 s.f. (47.8 acre) 120’ Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 20,831 s.f. 5,207.7 s.f. (25 %) 1,704s.f. (8.2 %) 3,158 s.f. (15.2 %) Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for grading and filling within the floodplain and mitigation for a 100-year floodplain for construction of a new detached garage. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA19-000060 9/16/2019 /Page 2 of 3 The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The use of the property for a home and detached garage is consistent with the residential district. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Filling in the floodplain is a conditional use. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The property is served by municipal services, no issues have been identified or are anticipated. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; There is adequate services to support the intended use. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; Altering and mitigating in the floodplain is not expected to generate any public services or cost. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed detached garage follows all other city code requirements and fits with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This is true. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This is true. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Not expected to impact adjacent uses. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Use is contained within with property boundaries. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This is true. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; There is roughly 50 cubic yards of total material being manipulated on the property for altering the floodplain. This is considered a minor amount of material and should not create excessive traffic or parking. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The applicant is proposing to mitigate the area that is to be filled by creating for volume of area to use as floodplain all within the property boundaries. This will minimize the environmental impact of the project. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No exterior lights are proposed for the condition use. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This statement is true. LA19-000060 9/16/2019 /Page 3 of 3 A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Staff finds the proposed plans meet the conditions for filling in the floodplain. The applicant is mitigating the work by creating more floodplain area within the property. They are also raising the floor of the garage to place the building above the floodplain elevation. The applicant is working to place the building within the required setbacks leaving them minimal options to work outside the floodplain. Engineer Comments The City Engineer reviewed the proposed plans and has the following comments: 1. Sediment erosion control measures should include a double silt fence due to proximity to a protected waterway. 2. MCWD Permit - The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval and permitting for their Erosion Control and floodplain alteration rules. A copy of any approvals or permits required should be submitted prior to issuance of the permit. 3. Any material materials deposited or stored in the floodplain must be protected from erosion by vegetative cover, mulching, riprap or other acceptable method Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional use permit and meeting the City Engineer’s Comments. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM 1. Purpose. Dick Lewis will be presenting this item Item No.: 24 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Orono School Board Referendum Presentation Presenter: Dick Lewis, Orono School Board Member Agenda Section: Presentation AGENDA ITEM 1. Purpose. Mark Kroll will be presenting this item Item No.: 25 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LMCD Representative Mark Kroll – LMCD Update Presenter: Mark Kroll, LMCD Representative (Orono) Agenda Section: Presentation AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a resolution denying a requested amendment to the 2040 Comprehensive Plan by expanding the MUSA boundary. 2. Background The applicant, on behalf of the property owner, requests incorporation of 4400 Deering Island into the City of Orono’s Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). This designation would allow the property to connect to sanitary sewer services. The City Council originally reviewed this application on August 12th. During that meeting, the Council requested additional information related to activities on the property, and tabled action on the application. Since that meeting, the city of Mound, who was originally set to treat the sanitary sewer, noted their concern with their ability to provide a satisfactory level of service and withdrew their support, attached as Exhibit C. The additional information requested by the City Council was not provided. Since the City of Orono is not in the position to service the island with sanitary sewer services, staff recommends denial of the application. 3. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the Community Management Plan amendment as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the denial resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Resolution B. CC Minutes 8-12-19 C. Mound Comment letter References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 7-15-19 CC Staff report & Exhibits 8-12-19 Item No.: 26 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000047 – Scott Gates o/b/o Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400 Deering Island, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Amend MUSA Boundary Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION DENYING PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE ORONO 2040 COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT PLAN RELATED TO MUSA EXPANSION FOR: 4400 DEERING ISLAND FILE #LA19-000047 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter “City”) is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, in June 2019 the Orono City Council adopted the 2040 Orono Community Management Plan (hereinafter “CMP” or “the Comprehensive Plan”) to provide for the orderly development of the City, in compliance with the Metropolitan Land Planning Act of 1976 and Minnesota Statutes Chapters 462 and 473; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan identifies areas within the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA); and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan contemplates the expansion of the MUSA boundary from time to time through developed priorities; and WHEREAS, the property addressed as 4400 Deering Island (PID 18-117-23- 31-0001), an island in Lake Minnetonka, requests expansion of the MUSA boundary to incorporate the island; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and held an public hearing July 15, 2019 and on a vote of 6-0 recommended that the 2040 Community Management Plan be amended to expand the MUSA boundary to include 4400 Deering Island; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Orono City Council hereby denies the requested comprehensive plan amendment 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 #LA19-000047. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 2 of 2 the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the Seasonal Residence Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.79 acres in area. 4. The nearest connection to the Orono Sanitary sewer system is approximately 2700 feet away. Due to distance, the City of Mound is the only provider of sanitary sewer services to the island 5. On February 5, 2019, the city of Mound supported a connection from the island to their sanitary sewer system. 6. On August 16, 2019, the City of Mound withdrew their support for the connection, citing concerns with under-lake sag and solid deposits in the pipe. 7. The Council finds that adding property to the MUSA with no plan to service the property is inappropriate. 8. In considering this application, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the City of Mound in providing service and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 14th day of October, 2019. ATTEST: _________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ____________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 12, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 16. LA19-000047 SCOTT GATES ON BEHALF OF KRUCKEBERG REAL ESTATES, 4400 DEERING ISLAND, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, AMEND MUSA BOUNDARY, RESOLUTION Scott Gates, Applicant, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting that Deering Island be incorporated into the City of Orono’s Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). The designation would allow the property to connect to sanitary sewer service. The City of Mound would provide the connection and treatment of the sanitary sewer. The Comprehensive Plan does contemplate the expansion of the MUSA boundary and contains six priorities that should be considered whenever expansion is being considered. The subject parcel appears to satisfy the first priority, as the island is completely surrounded by the lake. Expanding the MUSA to include the subject parcel does not suggest or imply an expansion or an increase in density. No changes to the land use or zoning are proposed with this application. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the application. Scott Gates, Kruckeberg Real Estate Holdings. Walsh asked who the individual is that owns Kruckeberg Real Estate Holdings and whether this property is going to be homesteaded. Gates indicated Craig is the owner of this parcel as well as the adjacent property and that it will not be homesteaded. Gates stated to his understanding the intent is to make it more of a family compound and that it is likely at some point in the future they will build a larger residence there instead of the existing cabin. Walsh asked whether there is any intent to rent out the island. Gates stated there could be some special events on the island, such as weddings and private parties, but there is no intent to do overnight rentals. Seals asked if any helicopters will be bringing people in. Gates stated not if they have anything to do with it. Walsh commented the City Council has received some interesting calls about the island and that it would be nice to speak with Craig. Gates indicated he did speak with Police Chief Farniok and that they will be having further discussions to make sure things are done properly in the future. Gates noted this was a last-minute situation by an individual that had done a birthday party ten years ago. The staff at his company was planning the event and Kruckeberg became aware at the last minute of that and has since jumped in to make sure sound levels and everything were being addressed. Gates stated to his knowledge there were not any sound issues and that they will be developing a checklist for any future events that may occur in the future so there will be a process in place to deal with them. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 12, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 Gates indicated he personally visited a number of the neighbors on the lake and he was surprised that the comments on Facebook were generally pretty positive by people. Crosby asked what his relationship is to the property owner. Gates indicated he represents them and that he is a developer. Walsh stated he would like to see some more definite plans for the island prior to approving things, and given what has happened, this application is off to a poor start and took a lot of people by surprise in a couple different cities. Seals stated there was clearly a lot done out there and that she did not receive any positive phone calls about it. Seals stated it is a little concerning to expand the scope when what is currently going on has not been rectified. Crosby commented it would have been nice to see the owner this evening. Walsh stated a family compound and an event center are two different things. Gates stated it is not intended to be an event center and it is not intended to be an event island. Those would be considered an accessory use on an occasional basis. Gates stated he can ask the owner to appear, but most big companies have people to handle things like this. Gates indicated he personally has been proactive with it once he learned about it and that he has some experience with noise issues, such as being involved in consideration of some racetracks. Also know the owners of Fletcher’s and have worked with them to develop some standards for noise. Gates stated he jumped in Wednesday night and did a noise propagation sound map. The noise levels were actually monitored along the shoreline in the afternoon as well as on the island. Communications were also had with the Police Chief and he was sent some snapshots of what the sound level was. Gates stated to the extent they could, they did attempt to address the situation. Walsh noted in the beginning of the application this was talked about as being a family compound and that the event stuff did not come out until later. Walsh indicated he would be in favor of tabling it tonight until all the issues have been sorted through and resolved since changing the MUSA is a touchy thing. Gates stated the extension of the sewer does not really relate to the events going on at the island and that it is the City’s call on which way they would like to go. The MUSA expansion will enhance the island no matter what happens on the island. Crosby stated he has some concerns about the events and that it is not what the Council thought it was going to be. Walsh stated further discussion on expanding the MUSA is also warranted to determine its impact on the City’s overall density. Johnson and Seals concurred with tabling the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, August 12, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 Walsh moved, Crosby seconded, to table Application No. LA19-000047, Scott Gates on behalf of Kruckeberg Real Estates, 4400 Deering Island, Comprehensive Plan Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding an average lakeshore setback variance for a new home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on August 20, 2019 and was considered to be complete. The 60-Day review period has been extended and now expires on December 18th. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing to build a new home on the property. The existing home and guest house will be removed; the boat house will remain. Due to the shape and orientation of the property the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. The existing home and accessory buildings on the property are located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicant has designed the proposed home to reduce the amount of encroachment, yet will still require a variance. In response to stated concerns from the neighbor at 3127 Casco Circle, the applicant provided a revised plan for discussion during the public hearing. The revised plan widened the angle of the neighbor’s view to accommodate an existing sightline over the existing one story guest house. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing and discussion the Planning Commission voted 5 in favor and 1 opposed (Gettman) on a motion to approve the average lakeshore setback variance with a slight modification to the angle of impact as presented and discussed. Please refer to the planning commission draft minutes attached as Exhibit D for more detail on this discussion. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit E. Staff Recommendation. The applicant has provided a revised sight plan reflecting the neighbor’s desired 62.3° view preservation discussed during the public hearing. The revised plan is attached as Exhibit A. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s decision for adoption at the October 28th meeting. Exhibits A. Revised Site Plan B. Proposed House Plans C. Lake Side Comparison D. Draft PC Minutes E. Public Comment F. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 09/16/19 A. Application Item No.: 26 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-00067 – Alexander Design Group o/b/o Mark and Kristie Ties, 3129 Casco Circle, Variance Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Renderings F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Aerial Photos H. Public Comment I. Property Owners List J. Plat Map 2040 Community Management Plan REVISIONS DATEREMARKSDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDDATE __________MINN. LICENSE NUMBER __________GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC.CIVIL ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, LAND PLANNERS PHONE: 952-473-4141 FAX: 952-473-4435 445 N. WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 DATE SCALE JOB NO.SHEETOFSHEETS I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 26 " A S H 24 " A S H 28 " W H PI N E 22 " W H PI N E 12 " H E M L O C K 16 " P A P E R BI R C H 18 " W H PI N E 24 " S U G A R MA P L E 30 " S U G A R MA P L E 28 " S U G A R MA P L E 24 " S U G A R MA P L E 48 " L I N D E N 14 " LI N D E N 12 X 1 4 X 2 6 " LI N D E N 4" S P R U C E 18 " S P R U C E 24 " S U G A R MA P L E 22 ' S U G A R MA P L E 22 ' S U G A R MA P L E 22 ' S U G A R MA P L E 12 " S P R U C E 10 ' S U G A R MA P L E 16 X 1 6 " LI N D E N 32 " L I N D E N 22 " L I N D E N 10 " S P R U C E 22 X 2 8 " LI N D E N 10 " S P R U C E 28 " S U G A R MA P L E 26 " L I N D E N 22 ' S U G A R MA P L E 12 " A S H 28 " S U G A R MA P L E 30 " S U G A R MA P L E 26 " S U G A R MA P L E 28 " S U G A R MA P L E 12 " A S H 42 " S I L V E R MA P L E 26 " S U G A R MA P L E 22 " M A P L E 24 " M A P L E CE D A R CL U M P 20 " R E D CE D A R 14 " S P R U C E CE D A R CL U M P 36 " S U G A R MA P L E P O W E R P O L E O V E R H E A D W I R E S O V E R H E A D W I R E S E X I S T I N G H O U S E #3 1 2 7 E X I S T I N G H O U S E #3 1 3 1 E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E W A L K E X I S T . B O A T - H O U S E20 2 3 . 1 N 7 9 °2 5 '4 5 " W 8 9 .7 4 N 3 4 °4 4 '0 9 " W 1 0 7 .4 0 N 1 6 °4 7 '5 9 " W 1 7 6 .9 0 EX I S T . WO O D ST E P S EX I S T . WO O D B L A C K T O P D R I V E W A Y 9 3 0 9 3 0 9 3 0 9 3 2 9 3 2 9 3 2 9 3 4 9 3 4936 9 3 6 9 3 8 9 3 8 9 3 8 9 4 0 9 4 0 9 4 2 9 4 4 9 4 6 9 4 8 9 4 8 9 5 0 9 5 0 9 5 2 9 5 4 9 5 4956 9 5 8 9 5 8 9 6 0 9 6 0 9 6 2 9 6 2 9 6 4 9 6 4 9 6 6 9 6 8 9 7 0 9 7 2 9 7 2 9 7 4 9 7 4 9 7 6 9 7 6 9 7 8 9 8 0 9 8 2 D R I V E W A Y E A S E M E N T P E R D O C . N O . A 9 4 6 8 9 5 6 C A S C O C I R C L E N 7 5 ° 0 7 ' 0 0 " E 4 7 9 . 6 4 L A K E M I N N E T O N K A S P R I N G P A R K B A Y 1 6 + - S 1 4 °5 6 '0 5 " E 1 2 0 .1 4 S 7 5 ° 1 2 ' 1 2 " W 2 6 4 . 0 0 S 1 0 ° 1 6 ' 0 4 " W 2 1 7 . 2 4 3 1 + - BO U N D A R Y A N D T O P O G R A P H I C S U R V E Y F O R AL E X A N D E R D E S I G N G R O U P IN L O T S 4 6 , 4 7 , 6 2 , 6 3 A N D P A R T O F 4 5 , AN D V A C A T E D L A K E S H O R E A V E N U E , S P R I N G P A R K HE N N E P I N C O U N T Y , M I N N E S O T A 4 0 4 0 75 . 00 EA S T L I N E OF L O T 4 4 9 2 9 .4 C O N T O U R L I N E (O H W ) LE G A L D E S C R I P T I O N O F P R E M I S E S ( P E R D O C . N O . A 9 4 6 8 9 5 6) Lo t s F o r t y - s i x ( 4 6 ) , F o r t y - s e v e n ( 4 7 ) , S i x t y - t w o ( 6 2) and Sixty-three (63), and that part of Lots Fo r t y - f o u r ( 4 4 ) a n d F o r t y - f i v e ( 4 5 ) l y i n g W e s t e r l y of a line drawn parallel with and 75 feet We s t , m e a s u r e d a t r i g h t a n g l e s , f r o m t h e E a s t l i n e of said Lot Forty-four (44) and that part of v a c a t e d L a k e s h o r e A v e n u e a n d l a n d b e t w e e n s a i d L akeshore Avenue and waters of Lake Mi n n e t o n k a l y i n g b e t w e e n t h e N o r t h w e s t e r l y l i n e o f Lot Forty-seven (47) and said parallel li n e s o d r a w n , e x t e n d e d , a l l i n S p r i n g P a r k , i n c l u d ing any part or portion of any street or al l e y a d j a c e n t t o s a i d p r e m i s e s h e r e t o f o r e v a c a t e d or to be vacated. To g e t h e r w i t h a n e a s e m e n t f o r d r i v e w a y p u r p o s e s o v e r that part of Lot Sixty-four (64), Spring Pa r k l y i n g N o r t h w e s t e r l y o f a l i n e d r a w n p a r a l l e l w ith and 20 feet Southeasterly, measured at ri g h t a n g l e s , f r o m t h e N o r t h w e s t e r l y l i n e o f s a i d L ot Sixty-four (64), and lying Easterly of the No r t h e r l y e x t e n s i o n o f t h e E a s t l i n e o f L o t F o r t y - f our (44) in said Addition, according to the re c o r d e d p l a t t h e r e o f . To g e t h e r w i t h a n e a s e m e n t o v e r L o t 6 1 a s d e s c r i b e d in the instrument recorded in Bo o k 2 0 8 9 o f D e e d s , P a g e 2 6 4 , F i l e s o f t h e C o u n t y R ecorder, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Th i s s u r v e y s h o w s t h e b o u n d a r i e s a n d t o p o g r a p h y o f the above described property, the lo c a t i o n o f a l l e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s , m a j o r t r e e s , a n d all other visible "hardcover" thereon. It d o e s n o t p u r p o r t t o s h o w a n y o t h e r i m p r o v e m e n t s or encroachments. : J u d i c i a l L a n d m a r k f o u n d : I r o n m a r k e r f o u n d : E x i s t i n g c o n t o u r l i n e : P r o p o s e d c o n t o u r l i n e : P r o p o s e d s p o t e l e v a t i o n : D e n o t e s e x i s t i n g b u i l d i n g s 95 8 30 0 60 120 SCALE IN FEET (G ) ( L ) (H ) (I ) (K ) D E C K D E C K D E C K S T E P S 1 4 8 + 1 5 1 + 1 8 1 + 8-15-17 1"=30'19-280 19 - 2 8 0 C A B L E B O X B L A C K T O P 2 0 .0 0 1 9 2 . 5 9 2 8 7 . 0 5 (J ) 1 1 .2 PR O P O S E D DR I V E (F ) PROPOSED HOUSE, GRADES, H/C 8-19-19 9 5 0 9 4 8 95 0 95 2 9 5 4 9 5 6 9 6 0 9 5 8 95 6 9 5 4 9 5 2 PR O P S E D E L E V A T I O N S ( V E R I F Y W I T H A R C H I T E C T ) GA R A G E = MA I N F L O O R = TO P O F F O U N D A T I O N = LO W E R L E V E L = 95 7 . 5 96 0 . 0 95 8 . 0 94 9 . 0 95 8 94 8 . 5 9 4 8 AV E R A G E L A K E S H O R E SE T B A C K L I N E ADDED AVE. LAKESHORE SETBACK LINE 9-13-19 1 4 3 + - 8 +- 5 +- ADDED DIMENSIONS 9-16-19 2 7 .8 8 . 0 6 .5 1 3 . 4 0 .1 0 . 52.0 3 . 8 1 2 .0 5 . 0 1 5 .5 6 . 5 2 1 .0 5 . 0 1 7 .0 5 . 011.5 2 4 . 0 5 .51 1 . 90.1 4 . 612.1 4 9 . 0 6 .0 3 . 0 1 4 .0 3 . 0 6 .0 2 1 . 5 2 .0 2 2 . 0 3 .5 8 . 1 1 2 .3 2 . 1 1 4 .2 7 . 6 1 1 .1 5 . 5 PR O PO S ED H O U S E #3 1 2 9 S C R E E N P O R C H D E C K (A) (C ) (B) C O V E R E D E N T R Y (D ) P R O P O S E D W A L K (E) 9 5 7 . 5 9 4 7 .5 9 4 8 .5 9 4 8 .5 9 4 8 .5 62 ° 3 0 ' 1 5 6 + - 5 0 .4 4 7 .7 2 0 .8 REVISED HOUSE PLACEMENT AND DRIVE 9-30-19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/19/19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/19/19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/19/19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/15/19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/15/19 Ties 3D Conceptual Illustration Copyright 2019 ~ Alexander Design Group Inc.08/15/19 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 ± WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 ± ± WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 ± WAYZATA, MN 55391 401 EAST LAKE STREET FAX: 952.473.8222 Phone: 952.473.8777 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. LA19-000067 KATHRYN ALEXANDER, 3129 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE, 6:41 P.M. – 7:30 P.M. Kathryn Alexander, Alexander Design Group, and Mark and Kristie Ties, property owners, were present. Curtis stated the applicant has designed a replacement residence for this property with a new single- family home. The existing home and guest house will be removed, and the boathouse will remain and may be refurbished. Due to the shape of the property, the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. The new home will be in a similar location with relation to the lake as the existing house and guest house on the property. The existing house is approximately 59 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. The proposed home will be approximately 10 feet further from the lake or 49 feet lakeward of the setback. The proposed home has been designed to reduce the impact to the adjacent property owners’ views of the lake from the existing condition. The applicant is proposing to reduce the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback by ten feet and reorient the home to pull back from the lake and away from the neighboring lots in the average setback area. There is a difference of approximately 124 feet of separation between the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback line on the property. Situating the home behind the average lakeshore setback would essentially put the house behind the two neighboring homes and would impact their view of the lake. All other zoning requirements will be met. Staff finds that the applicant’s choice to build a replacement home in the general location of the two existing buildings, while improving the lake views from adjacent homes, is sensitive to the unique character of the property. The location of the neighboring homes creating the average lakeshore setback impacts the building area creating difficulties. The proposed home will be situated 10 feet further from the lake than the existing home and guest house, improving views. Public comments have been received and have been included in the Commissioners’ packets. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Kathryn Alexander stated they are requesting a variance because this lot does not fit into the norm of the average lakeshore setback. They have attempted to work with the views and have pulled the new house away from the adjoining property. The two buildings that are close to the property line are five feet and eight feet away. The closest point of the new residence would be 17 feet. The foremost portion of the porch would be 59 feet away from the side setback. The new house will be the same distance from the lake as the current house. The existing home and the two buildings will be removed. Ressler asked if there is an illustration of the average lakeshore setback. Curtis pointed out the average lakeshore setback line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mark Thiess stated they attempted to fit the new house in as best as they could and that they are trying to be as accommodating as possible. Staff visited the property and they pointed out what trees in the area are dead and can be removed. Kristie Thiess stated the goal is to be where the current house is and not to block anyone’s views. Ressler stated by going in the middle of the two buildings, they will be softening the impact to the neighbors. Alexander stated after looking at this today and after speaking with one of the neighbors, it was suggested that they shift the house a little bit further, which they will try to do. That property owner currently can see over the boathouse. Kristie Ties stated today was the first time she stood on Stacy Marks’ deck and currently the entire boathouse is visible. Ms. Marks requested they spin the house or move it back a couple of feet so she maintains her view of the entire boathouse. Thiesse asked if they are amenable to that. Kristie Ties indicated they are. Ressler asked if there is anything in writing to that effect. Alexander stated the only thing she has is the survey. Kristie Ties noted the red line shows the neighbor’s view of the boathouse. The proposed house cuts off a corner of the deck and they can spin it or move it back slightly to protect that sight view. Ressler noted the Planning Commission does not have the exact distance of the new residence given the change. Bollis asked if that would impact the side setbacks at all. Kristie Ties stated she does not believe so, but until she can get a surveyor out there, she does not have the exact measurements. Curtis noted they have room to move on either side of the lot line. Kristie Ties stated there is a tree on the other side that they were trying to stay away from. Alexander noted there is 17 feet on that side and the required setback is 10 feet. Ressler asked if the only variance being requested is to the average lakeshore setback. Curtis indicated that it correct. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:52 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Stacy Marks, 3127 Casco Circle, stated the reason she is here tonight is to say that while it is not in the packet, her view is very much impacted by the new residence. One of the things to note is the current view over on the right side of the boathouse. A number of photographs have been taken and she would be happy to share those with the Planning Commission. Marks stated as a homeowner on the lake, she is interested in preserving her sightline, which is basically 180 degrees, and that she would not expect anything different. Having an entire house in front that does affect my view so three sides of that house can have full views of the lake is not very equitable. Only asking for views from one side of her house. Several things have been misstated or overstated, such as the lot would be unbuildable without the variance. Casco Point and Casco Circle have a number of lots that are unbuildable. This lot is 125 feet at the roadside down to the lake, and to call that lot unbuildable does not meet the muster test for how that has been used here. Marks stated one of the other things she has done is attempted to come up with a solution. The survey showing her property and view is marked with a highlighter. The portion that is impacted, which Kristie mentioned, would be this corner. Given the limitations of the survey, the perspective is lost. The existing cottage is a 1940s cottage and at the corner it is nine feet tall. Marks stated from the main level of her house, that currently does not obstruct her view and neither does the shed behind it. The concern with seeing the plans would be the corner of the house that impacts her lake view since the new structure would be much higher than what exists. If the house could be pulled back to free up that corner, that would improve the situation, and instead of needing a variance for 100 percent of the house, which will have three sides of lake view, a more equitable solution would be to allow an existing adjacent homeowner maintain their current view. In looking at the Casco Circle neighborhood and in keeping with the character, Marks indicated she used some tracing paper over the survey and actually turned the structure and brought it all the way up into the pocket. Marks stated she is not asking for that but that she is asking to preserve her current sightlines. At the last meeting one of the biggest statements that was made was that the goal and planning mission is to preserve sightlines. This is a very important issue not only for herself but for other homes on the lakeshore. Currently the City appears to have a very loose definition of what an unbuildable lot is, and as an existing homeowner, granting this variance will allow the homeowner to enjoy the right to have adequate sunlight, have views of the lake, and to maintain the property as it is currently being used, but she has those same rights too. Ressler indicated he would agree with that and that the Planning Commission will take that into consideration. McCutcheon asked if the existing house impedes her view of the lake. Marks stated she has views all around the structure and that it is a perspective issue. The new home is farther away and is towards the lot on the other side, but she has a second-story deck that she uses daily and currently she can see to the right and left and around that structure. Part of the concern is related to the height of the new structure. McCutcheon asked where that aligns with the existing structure. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Marks stated the line from the existing structure at the non-lakeside front of the home intersects it on the corner. Most of the homes on Casco have a front/back design. Marks indicated she did make a circle on the survey and in her opinion keeping to that circle is very important. With 125 feet from the roadside to the lake, that seems very adequate for being able to place this house with room on either side. Penny Saiki, 2874 Casco Point Road, suggested they flip the house and come into the garage on the other side. While it is a new house and they should be able to enjoy their lot, there should be a happy compromise. Barnhart stated the comments should be based on the proposal and not be directed at a redesign. Saiki suggested the bulk of the new structure go down to where the existing house is. When the City Council votes on the ordinance amendment next week, it talks about grandfathering what is existing. Instead of going back to what it was originally, those are now grandfathered in as existing. Saiki stated in her view that is shortsighted because everything gets further and further from the existing zoning. Everyone likes the lake, and when the City starts allowing changes to the zoning, each little step is fine, but when you take it as a whole, it has an impact. Casco currently has a 10-foot setback on each property, and that area has to handle all the runoff. Any variance changes the ability to hold the water off from the lake. Saiki stated she is concerned about grandfathering all the variances. Ressler noted there were some comments about side setback requirements, which is not being addressed tonight, and the Planning Commission has to take into consideration all the rules dealing with lake setbacks. Those are complicated issues and the City is always looking at ways to simplify it without creating new vulnerabilities. Saiki stated a new home with no deck or patio gets approved, gets built, and then the deck gets built with a variance. The same thing happened with a house. The person built a deck that is within the sightline of the existing house because the contractor said he forgot it. If you saw the deck, there is no way you can forget it. It is in the view of the neighbor. Ressler stated if someone is adding structure, that has to come back before the Planning Commission. Saiki encouraged them to go back to the original zoning when they consider granting a variance and that the beginning point should not be from the variance. Barnhart stated there seems to be a number of comments or questions about the average lakeshore setback ordinance the City Council will be reviewing next Monday. At the last City Council meeting, the Council gave Staff direction to come back with an ordinance that will be reviewed on Monday. While it is not noticed as a public hearing, the Mayor typically invites comments on applications. That amendment is outside of this application, which is based on the ordinance as it is written today. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m. McCutcheon stated for this lot to maintain a 180-degree view, it would be easier if the shoreline was straight. The Planning Commission has to consider the existing house, and in some aspects the applicants are accommodating and moving the house back. The builder has done a pretty good job at moving it and MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ in some sense increasing the lake view for the neighbor. Setbacks are tough, but you have to look at each side. McCutcheon stated in his opinion it is actually better, but he understands that is subjective. Ressler asked how far the structure is going to improve the average lakeshore setback from the existing structure. Curtis indicated it is an improvement of ten feet but not in the same location. The distance is measured from the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed side setback would be 17 feet from Ms. Marks’ property to the closest point, which would be the garage, and 59 feet from the lot line on the other side. McCutcheon commented there is a little corner that appears to jut out more than the existing corner. Curtis stated the porch is a new piece and some of the proposed house is within the footprint of the other buildings. Ressler noted a friendly amendment by the applicant is the red line which goes through the tree. Curtis stated there should be time between this meeting and the Council meeting to update the survey and meet with the neighbors. Erickson noted the new structure is further back from the lake by ten feet and also further away from the neighbor to the north by eight or nine feet on the side setback. Many times a proposal does not meet all of the City standards but it moves in a positive direction toward meeting those standards, which is what is happening in this situation. If it came to that or nothing, he would support it as it was proposed. Tonight they have the unusual situation where the applicant is considering some adjustments, which might possibly make things more acceptable to others in the neighborhood. If the applicants are truly willing to do that, then he certainly would not want to get in their way, but it really is difficult to try to do this on the run here. If adjustments are to be made, then perhaps the Planning Commission might need to table it tonight. Curtis asked if there is something in particular he is looking for in addition to the red line. Curtis stated if there is consensus on the direction to the applicant, it would not be necessary to table it. Ressler stated tabling it is a last resort and that he would prefer they get it in front of the Council to make a decision. If they are identifying a sightline of 62 degrees from the existing structure, that would be a measurable request, if that is agreeable. Bollis stated he likes the red line plan. The proposal in 2D looks like an improvement but in 3D that structure is also getting a lot taller. There is nothing in the ordinance that talks about height but just linear setbacks. If they can accommodate the neighbors, he would be supportive of that. Ressler noted no variance to height is requested or required. Gettman stated the red line is not sufficient enough for him to say that he would support it and that he would be against the red line as proposed. The question the Planning Commission should be asking themselves is, if the variance is granted, would it impact the neighborhood. A couple of neighbors have indicated it does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. The houses to the right are more narrow and those property owners have worked within their lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Thiesse stated he agrees with most of what is being said and that this would be a no-brainer if it was equal height. The height is a game changer and the view of the neighbor on the other side is the limiting factor. While he is not sure what the answer is, he would definitely recommend they go in the direction of the red line. Ressler noted the code allows someone to build in like, kind, and quality, but building in same location would be closer to the property line and would be higher than the existing structure. When the Planning Commission considers these variances, they want to make sure the situation is improving. The applicants are improving side setbacks and lakeshore setbacks. The question is whether the Planning Commission is comfortable with the height. As much as the Planning Commission may look at this as a difficult application, the meandering of the lakeshore and the existing structure makes him in support of this application. Ressler stated he certainly appreciates the friendly amendment by the applicant and that he would certainly be in support of approving this application contingent upon that measurement being 62.5 degrees or better as part of that same spirit of improving the difficulty. Anything less would be worsening the situation. Ressler stated he would like to see a motion based on that 62.5 percent so the application can move forward to the City Council. Thiesse commented that seems reasonable but the applicant could negotiate and come up with a better number. Ressler stated that would be the minimum. Thiesse stated he would like the parties to get together and come up with a number and plan that works for everyone. If the Planning Commission chooses a number, the problem is that one side already has a number. Curtis stated Ms. Marks noted the tree and that might be a better marker. If there is some way the surveyor could identify that specific tree from Ms. Marks’ view, that could be something they could build off of. Curtis indicated she is hesitant to put a number on it when that number has not been determined specifically. Thiesse suggested a survey be completed. Ressler asked if they would be proposing to improve it to the red line. Curtis stated it would be a positive move to have the applicant and the neighbor work together as they revise their plan. If the applicant is willing to make that change, that is where it should be. They can use the tree as a reference point in the field and go from there. Ressler asked how Staff would propose to make that amendment. Curtis stated the Planning Commission could make a motion consistent with the spirit of the red line and not approve a specific number at this point. The City Council will be getting that direction and the applicant is getting that direction tonight. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Erickson stated they could approve it as amended by the applicant. Ressler asked if the applicants would be agreeable to the Planning Commission approving it based on the red line. Mr. and Mrs. Ties stated they are. Gettman commented he is not sure if all the neighbors are comfortable with that red line. Curtis noted there is only one neighbor that is affected. Erickson moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000067, Kathryn Alexander, 3129 Casco Circle, average lakeshore setback variance, based on the information as reviewed by Staff but also including the red line that runs through the tree as proposed by the applicant. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1, Gettman opposed. From:Greg Becker To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Brandon@northstarproduce.com; Greg Becker; tessamn@msn.com Subject:Re: Greg Becker Drive way easement -doc.A9468956 Doc # 3125161 Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:59:12 AM Attachments:Driveway easement Doc Exh A -Exh.B G Becker.pdf Hi Melanie Subject: 3129 Casco Circle –Variance to average Lakeshore set back 3129 Casco Circle request for Variance to average lake shore set back I have shared the requested topography plans provided by your office with Brandon Melz owner at 3131 Casco Circle (copied herewith) -who has no concerns regarding the variance request as shown on Topography drawings I Greg Becker & Tessa Marchessault also have no concerns regarding the variance request as shown on Topography drawings. Driveway Easement Request on the part of Greg Becker and Brandon Melz See attached · Exh. A -Driveway Easement Document # A9468956 (Incorrect document number as shown on 3129 topography survey) · Exh. B -Driveway easement ( Book 2171of deeds Page 294 Document # 3125161 (Correct document number as listed on 3133 topography survey) Per our discussion it seems it would make sense in consideration for variance approval to eliminate the driveway easement for 3129 casco per document# 3125161 at this stage of the development process. Based on the current proposed layout of new home the approach to the house is obviously on the Northerly side driveway. It would be of interest to both Brandon and myself to eliminate a third party in shared easement costs for snowplowing, sealcoating, future blacktop maintenance. Our intent would be to remove the designated 3129 driveway section and plant a series of Trees & Shrubs –thereby reducing hard cover. We assume the new home owner would grade accordingly upon start of project. Please pass this onto Kathy Alexander and property owners for consideration Best Greg Becker +1 612-203-0198 From:Brandon Melz To:Greg Becker; Melanie Curtis Cc:tessamn@msn.com Subject:RE: Greg Becker Drive way easement -doc.A9468956 Doc # 3125161 Date:Wednesday, September 11, 2019 11:15:41 AM I just want to confirm that Greg is correct, I, Brandon Melz, have no concerns regarding the variance request as show on Topography drawings. I would also greatly appreciate forwarding on the driveway easement request to Kathy Alexander and the new property owners for consideration. Thanks again, Brandon Melz 612-860-5145 From: Greg Becker [mailto:greg_becker@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 10:59 AM To: MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us Cc: Brandon Melz; Greg Becker; tessamn@msn.com Subject: Re: Greg Becker Drive way easement -doc.A9468956 Doc # 3125161 Hi Melanie Subject: 3129 Casco Circle –Variance to average Lakeshore set back 3129 Casco Circle request for Variance to average lake shore set back I have shared the requested topography plans provided by your office with Brandon Melz owner at 3131 Casco Circle (copied herewith) -who has no concerns regarding the variance request as shown on Topography drawings I Greg Becker & Tessa Marchessault also have no concerns regarding the variance request as shown on Topography drawings. Driveway Easement Request on the part of Greg Becker and Brandon Melz See attached · Exh. A -Driveway Easement Document # A9468956 (Incorrect document number as shown on 3129 topography survey) · Exh. B -Driveway easement ( Book 2171of deeds Page 294 Document # 3125161 (Correct document number as listed on 3133 topography survey) Per our discussion it seems it would make sense in consideration for variance approval to eliminate the driveway easement for 3129 casco per document# 3125161 at this stage of the development process. Based on the current proposed layout of new home the approach to the house is obviously on the Northerly side driveway. It would be of interest to both Brandon From:Stacy Marks To:Melanie Curtis Subject:3129 Casco Circle Variance Request Date:Monday, September 16, 2019 11:36:23 AM Melanie, Please be advised that the variance requested on the lot at 3129 Casco Circle would affect the site lines of my existing home at 3127 Casco Circle. The request being made is for the entire home to be situated in front of the average lakeshore setback as set forth in item 6 of Sec. 78- 1279. - Placement of buildings and structures on lots. The garage area shown is the only portion of the structure in compliance with this rule. The proposed plan illustrates lake sight lines from 3 sides of the structure. Set fully lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, the proposed configuration would reduce my sight lines and would not allow me, as the homeowner of an adjacent property, to have adequate views on my property. During the September 9th City Council meeting, the Planning Commission stated the goal of the average lakeshore setback was to preserve lake views and line of sight. I plan to attend this evening's meeting to address the issues brought forward as Practical Difficulties and the Planning Commissions recommendations for this variance. Regards, Stacy Marks Date Application Received: 08/20/19 Date Application Considered as Complete: 08/20/19 60-Day Review Period Expires: 10/21/19 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 September 2019 Subject: #LA19-00067, Alexander Design Group o/b/o Mark and Kristie Ties, 3129 Casco Circle, Variance Public Hearing Background The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property with a new single family home. The existing home and guest house will be removed and the boat house will remain, and will likely be refurbished. Due to the shape of the property the applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 30’ 285’ 243’ North Side 10’ ±73’ house ±8’ guest house 17’ South Side ±28’ house 16.6’ Lakeshore 75’ 143’ 146’ Average Lakeshore The new home will be in a similar location with relation to the lake as the existing house and guest house on the property. The existing house is approximately 59 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback; the proposed home will be approximately 10 feet further from the lake (49 feet lakeward of the setback). Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to redevelop the subject property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA19-000067 16 Sept 2019 Page 2 of 5 Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 92,557 s.f. (2.12 acre) 291’ @ 75’ / 367’@ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: The property exceeds 1.99 acres in area and structural coverage limitations do not apply. Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 92,557 s.f. (2.12 acre) Allowed: 18,511 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 4,834 s.f. (5.2%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 92,557 s.f. 23,139 s.f. (25 %) 12,129s.f. (%) Approx. 525 s.f. w/in 75’ (existing) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The subject property it is situated at a southwestern “elbow” or corner of the Casco Point shoreline and the result is a very wide swath of land on the lake side of the property which is, due in part to the deep average lakeshore setback, unbuildable. The proposed home has been designed to reduce the impact to the adjacent property owners’ views of the lake from the existing condition. The applicant is proposing to reduce the encroachment into the average lakeshore setback by 10 feet, and reorient the home to pull back from the lake and away from the neighboring lots in the average setback area. There is a difference of approximately 124 feet of separation between the 75-foot setback and the average lakeshore setback line on the property. Situating the home behind the average lakeshore setback would essentially put the house behind the two neighboring homes and would impact their view of the lake. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties FILE # LA19-000067 16 Sept 2019 Page 3 of 5 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 §462.357 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 proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes difficulties in its shape, the orientation of the shoreline, location of adjacent homes, and the existing home’s proximity to the lake. The average lakeshore setback variance will not further impact views of the lake for adjacent properties. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to develop this property are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the home in the proposed location partially within the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable considering the orientation of the neighboring homes with respect to the lakeshore, and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The request is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The unique shape of the property and shoreline, the existing home’s location with respect to the lake and the neighboring home locations prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The proposed overall hardcover level is conforming. The circumstances are unique to the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is requested in order to permit construction of a home designed to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential home is an allowed use in the LR- 1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s unique shape and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, and the setback from the lake of the adjacent FILE # LA19-000067 16 Sept 2019 Page 4 of 5 homes creates difficulties for the Owners in redeveloping the property consistent with the homes in their neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s unique shape, shoreline orientation, and the relationship between the existing home and the setback of the adjacent properties create difficulties for the owners. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the average lakeshore setback variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The requested variance is necessary, and does not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds that the applicant’s choice to build a replacement home in the general location of the two existing buildings while improving the lake views from adjacent homes is sensitive to the unique character of the property. The location of the neighboring homes creating the average lakeshore setback impacts the building area creating difficulties. The proposed home will be situated 10 feet further from the lake than the existing home and guest house improving views. Engineer Comments The City’s Engineer will review the proposed grading plan at the time of the building permit review. Public Comments Public comments have been received and are attached as Exhibit G. 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? FILE # LA19-000067 16 Sept 2019 Page 5 of 5 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Renderings Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Public Comment Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to redevelop a nonconforming lot on Crystal Bay Road. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was considered to be complete on September 3rd. The initial 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on January 1, 2020. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is requesting a number of variance approvals in conjunction with redevelopment of the property. The following variances are requested as part of the proposed plan: Lot Area Variance: A lot area variance to develop a lot 11,100 square feet in area where 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) of area is required; Hardcover Variances: 49.6% total site hardcover where 25% is allowed; 3,697 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback; Structural/Building Coverage Variance: 31.1% building/structural coverage where 20% is the maximum allowed; Setback Variances: 2,353 square feet of building structure within the 75-foot setback; Retaining walls within the 75-foot setback, 30 feet from the OHWL; Retaining walls within 10-feet of the paved roadway, between 0-2 feet; Retaining walls in excess of 2 feet in height within the side yard setback; 6.3-foot rear yard setback variance where 30-foot setback is required; 41-foot setback from the OHWL for the house where a 75-foot setback is required; Driveway width within the 75-foot setback is wider than the permitted 8-foot allowance. Additionally, an IUP for export of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of material to be hauled from the property within 75-foot setback and off site is requested. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On September 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing and discussion the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor and 2 opposed on a motion to deny the requested variances. There was much discussion regarding the proposed structural coverage and the adjusted lot area used to calculate structural coverage between the applicant and the Planning Commission. In situations like this one where the traveled roadway does not exist in a dedicated easement, the actual paved width is removed from the lot area for calculation purposes. The total lot area of this property is 14,459 square feet however, the adjusted area is determined to be 11,100 square feet. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial of the application as proposed. Staff Item No.: 28 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR recognizes that this lot requires certain variances to support development and redevelopment. Staff does not support the structural coverage or hardcover variances because it appears the requests are borne out of convenience rather than hardship. Staff recommends the structural coverage be reduced to 20%, further recognizing that the structural coverage allowance was recently raised to 20%, from 15%. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s decision; or direct the applicant accordingly. Exhibits A. Site Plan B. Proposed House Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. Public Comment E. 60-Day Extension F. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 09/16/19 A. Application Summary B. Applicant Narrative C. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form D. Existing Survey & Hardcover E. Photo of Existing Site F. Site Plan - Proposed G. Plans and Elevations - Proposed H. Renderings - Proposed I. Hardcover Calculations – Proposed J. Cut & Fill and Haul Route K. Truckload Cubic Yardage Exhibit L. Aerial Photos M. Property Owners List N. Plat Map 2040 Community Management Plan Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd. Orono, MN 55391 DIAGRAM 1Date: August 21st, 2019 F R O N T O F H O U S E - E X I S T I N G N O S C A L E TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5 P O B 1 66 2 1 2 4 LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY OHW: 929.40 EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PR O P E R T Y L I N E HCRR EASEMENT HCRR EASEMENT 75' OHW SETBACK 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE AVG. BLDG. SETBACK AVG. BLDG. SETBACK DAKOTA RAIL TRAIL EXISTING ADJACENT GREEN SPACE 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K -1R -1R -1R -1R 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 -1R 2 2 -1R -1R -2R -6R -7R-6R -3R -4R -5R -8R -7R 3 3 -5R -4R -6R -6R -6R -7R -8R -8R -8R -7R -7R 22" WILLOW TO REMAIN 20" COTTONWOOD TO REMAIN 12"x20" MAPLE TO BE REMOVED 40' OAK TO REMAIN 32" OAK TO BE REMOVED 6" BIRCH TO BE REMOVED 28" ELM TO BE REMOVED 10" OAK TO BE REMOVED 12" OAK TO BE REMOVED EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS PLAN1 L010 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANDREMOVALS PLAN 1"=8' N SCALE: 1 inch = 8'16'4'0 8 feet cr e a t i o n d a t e : 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 9 fi l e p a t h : /V o l u m e s / T V L _ S t u d i o / P R O J E C T S / O L S E N R E S I D E N C E / 2 . D W G / 1 . D R A W I N G S / 1 . P E R M I T - S E T / L 0 1 0 . d w g la s t s a v e d : br e t w i e s e l e r Au g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 6 A M The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2019Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date:1/23/2018 3 3 1 5 C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 O L S E N R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 8/26/2019 BW Rev #Description Date 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW 08.06.2019 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION 09.21.2019 3 LANDSCAPE REVS. PER CITY REVIEW 09.21.2019 NOTE: GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER POLE - TO BE RELOCATED 5.EXISTING CLEANOUT - SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING FENCE - SAVE AND PROTECT LEGEND: EXISTING FEATURE TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED TREE PROT./ EROSION CTRL. FENCING EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION x 000.00 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 SHEET NOTES 1.GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 2.TREE PROTECTION/EROSION CONTROL FENCING, TYPICAL 3.SAW-CUT EXISTING BITUMINOUS ROADWAY ALONG ARC REMOVALS KEY R1 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED R2 EXISTING HOUSE TO BE DEMOLISHED R3 EXISTING GARAGE TO BE DEMOLISHED R4 EXISTING BITUMINOUS ROADWAY TO BE REMOVED R5 EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVE AND AUTO COURT TO BE REMOVED R6 EXISTING PAVING TO BE REMOVED R7 EXISTING LANDSCAPE STAIRS TO BE REMOVED R8 EXISTING LANDSCAPE WALL TO BE REMOVED -R 3AD D 3AD D 3AD D 3AD D 3AD D 3AD D TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2:1 DN 5 P O B 945.17 DN 945.17 DN AC AC DN DN DN 1 1. 4 8 % GAS & ELEC. 66 DN DN 2 1 2 938 939 937 944 943 942 940 943942 937 936 935 934 941 938 936 939 937 938 934 940 941 939 940 941 942 937 938 934 935 936 935 934.25 934.25 BOS 938.00 TOW 1. 8 7 % DN 4 1. 8 7 % W D Lightwell Li g h t w e l l HCRR EASEMENT LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY OHW: 929.40 EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PR O P E R T Y L I N E HCRR EASEMENT HCRR EASEMENT 75' OHW SETBACK 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE AVG. BLDG. SETBACK AVG. BLDG. SETBACK DAKOTA RAIL TRAIL EXISTING ADJACENT GREEN SPACE 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PROPOSED HOUSE MAIN LEVEL SUB-FLOOR: 945.32 LOWER LEVEL SUBFLOOR: 934.50 PROPOSED GARAGE FFE: 934.25 SCREENED PORCH W.W. LAWN AUTOCOURT ENTRY TERRACE TERRACE FESCUE PLANTING AREA PL A N T I N G A R E A FESCUE PLANTING AREA PL A N T I N G A R E A FESCUE PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREA PLANTING ARE A 933.40± M.E. 933.40± M.E. 934.25 934.83 TOS 935.00 BOS 937.83 BOW 941.33 BOW 945.08 TOS 937.00 TOW 936.50 BOW 937.83 BOW 933.42 BEYOND TOW: 942.00 BOW: 941.50 944.58 BOS 933.50 BOS 934.08 BOS 933.60± M.E. 933.40± M.E. TOW: 940.50 BOW: 939.00TOW: 940.50 BOW: 934.00 TOW: 940.50 BOW: 940.00 941.08 941.25 941.17941.00 BOW 944.58 BOS 944.33 BOW 940.50 BOW 937.00 TOW 933.40± M.E.939.50 TOW939.50 TOW 937.00 TOW 940.75 BOW 945.00 TOW 937.00 BOW 943.00 BOW 945.00 TOW 944.42 BOW TOW: 937.00 BOW: 936.50 938.50 TOW 938.50 TOW 937.00 BOW 937.00 TOW 941.67 TOW 941.25 941.00± VIF 943.17± VIF TOS: 934.42 BEYOND TOS: 934.42 BEYOND 933.92 TOW 933.92 TOS 933.92 TOW 933.92 TOS 933.92 TOW 944.00 TOS 936.50 BOW 2 1 ' 12' 12 ' - 2 " 6' - 3 " 33'-7"9'-9" 31'-10" 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 SITE PLAN1 L101 SITE PLAN 1"=8' SCALE: 1 inch = 8'16'4'0 8 feet cr e a t i o n d a t e : 8/ 2 6 / 2 0 1 9 fi l e p a t h : /V o l u m e s / T V L _ S t u d i o / P R O J E C T S / O L S E N R E S I D E N C E / 2 . D W G / 1 . D R A W I N G S / 1 . P E R M I T - S E T / L 1 0 1 . d w g la s t s a v e d : br e t w i e s e l e r Au g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 6 A M The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2019Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date:1/23/2018 3 3 1 5 C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 O L S E N R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 8/26/2019 BW Rev #Description Date 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW 08.06.2019 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION 09.21.2019 3 LANDSCAPE REVS. PER CITY REVIEW 09.21.2019 NOTE: GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. LEGEND: EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED DECID.CONIF.ORNA. EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED NEW TREE PROPOSED NEW SHRUB DECID.CONIF. PROPOSED NEW PERENNIAL PERENNIAL GRASS PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION000.00 DRAINAGE FLOW PROPOSED BUILDING ENTRY PROPOSED CATCH BASIN CB PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE 000.00 PROPOSED DRAIN TILE P.E.PROPOSED POP-UP EMITTER DECID.CONIF.ORNA. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER POLE - TO BE RELOCATED 5.EXISTING CLEANOUT - SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING FENCE - SAVE AND PROTECT N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 N SHEET NOTES 1.NEW DOCK LOCATION BY OWNER 2.ROOF OVERHANG, TYPICAL LOT COVERAGE PROPERTY AREA 14,459 s.f. AREA OF ROADWAY 3,359 s.f. ADJUSTED PROPERTY AREA 11,100 s.f. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing House and Shed 1,226 s.f. Existing Paving 2,041 s.f. Existing boulder wall and conc. retaining walls as EXCLUDED per city code Sec 78-1684 187 s.f. Existing Deck 399 s.f. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 3,666 s.f. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO 33% EXISTING STRUCTURAL COVERAGE RATIO 11% PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Proposed House 3,341 s.f. Proposed Paving 2,089 s.f. Proposed Walls 79 s.f. Proposed retaining walls as EXCLUDED per city code Sec 78-1684 307 s.f. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA 5,509 s.f. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RATIO 49.63% PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVERAGE RATIO 30.10% TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2:1 DN 5 P O B 945.17 DN 945.17 DN AC AC DN DN DN 1 1. 4 8 % GAS & ELEC. 66 DN DN CB CB 2 1 2 938 939 937 944 943 942 940 943942 937 936 935 934 941 938 936 939 937 938 934 940 941 939 940 941 942 937 938 934 935 936 935 934.25 934.25 BOS 938.00 TOW 1. 8 7 % DN 4 1. 8 7 % CB CB CB CB CBCB CB CB W D LAKE MINNETONKA CRYSTAL BAY OHW: 929.40 EXISTING HOUSE EXISTING HOUSE CRYSTAL BAY ROAD PR O P E R T Y L I N E HCRR EASEMENT HCRR EASEMENT 75' OHW SETBACK 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PR O P E R T Y L I N E PROPERTY LINE AVG. BLDG. SETBACK AVG. BLDG. SETBACK DAKOTA RAIL TRAIL EXISTING ADJACENT GREEN SPACE 10 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PROPOSED HOUSE MAIN LEVEL SUB-FLOOR: 945.32 LOWER LEVEL SUBFLOOR: 934.50 PROPOSED GARAGE FFE: 934.25 SCREENED PORCH W.W. LAWN AUTOCOURT ENTRY TERRACE TERRACE FESCUE PLANTING AREA PL A N T I N G A R E A FESCUE PLANTING AREA PL A N T I N G A R E A FESCUE PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREA PLANTING AREAPLANTING AREA PLANTING ARE A CB CB CB CB 933.40± M.E. 933.40± M.E. 934.25 934.83 TOS 935.00 BOS 937.83 BOW 941.33 BOW 945.08 TOS 937.00 TOW 936.50 BOW 937.83 BOW 933.42 BEYOND TOW: 942.00 BOW: 941.50 944.58 BOS 933.50 BOS 934.08 BOS 933.60± M.E. 933.40± M.E. TOW: 940.50 BOW: 939.00TOW: 940.50 BOW: 934.00 TOW: 940.50 BOW: 940.00 941.08 941.25 941.17941.00 BOW 944.58 BOS 944.33 BOW 940.50 BOW 937.00 TOW 933.40± M.E.939.50 TOW939.50 TOW 937.00 TOW 940.75 BOW 945.00 TOW 937.00 BOW 943.00 BOW 945.00 TOW 944.42 BOW TOW: 937.00 BOW: 936.50 938.50 TOW 938.50 TOW 937.00 BOW 937.00 TOW 941.67 TOW 941.25 941.00± VIF 943.17± VIF TOS: 934.42 BEYOND TOS: 934.42 BEYOND 933.92 TOW 933.92 TOS 933.92 TOW 933.92 TOS 933.92 TOW 944.00 TOS 936.50 BOW CB CB 1 1 1 2 3 3 3 3 1 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN1 L201 GRADING AND DRAINAGEPLAN 1"=8' N SCALE: 1 inch = 8'16'4'0 8 feet cr e a t i o n d a t e : 8/ 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 fi l e p a t h : /V o l u m e s / T V L _ S t u d i o / P R O J E C T S / O L S E N R E S I D E N C E / 2 . D W G / 1 . D R A W I N G S / 1 . P E R M I T - S E T / L 2 0 1 . d w g la s t s a v e d : br e t w i e s e l e r Au g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 6 A M The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2019Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date:1/23/2018 3 3 1 5 C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 O L S E N R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 8/26/2019 BW Rev #Description Date 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW 08.06.2019 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION 09.21.2019 3 LANDSCAPE REVS. PER CITY REVIEW 09.21.2019 NOTE: GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 4.REFER TO SHEET L010 FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR 5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. LEGEND: EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED DECID.CONIF.ORNA. EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED NEW TREE PROPOSED NEW SHRUB DECID.CONIF. PROPOSED NEW PERENNIAL PERENNIAL GRASS PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION000.00 DRAINAGE FLOW PROPOSED BUILDING ENTRY PROPOSED CATCH BASIN CB PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE 000.00 PROPOSED DRAIN TILE P.E.PROPOSED POP-UP EMITTER DECID.CONIF.ORNA. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER POLE - TO BE RELOCATED 5.EXISTING CLEANOUT - SAVE AND PROTECT 6.EXISTING FENCE - SAVE AND PROTECT N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED FRENCH DRAIN BENEATH 2.PROPOSED CISTERN BENEATH 3.PROPOSED CATCH BASIN, TYPICAL 4.PROPOSED DRAIN TILE, TYPICAL 5.NEW DOCK LOCATION BY OWNER 6.ROOF OVERHANG, TYPICAL ROOT ZONE ROOT PRUNING LIMITS PRUNING CUT, TYP., PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS BASE OF TREE GROUND PLANE PLAN VIEW MAXIMUM 25" ON ONE SIDE OR 33% OF TOTAL ROOT SYSTEM NO MORE THAN HALF THE CROWN OF THE TREE AT END OF SLOPE SECURE BLANKET MATERIAL BY INSERTINGSTAPLES ABOUT 20" APART THROUGH THE FABRIC EXTEND MATERIAL ABOUT 40" ON TOP OF THE GROUND AND RANDOMLY INSERT STAPLES THROUGH THE MATERIAL ABOUT 20" APART NOTES: 1.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TO BE CATEGORY 4-COCONUT 2S FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 5:1 AND SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ALL DRAINAGE SWALES AND PONDING AREAS AND CATEGORY 2-STRAW 2S FOR ALL SLOPES LESS THAN 5:1 PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3885. 2.INSTALL PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 2575 LONGITUDINAL SEAMS: BLANKET MATERIAL MUST OVERLAP AT LEAST 6" AND STAPLES INSERTED THROUGH BOTH FABRICS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 40" APART TRANSVERSE SEAMS: BLANKET MATERIAL MUST OVERLAP AT LEAST 6" AND STAPLES INSERTED THROUGH BOTH FABRICS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 20" APART STAPLES AT 3' O.C. STAPLES MUST BE INSERTED THROUGH OVERLAP MATERIAL S L O P E L E N G T H L E S S T H A N 5 0 ' 1.BEFORE INSTALLATION APPLY TOPSOIL, FERTILIZER AND SEED TO SURFACE. 2.BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL, INSTALL MATS BY ANCHORING IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" OF MAT EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" PORTION OF MAT BACK OVER SEED AND SOIL. SECURE MATS WITH A WITH A ROW OF STAPLES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE MATS. 3.ROLL CENTER MATS IN DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW IN BOTTOM OF CHANNEL. 4.PLACE CONSECUTIVE AND ADJACENT MATS END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH A MINIMUM 6" OVERLAP. USE A DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES STAGGERED 4" APART AND 4" ON CENTER TO SECURE OVERLAPPED MATS. 5.FULL LENGTH EDGE OF MATS AT TOP OF SIDE SLOPES MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH. 6.THE TERMINAL END OF MATS MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH. 7.BACKFILL AND SEED AFTER STAPLING. 8.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPER INSTALLATION. FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH BACKFILL WITH TAMPED NATURAL SOIL WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT, ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS, PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3886 B1. SILT FENCE FABRIC DIRECTION OF RUNOFF FLOW METAL (OR WOOD) POST OR STAKE NATURAL SOIL 1.SILT FENCES SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE CONTOUR (AS OPPOSED TO UP AND DOWN A HILL) AND CONSTRUCTED SO THAT FLOW CANNOT BYPASS THE ENDS. 2.ENSURE THAT THE DRAINAGE AREA IS NO GREATER THAN 1/4 ACRE PER 100 FT OF FENCE. 3.MAKE THE FENCE STABLE FOR THE 10-YEAR PEAK STORM RUNOFF. 4.WHERE ALL RUNOFF IS TO BE STORED BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, ENSURE THAT THE MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH BEHIND THE FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN TABLE NOTE: SILT FENCE SHALL FOLLOW MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3886. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 1: TYPICAL INSTALLATION FOR SILT FENCE 6" MIN 6" MI N PLAN VIEW NOTES: 1.ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. AFTER DEMOLITION OR AS NECESSARY, TREE PROTECTION FENCING MAY BE RELOCATED WITH APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 2.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL CONSIST OF TEMPORARY METAL WIRE CHAIN LINK MESH FENCING OR APPROVED EQUAL. 3.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE ANY MATERIALS OR PARK ANY VEHICLES IN TREE PROTECTION ZONES. THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIES FROM HARMING VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION. 4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEANLY CUT ALL ROOTS EXPOSED BY GRADING AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS. 6' MAX 6' MAX. POST SPACING 3' MINIMUM 6' IDEAL FROM DRIPLINE DRIPLINE 2/ 3 O F LO G DRIPLINE INSTALL SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (MNDOT TYPE 6). EQUIVALENT MATERIAL MAY BE SUBSTITUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER. STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH LOG MESH COIR LOG 6"-7" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOIL WEDGE OR 2"X2" STAKE PRE-DRILLED HOLES 0.5"X0.5" OPENING IN NET 1/ 3 O F LO G 10' MIN LENGTH 2" WASHED COURSE AGGREGATE, 12" THICK, OVER GEOFABRIC 50' M I N 20' M I N EDGE O F P U B L I C R O A D O R P A V E M E N T TABLE 1: MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH AND SLOPE FOR WHICH SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE BY CALCULATION BY CALCULATION BY ACCEPTED DESIGN PRACTICES SLOPE (H:V)%SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS 2 FT FOR A 100-YEAR EVENT SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS 2 FT FOR A 2-YEAR EVENT OR 3 FT FOR A 100-YEAR EVENT MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH 100:1 1%400 FT 900 FT 100 FT 50:1 2%200 FT 450 FT 75 FT 25:1 4%100 FT 225 FT 75 FT 20:1 5%80 FT 180 FT 75-50 17:1 6%67 FT 150 FT 50 FT 12.5:1 8%50 FT 112 FT 50 FT 10:1 10%40 FT 90 FT 50-25 FT 5:1 20%20 FT 45 FT 25-15 FT 4:1 25%16 FT 36 FT 15 FT 3:1 33%12 FT 27 FT 15 FT 2:1 50%8 FT 18 FT 15 FT L601 EROSION CONTROL AND TREE PROTECTION DETAILS N/A SCALE:N/A TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLATION5 SCALE:N/A BIOLOG INSTALLATION6 SCALE:N/A SILT FENCE INSTALLATION1 SCALE:N/A EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION2 SCALE:N/A EROSION CONTROL MAT INSTALLATION3 SCALE:N/A GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL4 SCALE:N/A ROOT PRUNING DETAIL7 cr e a t i o n d a t e : 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 fi l e p a t h : /V o l u m e s / T V L _ S t u d i o / P R O J E C T S / O L S E N R E S I D E N C E / 2 . D W G / 1 . D R A W I N G S / 1 . P E R M I T - S E T / L 6 0 1 - T R E E P R O T E C T I O N A N D E R O S I O N C O N T R O L D E T A I L S H E E T . d w g la s t s a v e d : br e t w i e s e l e r Au g u s t 2 6 , 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 7 A M The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2019Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date:1/23/2018 3 3 1 5 C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 O L S E N R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 8/26/2019 BW Rev #Description Date 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW 08.06.2019 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION 09.21.2019 3 LANDSCAPE REVS. PER CITY REVIEW 09.21.2019 N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES: 1.USE OF THE WORD 'CONTRACTOR' IN THE DRAWINGS INDICATES BOTH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS ON THE PROJECT. 2.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING THEIR WORK WITH THE WORK OF OTHERS. NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATION OF THE WORK. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE TO ANY CONTRACTOR FOR EXTRA WORK RESULTING FROM FAILURES OF COORDINATION. 3.THE CONTRACTOR MUST ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. 4.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR, OBTAINING, AND PAYING FOR ALL NECESSARY PERMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. 5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF ALL DRAWINGS WITH THEM ON SITE AT ALL TIMES AND SHALL RECORD ALL MODIFICATIONS/CHANGES TO THE WORK ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A COMPLETE AS-BUILT SET OF DRAWINGS TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT PROJECT COMPLETION. 6.EXCEPT FOR ITEMS SPECIFICALLY MARKED AS 'BY OTHERS' OR 'NOT IN CONTRACT', IT IS THE INTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS TO DESCRIBE A COMPLETE PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST THOROUGHLY REVIEW THE DRAWINGS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS DISCOVERED. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE FOR ITEMS OF WORK NOT SHOWN OR DESCRIBED ON THE DRAWINGS THAT COULD BE REASONABLY INFERRED FROM THE DRAWINGS IN PROVIDING THE OWNER WITH COMPLETE SYSTEMS AND A COMPLETE PROJECT. 7.EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED BY OTHERS. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES MAY NOT BE EXACT AS TO THEIR LOCATION, CHARACTER, OR NUMBER. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION AND FOR IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYING THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY DISCREPENCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE DRAWINGS. 8.THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN AND PROTECT ALL BENCH MARKS, SURVEY MONUMENTS, PROPERTY IRONS, LAYOUT STAKES AND OTHER REFERENCE POINTS. ALL FINES AND REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR DAMAGE TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT IS DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTS OR NEGLIGENCE ARE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. 9.THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD EXPECT TO FIND TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, GAS, CABLE TELEVISION, AND FIBER OPTIC LINES, IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR, IN COOPERATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANY, IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THE LOCATION, SIZE, AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 800 252 1166 OR TO NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AND VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE, AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES WITH THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES. 10.PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, THE CONTRACTOR MUST OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN COMPLYING WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MNDOT ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS. CODES: 1.ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL CODES AND ALL OTHER GOVERNING AUTHORITIES HAVING JURISDICTION. 2.APPLICABLE CODES: THIS PROJECT IS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF ORONO, MN MUNICIPAL CODE AND SUB-CODE REQUIREMENTS AND STATE OF MINNESOTA CODE REQUIREMENTS. 3.VERIFY IF THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPROVALS FROM THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT. REMOVALS NOTES: 1.THIS PROJECT REQUIRES A TREE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR MUST SIGN ALL PERMITS AND PAY THE PERMIT FEE BEFORE STARTING WORK AND MUST COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL GOVERNING AGENCIES IN PERFORMING THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT. 2.ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY REMOVAL WORK AND MUST BE MAINTAINED UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL MEASURES HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY IMPLEMENTED AND ESTABLISHED. 3.INSTALL SILT FENCING AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE LIMITS OF WORK AND MAINTAIN UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL IS ESTABLISHED. ALL SILT FENCE MUST HAVE ORANGE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC WITH STEEL POSTS. MACHINE SLICING OF SILT FENCE AROUND OR UNDER TREES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED. SILT FENCE AROUND OR UNDER TREES MUST BE HAND PLACED AND FASTENED TO THE GROUND WITH STAPLES. 4.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR REVIEWING THE EROSION CONTROL REQUIRMENTS OF THE SITE AND FOR INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING EROSION CONTROL MEASURES WHERE NEEDED, EVEN IF THEY ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS. 5.INLET PROTECTION (SILT FENCE BARICADES, SILT SACKS, RISER PIPES, OR FILTER FABRIC AND GRAVEL) MUST BE INSTALLED IN ALL EXISTING AFFECTED CATCH BASINS PRIOR TO ANY REMOVAL WORK AND IN ALL NEW CATCH BASINS IMMEDIATELY AFTER CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. 6.ADJACENT STREETS, ALLEYS, AND PROPERTIES MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM FREE OF SEDIMENT AND MATERIALS TRACKED, BLOWN, OR WASHED FROM THE SITE. CONTRACTOR MUST MONITOR CONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED OR WITHIN 24 HOURS NOTICE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. SWEEPING IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 7.CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL FOR THE SITE AT ALL TIMES AND PROVIDE WATERING TRUCKS AS NEEDED OR WITHIN 24 HOURS NOTICE BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. DUST CONTROL IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 8.WHERE DISTURBED SOILS WILL LAY EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN 21 DAYS, THE CONTRACTOR MUST SEED WITH A TEMPORARY COVER CROP TO PREVENT EROSION. TEMPORARY SEED MIX MUST BE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TEMPORARY SEEDING IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT. 9.THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR SECURING THE SITE AND PROVIDING PROTECTION FROM THE WORK FOR THE PUBLIC. ALL OPEN EXCAVATIONS AND OTHER HAZARDS MUST BE FENCED. 10.THE RELOCATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MUST BE COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND ANY COSTS FOR SUCH WORK IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. NO ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE ALLOWED FOR EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT OR PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO WORK AROUND ANY UTILITIES. 11.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO REPORT ANY EXISTING DAMAGE OR FAULTY CONDITION OF ANY UTILITIES TO THE UTILITY OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AS, ONCE WORK HAS COMMENCED, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT ALL DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE GROUND INSTALLATIONS HAS BEEN CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND IT WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS. UPON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, CONTACT ALL UTILITY OWNERS AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR A FIELD INSPECTION TRIP BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTOR AND REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UTILITY OWNERS TO CONFIRM THAT ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE OWNERS. 12.LIMITS OF WORK SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE ADJUSTED IN THE FIELD BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW THE LIMITS OF WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. ANY WORK OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS MODIFIED IN THE FIELD BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL BE DONE AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIES THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THE NEED FOR THE WORK IN WRITING AND IS DIRECTED TO PERFORM THE WORK BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER IN WRITING BEFORE PERFORMING THE WORK. RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY PAVEMENTS, CURB, GUTTER, PLANT MATERIALS, TURF, UTILITIES, OR OTHER SITE ELEMENTS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK THAT ARE DAMAGED DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTS OR NEGLIGENCE WILL BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE EXTENT AND ACCEPTABILITY OF THE REPLACEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 13.THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURB, STRUCTURES, TREES, AND SITE ELEMENTS NOT DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. ANY DAMAGE SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 14.PROTECT ALL TREES DESGNATED TO BE SAVED AND ALL HARDWOOD TREES 6 INCHES OR GREATER IN DIAMETER THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL WITH BARRIER FENCE CONSISTING OF SAFETY-CAPPED REBAR POSTS PLACED NO MORE THAN 8 FEET ON CENTER WITH 4 FOOT HIGH ORANGE SQUARE MESH BARRIER FENCING, RESINET SLM40, OR EQUAL, ATTACHED TO POSTS. BARRIER FENCE MUST BE INSTALLED AT THE LIMITS OF THE DRIPLINE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND MUST NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL FINAL LANDSCAPING IS TO BE COMPLETED. 15.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO VISIT SITE AND VERIFY TREES TO BE SAVED. CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW THE DRAWINGS AND DAILY WORK SCHEDULE SO THAT, SHOULD PROPOSED GRADES POSE A HAZARD TO A 'TREE TO BE SAVED', THE CONTRACTOR'S WORK IS NOT IMPEDED AND THERE WILL BE TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE. IF ROOTS OF TREES DESIGNATED TO BE SAVED ARE CUT OR OTHERWISE BROKEN OR DISTURBED BY CONTRUCTION OPERATIONS, THEY MUST BE IMMEDIATELY AND CLEANLY ROOT PRUNED WITH A SHARP AXE OR PRUNER. 16.WHERE EXISTING TREES AND/OR SIGNIFICANT SHRUB MASSINGS ARE FOUND ON SITE, WHETHER SHOWN ON THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN OR NOT, THEY SHALL BE PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE OR UNLESS DIRECTED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO BE REMOVED AND/OR ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. ANY QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL. GRADING NOTES: 1.PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AT ALL TIMES. 2.ALL DESIGN CONTOURS AND PROPOSED ELEVATIONS INDICATED ARE TO FINISH GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 3.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCOUNT FOR ALL IMPORTED SURFACE AND PLANTING MATERIALS IN DETERMINING EARTHWORK REQUIREMENTS. 4.GRADING OPERATIONS MUST MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION. 5.NO GRADING, STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS, OR STAGING IS PERMITTED OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK. 6.PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING THE SITE, THE CONTRACTOR MUST REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL IN AREAS TO BE DISTURBED AND STOCKPILE ON SITE FOR FUTURE USE. EXCESS TOPSOIL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AFTER FINISH GRADING AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 7.THE EARTHWORK FOR THE SITE IS ANTICIPATED TO PRODUCE AN EXCESS OF MATERIAL. THE CONTRACTOR MUST REMOVE ALL EXCESS MATERIAL FROM THE SITE AND DISPOSE OF IT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 8.NO TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM RESTORATION AREAS WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND RESTORATION CONTRACTOR. 9.TOPSOIL COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC IN RESTORATION AREAS SHALL BE LOOSENED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND RESTORATION CONTRACTOR. SEEDING NOTES: 1.ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE WARRANTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 2.SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS STRUCTURE, HARD SURFACE. 3.THE SEEDING CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THE PROPOSED SEEDING START DATE A MINIMUM OF ONE WEEK PRIOR TO SEEDING. 4.METHOD OF SEEDING AND SEEDING RATE SHALL BE AS LISTED ON SEDDING KEY. 5.NO SEEDING MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR, PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6.THE SEEDING CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP NEWLY SEEDED AREAS WATERED FOR A MINIMUM OF FOUR WEEKS OR UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. SPRING SEEDING COMPLETED AFTER MAY 15TH MUST BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR AT LEAST 4 WEEKS, OR UNTIL AUGUST 15TH, WHICHEVER IS LONGER. THE SEEDING CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A BID FOR INDIVIDUAL WATERING APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE TWO YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR POTENTIAL WATERING DURING UNUSUALLY DRY PERIODS. 7.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST BE USED ON ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 8.SEEDING IN RESTORATION AREAS WILL FOLLOW PROCEDURES LISTED IN “RESTORATION NOTES.” 9.EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS REQUIRED IN RESTORATION AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED BY RESTORATION CONTRACTOR. PLANTING NOTES: 1.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 2.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE THE DECOMPACTED SUBGRADE AFTER DECOMPACTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND PRIOR TO TOPSOIL PLACEMENT. 3.PROVIDE 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL TURF AREAS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF12 INCHES OF PLANTING SOIL MIX CONSISTING OF 1/3 TOPSOIL, 1/3 SAND, AND 1/3 COMPOST IN ALL SHRUB AND PERENNIAL BEDS. WHERE SHRUBS OR PERENNIALS ARE GROUPED, CREATE ONE CONTINUOUS PLANTING BED. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SPREADING. CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT TESTING RESULTS AND FERTILIZER RECOMMENDATIONS. 4.ALL EDGED SHRUB PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3 INCH DEPTH OF DOUBLE-SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO APPROVE MULCH PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 5.ALL PLANTING BEDS NOT CONTAINED BY STRUCTURES, CURB, OR PAVING MUST BE EDGED WITH STEEL EDGING. 6.WHERE SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES, FINISHED GRADE OF SOD MUST BE HELD 1 INCH BELOW THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF THE PAVED SURFACE. 7.SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED JOINTS. 8.ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR AS DIRECTED IN THE FIELD BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING LOCATIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE DELIVERY DATE FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL. 9.ADJUSTMENT IN LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL MAY BE NEEDED IN THE FIELD. SHOULD AN ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED. 10.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S APPOVAL. 11.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL OR OTHER FERTILIZER AS INDICATED MIXED IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS. 12.ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER PLANTING DETAILS. 13.WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES FROM THE GROUND TO THE FIRST BRANCH. WRAPPING MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1ST, AND REMOVE ALL WRAPPING BETWEEN MAY 1ST AND JUNE 1ST, OR AS INSTRUCTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 14.IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS, OR ANY OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT MATERIAL ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL, OR GUARANTEE, LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 15.NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION. 16.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION UPON COMPLETION OF ALL PLANTING WORK. 17.PLANTING IN RESTORATION AREAS WILL FOLLOW PROCEDURES LISTED IN “RESTORATION NOTES.” IRRIGATION NOTES: 1.ALL SOD AREAS AND PLANTINGS WITHIN PROPERTY LIMITS,MUST BE IRRIGATED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 2.PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAYOUTS AND MATERIAL LISTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH BIDS. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT MANUFACTURERS INCLUDE RAINBIRD, TORO, AND NETAFIM. THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER SHALL BE SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL PROPOSED ZONES, INCLUDING ANY AREAS INDICATED AS FUTURE IRRIGATION, AND SHALL BE FULLY AUTOMATIC WITH A VOLATILE MEMORY CHIP. 3.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY THE LOCATION OF ALL IRRIGATION SLEEVES. IF ADDITIONAL SLEEVING IS REQUIRED, IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ONLY TRENCHLESS METHODS WILL BE APPROVED AFTER PAVING IS COMPLETED. 4.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDNG A COMPLETE IRRIGATION SYSTEM FROM THE POINT OF CONNECTION AT THE COLD WATER STUB OUT LINE(S) FROM THE BUILDING. THE STUB OUT(S) FROM THE BUILDING, THE BACKFLOW PREVENTER, AND OTHER CODE REQUIRED PLUMBING ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED BY A LICENSED MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR. 5.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL THE IRRIGATION CONTROL PANEL IN THE LOCATION INDICATED ON THE MECHANICAL DRAWINGS OR AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER. 6.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST PROVIDE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE MANUALS AND ON-SITE INSTRUCTION TO THE OWNER IN THE SYSTEM OPERATION. THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INITIAL SYSTEM STARTUP, WINTERIZATION FOR THE FIRST WINTER, AND STARTUP THE FOLLOWING SPRING. 7.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE IRRIGATION COVERAGE IN ALL RESTORATION AREAS. 8.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WITH RESTORATION CONTRACTOR REGARDING IRRIGATION SYSTEM SCHEDULE AND IRRIGATION NEEDS IN RESTORATION AREAS. RESTORATION NOTES: 1.ALL EXOTICS, INVASIVES AND UNDESIRED TALL NATIVE SPECIES TARGETED FOR REMOVAL WILL BE REMOVED BY HAND OR SPRAYED WITH APPROVED HERBICIDE. THIS WORK SHALL BEGIN DURING THE FIRST STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION AND EXTEND THROUGH THE MANAGEMENT PERIOD. 2.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF NATIVE SPECIES TO BE LEFT AND MANAGED ON SITE. 3.RESTORATION PLANTING AND SEEDING SHALL BEGIN AFTER ALL CONSTRUCTION AND TREE PLANTING WORK IS COMPLETE AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLED BY OTHERS IS IN PLACE. 4.RESTORATION CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THE PLANTING AND SEEDING START DATE A MINIMUM OF ONE WEEK PRIOR TO SEEDING AND PLANTING. 5.SALVAGED TOPSOIL APPROVED BY THE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR WILL BE SPREAD ONLY ON AREAS CLEARED OF TOPSOIL DURING CONSTRUCTION. APPROVED TOPSOIL WILL ONLY BE SPREAD TO THE ORIGINAL GRADE OR GRADE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6.SEVERELY COMPACTED SOIL CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE LOOSENED TO ORIGINAL GRADE BY OTHERS. MINOR COMPACTION SHALL BE LOOSENED BY RESTORATION CONTRACTOR TO ORIGINAL GRADE OR GRADE APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 7.SEEDING SHALL BE HAND BROADCAST AND RAKED EITHER BY HAND OR WITH A DRAG HARROW. 8.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTED BY THE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. 9.SEEDED AND SODDED AREAS SHALL BE WATERED WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM (INSTALLED BY OTHERS) FOR A MINIMUM OF FOUR WEEKS OR UNTIL SEED IS ESTABLISHED. ALL WATERING ASSUMES A SYSTEM COVERING ALL RESTORATION AREAS IS IN PLACE AND RESTORATION CONTRACTOR HAS CONTROL OVER WATERING SCHEDULE FOR RESTORATION AREAS. 10.PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLACED ACCORDING TO SPECIFIC ZONE SECTION NEEDS AND NOT ACCORDING TO A FIXED PATTERN. ON-CENTER GOALS ARE ON AVERAGE. 11.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL SEEDING AND PLANTING LOCATIONS. 12.NO FERTILIZER OR SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED IN THE RESTORATION AREAS UNLESS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR. 13.RESTORATION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION UPON COMPLETION OF ALL RESTORATION SEEDING AND PLANTING WORK. ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT ALG ALIGN ADJ ADJACENT ALUM ALUMINUM ANNOD ANNODIZED ARCH ARCHITECT BLDG BUILDING BOT BOTTOM BOS BOTTOM OF STAIRS BOW BOTTOM OF WALL CB CATCH BASIN CJ CONTROL JOINT CL, ℄CENTER LINE CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT COL COLUMN CONC CONCRETE CONT CONTINUOUS CIVIL CIVIL ENGINEER DIA DIAMETER DN DOWN DWGS DRAWINGS (E) EXTG EXISTING EJ EXPANSION JOINT EL ELEVATION ELEC ELECTRICAL EQ EQUAL EXP EXPOSED EXT EXTERIOR F.F.FILTER FABRIC FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION FG FINISH GRADE FND FOUNDATION GA GAGE GALV GALVANIZED GEO GEOTECHNICAL HB HOSE BIB HC HOUSE CORNER HOR HORIZONTAL HP HIGH POINT I.D.INSIDE DIAMETER INSUL INSULATION LA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT LP LOW POINT MAS MASONRY MATL MATERIAL MAX MAXIMUM MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MINIMUM MTL METAL NIC NOT IN CONTRACT N.F.C.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION O.C.ON CENTER O.D.OUTSIDE DIAMETER OH OVERHEAD PAR PARALLEL P.A.PLANTING AREA PL, ⅊PROPERTY LINE PLWD PLYWOOD POB POINT OF BEGINNING PC POINT OF CURVATURE PT POINT OF TANGENCY QTY QUANTITY R RISER (R)RADIUS RD ROOF DRAIN REM REMOVE REQD REQUIRED SF SQUARE FEET SIM SIMILAR SST STAINLESS STEEL STRUCT STRUCTURAL SY SQUARE YARD T TREAD TBD TO BE DETERMINED TOC TOP OF CURB, TOP OF CONCRETE TOD TOP OF DECK TOP TOP OF PAVING SURFACE TOS TOP OF STAIRS TOW TOP OF WALL TVLS TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO TYP TYPICAL VERT VERTICAL VIF VERIFY IN FIELD W.P.M.WATER PROOF MEMBRANE W.PT WORKING POINT W/O WITHOUT #NUMBER, POUND &AND @ AT °DEGREES ±PLUS / MINUS Ø DIAMETER SECTION DETAIL PLANTING REFERENCE ELEVATION SPOT ELEVATION @ SECTION REMOVALS TYPE PAVING TYPE LIGHTING TYPE EQUIPMENT TYPE WALL TYPE PROPERTY LINE LIMITS OF WORK TREE PROTECTION / EROSION CTRL FENCING CONSTRUCTION FENCE CENTER LINE ℄ GRID MATCH LINE / CONTROL LINE REVISION POINT OF BEGINNING SPOT ELEVATION @ TOP AND BOTTOM OF WALL SPOT ELEVATION @ POINT OF REFERENCE SITE FURNISHING TYPE TOW 678.00 FG 000.00 000.00 L000 L000 PARALLEL 1 0.0% POB SLOPE @ SURFACE BREAK LINE ALIGN ALIGN SURFACES PARALLEL SURFACES 1 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION QUANTITY SPECIES EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED x 000.00 PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED CATCH BASIN PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED NEW DECIDUOUS TREE PROPOSED NEW CONIFEROUS TREE PROPOSED NEW SHRUB PROPOSED NEW PERENNIAL/ANNUAL EXISTING TREES TO BE PROTECTED AND SAVED PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURE 976.50 000.00 TOW 000.00 BOW 0 AA KEYNOTE CONSTRUCTION NOTES LEGEND SYMBOLS (C0NT.)ABBREVIATIONS SHEETNOTE CB 1 1 STRUCTURES/PAVING/ LANDSCAPING TO BE REMOVED HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE HATCH DESIGNATION HERE G 1 1 W 1 S 1 E 1 R 1 P 1 L GROUNDCOVER TYPE ℄ ℄ DN 00 L000 00 L000 00 L000 STAIR POINT OF ENTRY AT BUILDING SYMMETRY SYMBOLS DRAINAGE FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW AT ADJACENT STREET 0AD D L001 GENERAL NOTES N/A cr e a t i o n d a t e : 8/ 1 9 / 2 0 1 9 fi l e p a t h : /V o l u m e s / T V L _ S t u d i o / P R O J E C T S / O L S E N R E S I D E N C E / 2 . D W G / 1 . D R A W I N G S / 1 . P E R M I T - S E T / L 0 0 1 . d w g la s t s a v e d : br e t w i e s e l e r Au g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 1 9 2 : 3 7 P M The designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2019Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date:1/23/2018 3 3 1 5 C R Y S T A L B A Y R O A D , O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 O L S E N R E S I D E N C E Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 8/19/2019 BW Rev #Description Date 1 SCHEMATIC DESIGN REVIEW 08.06.2019 2 VARIANCE APPLICATION 09.21.2019 3 LANDSCAPE REVS. PER CITY REVIEW 09.21.2019 N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd. Orono, MN 55391 DIAGRAM 3Date: August 21st, 2019 N O R T H C O R N E R O F H O U S E - P R O P O S E D N O S C A L E Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd. Orono, MN 55391 DIAGRAM 4Date: August 21st, 2019 W E S T C O R N E R O F H O U S E - P R O P O S E D N O S C A L E Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd. Orono, MN 55391 DIAGRAM 5Date: August 21st, 2019 R E A R O F H O U S E - P R O P O S E D N O S C A L E Q U E E N 2'-10 DR 4 ' - 2 C O F U R N I T U R E 60" TV T . O . C O U R T 9 3 4 . 2 5 ' U P 1 8 R . 1 1 " T . T y p 2 9 ' 9 X 3 8 ' 1 0 G a r a g e DN 3" Lightwell G u e s t 4 1 4 ' 5 X 1 3 ' 9 H V A C S t o r a g e 9 ' 6 X 5 ' 9 S A U N A 2 0 ' 3 X 1 1 ' 2 F i t n e s s Y O G A 15'7 X 26'0 Rec. Ro o m 8 ' 0 X 6 ' 0 B a t h 4 S h o w e r 3 ' 6 X 6 ' 0 4 6 " T V 18'8 X 13'9 Mechanica l / Storage 3 0 " F R I D G E / F R E E Z E R 8 ' - 0 C O 3'-8 CO 3'-8 CO 3'-6 DR 2 ' - 1 0 D R PR 2'-6 DRS C o v e r e d E n t r y 8 ' 8 X 6 ' 9 3 ' - 0 D R E l e v . 3 ' - 0 D R 3 ' - 0 D R ( 3 x ) U C A 4 0 6 0 (2x) UCA3660 ( 3 x ) U C A 3 6 2 4 UMSDSTK12 0 8 0 XXO W D 5 ' 1 X 6 ' 0 V e s t . 4 4 ' 6 X 1 9 ' 2 L L H a l l HCRR EASEM E N T A V G . B L D G . S E T B A C K T V 7'-0 WND N i c h e 5 ' 1 X 4 ' 0 P I N G P O N G 9 ' X 5 ' C R P T T I L E RESILIENTTILE CRPT TILE CRPTEPOXY D N 2 " D R O P Z O N E E P O X Y DN 3R. UP 18R.12" T. Typ D N 1 R . 3'-0 DR T . O . S L A B G A R A G E 9 3 4 . 2 5 ' DN 2"T.O. MECH. S L A B 934.33' T . O . S T O N E 9 3 4 . 3 3 ' BENCH LINEN T . O . S T O N E 9 3 3 . 9 2 ' T.O. S T O N E 933.9 2 ' 1 4 ' 5 X 1 3 ' 5 L L E n t r y T . O . L L S L A B 9 3 4 . 5 ' Lawn Above A / C A b o v e W i n t e r S u m m e r W i n t e r S u m m e r N S E W L o w e r L e v e l P l a n A 1 . 0 1Lower Level PlanSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\1_PLANS\a_fp000.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 3:23 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . KING FURNITURE 46" TV M a s t e r B e d K i t c h e n TOWN & COUNTRY TC42 8 ' X 4 2 " D i n i n g T . O . S U B F L O O R 9 4 5 . 3 2 ' ( 1 0 0 ' - 0 " ) Great Room 2 ' - 1 0 P K T D R 2 ' - 1 0 P K T D R 1 5 ' 6 X 1 4 ' 2 1 7 ' 8 X 1 0 ' 4 1 8 ' 8 X 1 7 ' 8 18'10 X 17'8 T . O . A U T O C O U R T 9 3 4 . 2 5 ' 3 0 " F R E E Z E R 3 0 " R E F . Miarabelle TubMIRHIFSO6731WH32"x67" 2 5 ' 7 X 1 0 ' 0 M . D r e s s i n g C L B A T H & R I D G E CL E n t r y 9 ' 8 X 7 ' 0 A R T P o w d e r 6 ' 0 X 7 ' 0 M a s t e r B a t h 1 3 ' 2 X 8 ' 1 1 5 ' 9 X 3 ' 1 0 S h o w e r 3 ' 4 X 6 ' 0 W C W a s h 9 ' 7 X 6 ' 5 Screen Por c h GREATROOM& RIDGE F U R N I T U R E WD T . O . S L A B G A R A G E 9 3 4 . 2 5 ' C o a t 4 ' 4 X 4 ' 1 0 M a s t e r V e s t . 7 ' 6 X 6 ' 1 I s l a n d 4 ' 0 x 8 ' 4 I s l a n d 4 3 ' 6 x 8 ' 4 3'-0 PKT DR 3'-0 DR 2'-6 DR 3'-0 CO 3 ' - 2 C O 3 ' - 2 C O 3 ' - 2 C O P a n t r y / C o m m a n d 1 5 ' 6 X 9 ' 1 0 M . H a l l 4 ' 2 X 1 5 ' 0 D W T / R U P 2 0 R . 1 1 " T . T y p D N 1 8 R . 1 1 " T . T y p 3 0 " O V E N S P L A N T E R 22'8 X 9'4 H V A C 9 4 5 . 1 7 V A L E T V A L E T V A L E T B E N C H 2 ' - 1 0 D R LINEN Grill I C A 3 3 5 5 I C A P 3 7 2 3 D W 15'7 X 11'4UMSDPKT12090 L E D G E B E L O W 3 ' - 0 D R E l e v . 3 ' - 6 D R ( 3 x ) U C A 3 6 6 4 ( 3 x ) U C A 3 6 2 4 ( 3 x ) U C A 4 0 8 4 ( 3 x ) U C A 4 0 2 4 UDGRT2436 U C A 2 8 3 2 ( 4 x ) U C A 4 0 9 6 UIFD3670UIFDTR36(CUSTOM)UIFD3670UIFDTR36(CUSTOM) H V A C Lightwell UIFD6070 UIFDTR60(CUSTOM) U C A 3 6 4 4 U C A 3 6 2 4 U C A 3 6 4 4 U C A 3 6 2 4 U C A 3 6 4 4 U C A 3 6 2 4 Grill Terrace F L A T C L N G A T 1 4 ' 0 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 8 1 2 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 8 1 2 " 8' 8 12" SPRING UCAP6464 (PICTURE) ART FLAT CLNGAT 16' 0"SLOPE CLNGAT 11'-812"SLOPE CLNGAT 11' 8 12"U I F D 3 6 7 0 (4X) UIF D T R 3 6 ( C U S T O M ) HCRR EASEM E N T A V G . B L D G . S E T B A C K C R P T W D C R P T T I L E TILECRPT WDTILE 2 ' - 1 0 P K T D R DN 18R.12" T. Typ 944.58 STONEWD STONEWD STONE WD S T O N E W D T I L E W D DN 1R.12" T. Typ E n t r y T e r r a c e 1 6 ' 0 X 9 ' 0 BENCH 945.17945.17 T . O . S T O N E 9 3 3 . 9 2 ' T.O. S T O N E 933.9 2 ' STONEWD STONEWDLawn W i n t e r S u m m e r W i n t e r S u m m e r N S E W M a i n L e v e l P l a n A 1 . 1 1Main Level PlanSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\1_PLANS\a_fp100.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 3:26 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . 12:12 12:12 6:12 6 : 1 2 12:12 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 Q U E E N QUEEN QUEEN PR 2'6 X 8'0 DRS 2 ' 8 P K T S h o w e r 3 ' 1 X 6 ' 5 L o u n g e 1 0 ' 1 1 X 1 4 ' 1 G u e s t 2 1 2 ' 6 X 1 2 ' 3 G u e s t 1 1 2 ' 0 X 1 4 ' 1 G u e s t 3 1 2 ' 6 X 1 2 ' 3 S h a r e d B a t h 6 ' 0 X 1 3 ' 0 3 ' 1 X 6 ' 0 W C D N 2 0 R . 1 1 " T . T y p TRADENAMEMODELNUMBERMATERIALPRODUCT B a t h 1 6 ' 0 X 7 ' 0 LINEN 4 6 " T V FURNITURE TV W I N D O W S E A T S h o w e r 3 ' 6 X 6 ' 0 2'-8 PKT DR MAKE-UP C l o s e t 6 ' 0 X 6 ' 0 S h a r e d V e s t . 6 ' 1 0 X 4 ' 2 3 ' w D r . D N 2 0 R . 1 1 " T . T y p ( 3 x ) U C A 3 2 6 0 ( 2 x ) U C A 3 2 6 0 ( 3 x ) U C A 3 2 6 0 ( 3 x ) U C A 4 0 8 4 ( 3 x ) U C A 4 0 2 4 ( 3 x ) U C A 3 2 6 0 M a k e - U p 6 ' 0 X 5 ' 0 E l e v . 2 ' - 1 0 D R 3 ' - 4 C O 3'-4 CO 2 ' - 1 0 D R 2'-10 DR FLAT CLNGAT 9' 118"SLOPE CLNGAT 6'-312" 6 ' 3 1 2 " S P R I N G FLAT CLNGAT 9' 118"SLOPE CLNGAT 7'-412" FLAT CLNGAT 9' 118"SLOPE CLNGAT 7'-412"SLOPE CLNGAT 7' 4 12" 7' 0" SPRING7' 0" SPRING 8' 9 12" SPRING8' 9 12" SPRING 8 ' 9 1 2 " S P R I N G 8 ' 9 1 2 " S P R I N G F L A T C L N G A T 1 2 ' 0 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 9 1 2 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 9 1 2 " F L A T C L N G A T 1 2 ' 0 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 9 1 2 " S L O P E C L N G A T 8 ' 9 1 2 " HCRR EASEM E N T A V G . B L D G . S E T B A C K 2 ' 8 X 8 ' 0 P K T C R P T T I L E CRPT TILE 2 ' 8 P K T CRPT TILE O P E N T O B E L O W 9 : 1 2 W i n t e r S u m m e r W i n t e r S u m m e r N S E W U p p e r L e v e l P l a n A 1 . 2 1Upper Level PlanSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\1_PLANS\a_fp200.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 3:59 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . HCRR EASEM E N T A V G . B L D G . S E T B A C K 12:12 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 9 : 1 2 12:12 6:12 6 : 1 2 12:12 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 3 : 1 2 W i n t e r S u m m e r W i n t e r S u m m e r N S E W R o o f P l a n A 1 . 3 1Roof PlanSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\1_PLANS\a_fp300.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 3:34 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . T.O. SUB-FLOOR MAIN LEVELT.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)10'-978"9'-118"T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (10'0" CLNG)10'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-978"T.O. SUB-FLOOR UPPER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)9'-118"100'-0" = 945.32'89'-2 18" 9 4 5 . 0 ' T.O. SLAB GARAGE 1 2 6 121212:12 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 1 2 1212 1 2 : 1 2 3 : 1 2 88'-1118" 9 3 5 . 0 ' 30'-0"10'-0" L O W E S T E X I S T I N G G R A D E 1SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A 2 . 0 North West Elevation I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\2_EXT_ELEV\ex_100.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 4:31 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . 10'-0"30'-0" L O W E S T E X I S T I N G G R A D E 9 4 5 . 0 ' 9 3 5 . 0 ' 1 2 9 1 2 9 1 2 3 1 2 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 T.O. SUB-FLOOR MAIN LEVELT.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)10'-978"9'-118"T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (10'0" CLNG)10'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-978"T.O. SUB-FLOOR UPPER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)9'-118"100'-0" = 945.32'89'-2 18"T.O. SLAB GARAGE88'-1118"1Garage - North East ElevationSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A 2 . 1 I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\2_EXT_ELEV\ex_100.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 4:30 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . 10'-0"30'-0" L O W E S T E X I S T I N G G R A D E 9 4 5 . 0 ' 9 3 5 . 0 ' 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 4 " 9 : 1 2 12:12T.O. WALL FRAMING (10'0" CLNG)1'-834"T.O. SUB-FLOOR UPPER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)9'-118"10'-978"9'-118"1'-834"T.O. SUB-FLOOR MAIN LEVELT.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL 10'-118"11'-978"100'-0" = 945.32'89'-2 18"T.O. SLAB GARAGE88'-1118"1Rear - South East ElevationSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A 2 . 2 I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\2_EXT_ELEV\ex_100.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 4:29 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . 10'-0"30'-0" L O W E S T E X I S T I N G G R A D E 9 4 5 . 0 ' 9 3 5 . 0 ' 1 2 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 : 1 2 1 2 1 2 6 : 1 2 9 1 4 " 7 3 5 6 4 " 91 4" T.O. SUB-FLOOR MAIN LEVELT.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)10'-978"9'-118"T.O. SLAB LOWER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (10'0" CLNG)10'-118"1'-834"1'-834"11'-978"T.O. SUB-FLOOR UPPER LEVEL T.O. WALL FRAMING (9'0" CLNG)9'-118"100'-0" = 945.32'89'-2 18"T.O. SLAB GARAGE88'-1118"1 South West ElevationSCALE: 14" = 1'-0" E x t e r i o r E l e v a t i o n s A 2 . 3 I M P O R T A N T N O T E F O R C O N T R A C T O R S & S U B - C O N T R A C T O R S Crystal Bay Cottage 3315 Crystal Bay Rd Orono, MN 55391 S:\00_PROJ\K_O\OLSEN_1905_CRYSTAL BAY COTTAGE\0_CAD\IN-PROCESS\2_EXT_ELEV\ex_100.dwgPrinting Date:Pentable:8/20/2019 4:44 PM swanarch.ctb Sheet Location: C O P Y R I G H T S W A N A R C H I T E C T U R E , L T D . +612.338.5976 International Market Square 275 Market Street, Suite 438 Minneapolis, MN 55405 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 2 0 1 9 . 0 8 . 2 1 V a r i a n c e I s s u e 1 . F i e l d v e r i f y a n d c o o r d i n a t e a l l c o n d i t i o n s a n d d i m e n s i o n s p r i o r t o w o r k . I m m e d i a t e l y r e p o r t a n d / o r r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s / d i s c r e p a n c i e s w i t h t h e A r c h i t e c t f o r k n o w l e d g e , d i r e c t i o n o r a p p r o v a l p r i o r t o p r o c e e d i n g w i t h w o r k . 2 . A l l w o r k s h a l l c o n f o r m t o g o v e r n i n g l a w s , o r d i n a n c e s , r u l e s , r e g u l a t i o n s a n d o r d e r o f p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s h a v i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n . 3 . C o n s t r u c t i o n t o b e p e r f o r m e d t o c u r r e n t S t a t e o f M N b u i l d i n g & e n e r g y c o d e s a n d l o c a l i n d u s t r y s t a n d a r d s a n d s t a n d a r d i n d u s t r y p r a c t i c e s . MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. LA18-000069 JOHN QUINLIVAN, 3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:38 P.M. – 8:37 P.M. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction; Andrea Swan, Architect; and Dale and Jonmari Olsen, Property Owners, were present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a number of approvals in conjunction with redevelopment of the property. Due to the property’s small size and small deck, redevelopment will require the following variances: -Lot area; -Hardcover within the 75-foot setback; -Building and structure within the 75-foot setback -Driveway width within the 75-foot setback; -49 percent total site hardcover where 25 percent is allowed; -30 percent building/structural coverage where 20 percent is the maximum allowed; - Rear yard setback; -Front (street) setback; and -Side yard setback. An interim use permit for export of approximately1120 cubic yards of material to be hauled from the property within 75-foot setback and off site is also being requested. The applicant’s redevelopment plan includes some subsurface stormwater improvements to offset the proposed hardcover levels. Due to the property’s small size and depth, its location on Crystal Bay Road, the proximity of the lake, the road, and the Dakota Rail trail to the rear, there are many challenges to redevelopment. The property is approximately 150 feet wide but only 95 feet deep. When the average lakeshore setback is applied to the property, in addition to the 75-foot lake setback and the 30-foot rear yard setback, the property is completely unbuildable. The new home, while proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback, includes hardcover within the 75-foot lake yard. The proposed hardcover level of 49.6 percent is a 1,843 square foot increase from the existing conditions. Existing structural coverage is 11 percent and the applicant is proposing 31.1 percent. As with most other Crystal Bay lots, this calculation is based on an adjusted lot area excluding Crystal Bay Road. The applicant’s proposal exceeds what would be allowed even if the road area was included. The existing detached garage encroaches approximately eight feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line but the house is currently conforming. The applicant’s proposed building improvements are shown to meet the average lakeshore setback. There are walls proposed within the average lakeshore setback which are for the most part at or below 42 inches. After meeting with Staff, the applicant has verbally agreed to remove the walls. Staff does find practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the property in addition to the location of the roadway and lake to justify some level of variances for redevelopment. However, the applicant is proposing redevelopment on this property at a scale which is unsupported by practical difficulties and is far beyond what is reasonable for the property and neighborhood to support. The City Engineer’s comments are included in Staff’s memo. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ After a thorough review, Staff is recommending denial of the plan. Staff met with the property owner and their design team on a number of occasions to review the plan as it was being developed to reach a level of variances that would be more appropriate. The resulting plan does not follow Staff’s guidance. The applicant should be directed to submit a revised plan which reduces structural coverage to a conforming level and reduces the hardcover. The building footprint should be modified and the use of retaining walls should be re-evaluated. The existing fence and any other encroachments on the HCRAA property should be eliminated. Ressler asked what the existing side setback is and what it is proposed to be. Curtis indicated there are some retaining walls that are on the side. Based on the proposed height, those will likely need variances. Staff’s guidance was for a revision of the plan and a thorough review of the retaining walls was not done. The side yard setbacks far exceed the required 10 feet. The rear setback is at 6’/3” where a 30-foot setback is required. Generally a 10-foot setback in this neighborhood is recommended. Ressler asked if 6.3 inches is proposed, the code is 30 feet, and the general neighborhood characteristics is 10 feet. Curtis stated the character of the neighborhood is all over the map. When redevelopment occurs in this neighborhood, Staff is looking for a minimum setback to allow for a rear yard. The property does have the benefit of this adjacent green space before the trail location but it is not their property. While that 6.3 foot setback may not seem onerous as a setback, it is narrow. Gettman asked what the average hardcover is in the neighborhood. Curtis stated many of the homes in the neighborhood are 40 or 50-foot lots so they will have a greater percentage of hardcover. Ressler stated the biggest issue right now is that the existing structure is 11 percent of the lot and 20 percent is allowed, but what is being proposed is 31 percent. Curtis indicated that is correct. Many of the encroachments would be reduced if the structural footprint was reduced. Thiesse asked if the Planning Commission should talk about the fence. Curtis stated HCRAA has asked that it be removed. Mr. Olsen indicated that is not right and that nobody has asked for the fence to be removed. Curtis stated if the property is to be redeveloped, HCRAA has indicated removal of the existing driveway encroachment and the fencing would be appreciated. John Quinlivan, Gordon James Construction, noted he has submitted a project narrative. There are currently 28 properties on Crystal Bay Road, with 24 considered lakeshore. All 28 properties have a unique challenge by having the Dakota Trail in their back yard and Crystal Bay Road on the lakeside. Of MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the 24 properties with lakeshore, this property is the widest property at 150 feet. There are approximately 11 lots that are 50 feet or less width, four lots have 60 feet or less in width, five have 90 feet or less in width, and three lots are over 100 feet in width. While the trail is owned by the Hennepin County Railroad Authority, it is managed by the Three Rivers Park District. Although there is approximately 50 feet from the center of the Dakota Park Trail to the properties on Crystal Bay Road, the park district only manages three feet from the edge of the trail. That has left the remaining 41 feet to be managed by the homeowners. There are currently lawns, fences, patios, driveways, sheds, and other structures that encroach into that 41 feet. To his knowledge none of them have had to be removed as part of redevelopment. If not for the homeowners managing the HCRRA property, it would be unkempt. There are also seven homes today that rely on the HCRRA land as the primary access to their homes. The homeowners have been working with Swan Architecture, TVL Studio, and Gordon James to come up with a plan that is compatible with what you would see in the neighborhood. The plan they came up with is not compatible because it has side yard setbacks of 30 and 32 feet. There are no properties all the way along the road that can come close to those setbacks. If this is approved as proposed, they would see that there are huge setbacks on both sides of this house. To bring structural coverage down to 20 percent, there would be approximately 50-foot setbacks on each side. If you look west, all of those lots are 50 feet wide. Quinlivan stated there is a reason why there are not neighbors opposing this, and that is because the project fits within the neighborhood. As it relates to hardcover, they are proposing to capture nearly 100 percent of the runoff through cisterns that would capture as much water as possible. The driveway and other exterior hardcover will use pervious pavers and the gutters will direct water to the buried cisterns. The homeowners are very involved with the newly proposed Lake Improvement District on Crystal Bay and have taken every effort to eliminate runoff from their proposed plan. The variance process was put in place when unusual circumstances make it difficult for a property owner to comply with local ordinances. In his opinion, he cannot think of a variance situation better than what they are seeing today. Overall the project would improve the lakeshore setback, improve the side yard setback to 31 and 32 feet, and improve the rear yard setback. The property next door has a 1.7-foot setback that was approved in 2017. In their opinion they felt that five feet was good and improves what is there today. Most of the properties in the neighborhood are at 50 to 60 percent structural coverage because they fall within the 10,000 square foot exemption. This lot does not fall under the 10,000 foot and it also has the largest road surface on Crystal Bay, which causes a hardship. Within approximately 1,069 feet west of the proposed home, there are 19 homes, or one for every 56 feet. Within approximately 625 feet to the east, there are eight homes, which is approximately one home every 75 feet. This home has 150 feet and goes above and beyond what fits in the neighborhood. The project has wide support in the neighborhood, makes sense for this property, and fits into the neighborhood. If the side yard setbacks are increased to 50 feet, that does not make sense and would look out of place with the rest of the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. There were no public comments on this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:53 p.m. Ressler commented this is a tough lot, and whenever you have a really odd shaped lot, which is fairly common on the lake, you have to identify whether you are improving or intensifying a difficulty. While he can recognize the merits of the proposed side yard setback, the way the City’s regulations are, it is a percentage, and the proposed structural coverage is not a little bit of a leap but it is a tripling of the structure. The lot is very shallow, and one could argue it is not a buildable lot. Every single lot in the neighborhood requires variances. The Planning Commission always tries to do the best they can with what is in front of them and they attempt to make something work. The Planning Commission, however, has a difficult time when a proposal makes something worse. Thiesse stated he came into this thinking that it was not consistent with the character of the neighborhood and the developer just re-enforced that. This lot is the widest lot in the neighborhood. Three lots combined is not in character with the neighborhood and side yard setbacks of 30 to 50 feet is not in character with the neighborhood. As it relates to practical difficulty, state law is very specific that you have to use it in a reasonable manner, which they are, and none of the practical difficulties were created by the owner, but the project has to not alter the essential character of the locality. Thiesse stated in his view he does not believe the practical difficulty is being met. Gettman stated he believes it does meet the characteristics of the neighborhood but that he struggles with overcoming the practical difficulty. Gettman stated he does not know what is driving that additional 50 percent of covered area except by looking at the rest of the neighborhood and seeing that is what everybody else has done. Gettman commented he is inclined to figure out how to get to yes but that he is not seeing it right now. Bollis noted what is improving are the front yard setback and side yard setbacks. It is also true most of those lots have 50 percent hardcover, but they are smaller lots. Bollis indicated he struggles with that because there are three lots there, and while some aspects are getting better, there is room for improvement. Andrea Swan, Architect, stated the house is 50 percent more than the current house because the existing house is a cabin. Dale Olson, property owner, stated the short story is that they purchased the property in 2012. The house was built in 1920 and was uninhabitable. The property was bought with the initial intention of flipping it. which has been his thinking for the last six and a half years, but that over the years he has gotten to know the neighbors and was put in charge of the LID to eradicate the milfoil. Every single person on that street says that they do not want that lot to be split into three lots. Since the time of purchase, he has decided to stay because he likes the lake and the neighbors. Olson stated he does not want to sell it to somebody who has the intention of putting three homes there and that they want to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ do what they think is good for the property. Olson indicated they are open to suggestions on what to do and that they want to better the environment and the neighborhood in general. Andrea Swan stated it is a small house with a small garage. The existing garage is almost on the street. The proposed garage is a detached garage. Someone sought a variance tonight for a screen porch and someone on the Planning Commission commented that it is an asset. The property owner would like to have a screened-in porch and it seems reasonable for a new home. The biggest issue is that the property owners would like to grow old in this house. Ideally they would like to have the master bedroom on the main level as well as the garage that they can access from the main level. The garage requires a longer driveway and Orono requires the entire driveway to be part of the hardcover calculation. The footprint of the house is scalable to the neighboring lots. A lot of the homes on the street are front facing, which allows the driveway to be shorter, but the proposed footprint of the home is actually not large. Swan commented she is perplexed that it was denied in this case because it feels like the right thing for this lot. Ressler noted the Planning Commission has not denied it yet and that it is open for discussion. Erickson asked how many tax statements are involved. Curtis indicated there is one PID. Erickson asked if someone could subdivide this property. Curtis indicated they would need to request a subdivision, and since it is located in a half-acre district, it is not eligible to be subdivided. Erickson stated he recalls an application where they were requesting a 1-foot setback, and the end result was that it was not approved. At that time Staff’s report said that many of the homes in that area were at a seven or eight-foot rear setback. This report suggests a 10-foot setback, which may be appropriate since this is new construction. Erickson stated his difficulty would be trying to support the 6.3-foot rear setback. While that might be okay in a really high-dense area, that is not appropriate for this lot. McCutcheon stated the house is big, has retaining walls, and is close to the trail. While he can understand the frustration that everyone else in this neighborhood has maximized their lot, this lot is shallow. The setback to the rear is pretty significant and does not seem to fit the character of the neighborhood. Ressler stated the building envelope is probably the main issue. Ressler noted he lives on Crystal Bay and that he personally received five variances for his house. The one thing that was told to him at the time was to improve his position because then it is easier to mitigate. While he loves the design of the house, he worries about the precedent it sets by going beyond the 20 percent for a similar sized lot, and that sometimes it is easier to build up than out. Ressler stated growing up in this area he knows that Crystal Bay Road has evolved a great deal and a lot of that new development has been up rather than out. Having the neighbors in support of the project is helpful. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Quinlivan stated when they do the calculation for structure and you take the road out, it brings it down to the mid 10’s. The road could be considered a hardship and it seems to penalize the homeowner because the lot is so wide. Curtis stated it would bring the lot down to approximately 11,000 square feet. Quinlivan asked whether there would be consideration for that. Ressler stated when someone is requesting variances and there are other moving parts, they need to have some mitigating factors to improve the situation. The difficulty the Planning Commission has is going outside the boundaries of what the structural coverage limits are. Thiesse noted last year it was 15 percent structural coverage and the City has increased that to 20 percent. Bollis asked if anyone sees a road going through the lot as a practical difficulty. Curtis indicated the road is not included. Quinlivan noted that also drops the square footage of the lot. Thiesse stated there are other people who want to include the public right-of-way but that gets counted out. Quinlivan stated that is a practical difficulty because most properties do not have a county road or a lakeside road and making exceptions for that is what the variance process is for. Thiesse noted he misspoke earlier when he said he was of the opinion that two or three homes on that lot would be better for the neighborhood, but the City does not allow this lot to be subdivided. Ressler stated part of the job of the Planning Commission is to provide feedback to the applicant. Overall this is a tough lot to build on, and the feedback he has heard is that if the structural coverage is reduced to 20 percent, that would help reduce the other encroachments. Quinlivan asked if they would consider the road to be a practical difficulty. Ressler commented there might be some on the Planning Commission that think it is Gettman stated he would consider it a practical difficulty and he would include that in the equation. Bollis stated he feels the same way. McCutcheon asked whether they are planning on building the retaining wall. Quinlivan indicated it was something that was drawn in on the site plan and they would be willing to eliminate that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ McCutcheon stated the driveway difficulty is gaining steam and having a turnaround is desirable from a safety standpoint. This property consists of three lots and they are proposing to maximize the envelope, which makes him somewhat uneasy, but that the developer has made some valid points. Erickson stated one of the practical difficulties is that the difficulty cannot be one of the applicant’s own making. In this case this is new construction and it is entirely of the applicant’s own making. In that situation, a big increase in hardcover is not justifiable under that standard and in his view state law requires the Planning Commission to follow those standards. Ressler stated the shallow lot makes it difficult and that they should consider making their proposal a little less intense. Olson stated it has never been his intention to split the lots. Other homes in the neighborhood are literally on the back line, and to hear that their proposed setback is not good enough, is surprising. Olson stated they attempted to do what they thought was the most amenable to everybody and it is interesting to hear the comments on the setback. The neighbor next door has a 1.7-foot setback, which was authorized last year, and they are talking 10 feet. Ressler noted that was a very minor adjustment on the neighboring house. Pulling the garage back in this situation is a step in the right direction and helps mitigate the need for variances. Swan noted they are improving the rear, the front, and the side yard setbacks and that the issue seems to be the structural coverage. Ressler stated it is 100 percent. Swan stated they will need some variances for this lot no matter what and asked what would be reasonably agreeable. Ressler stated the road to some degree will likely be considered a practical difficulty, which addresses hardcover, but the structural coverage should be reduced. While he appreciates the improvements they have made, the City does not like an application exceeding the 20 percent. Thiesse noted just a year ago the City raised it to 20 percent, and for the Planning Commission to consider 31.1 percent would be a huge departure from that. Swan asked if that isn’t what variances are for. Thiesse stated it has to do with massing and staying within the character of the neighborhood. Swan asked why they have to comply with the 20 percent if the lot is nonconforming. Curtis indicated it is based on a percentage of the lot to keep the percentages equal on different sized lots, which is why Staff encouraged them to meet 20 percent since that is a hard stop. Quinlivan stated if the road is a practical difficulty, they are asking if they can be at 20 percent coverage on their lot. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, July 15, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Gettman stated 20 percent would be the 2,900 square feet. Thiesse stated he believes that still comes out over the 20 percent but that the Planning Commission is a recommending body to the City Council and that they make the final decision. Ressler stated that is quite a difference in footprint and he would love to see something that is better than what is currently being proposed. Erickson stated if they build a new house that is way bigger than anything else on that street, the question is whether that alters the nature of the neighborhood. Ressler noted there are a couple of big houses on that street but they are not as close to the street. Ressler asked whether they would like the application tabled. Quinlivan indicated he would prefer they vote on the application. Erickson moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. LA19-000069, Gordon James Construction, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, variances. Thiesse stated he would like to provide some reasons why it was denied and some rationale for where the Planning Commission would like to see it go. Thiesse stated he would like to see the structural coverage improved and that they can include the road in their practical difficulty. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 2, Gettman and McCutcheon Opposed. From:Melanie Curtis To:Jeremy Barnhart; Dustin Rief Cc:Anna Carlson Subject:FW: LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP Date:Monday, October 14, 2019 10:14:28 AM Fyi - public comment for tonight. Melanie Curtis (952.249.4627 *mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK. From: Greg Blasko [mailto:gblasko@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 14, 2019 9:49 AM To: Denny Walsh; Richard Crosby; Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals; Matt Johnson; Melanie Curtis Cc: Whitney Blasko Subject: LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP Dear Orono City Council Members, My name is Greg Blasko. My wife and I live at 3295 Crystal Bay Rd. We are the second house to the east of 3315 Crystal Bay Rd. Unfortunately, we will not be able to make the planned meeting this evening and wanted to send a quick note regarding this agenda item. We have reviewed the proposed plans and fully support the redevelopment of this property with the requested variances. We all know that this street and the sizes of the property create several practical difficulties. We feel the design does a good job of working through these difficulties as best possible. I do want to make note of the layout of the proposed driveway to the road as I know this plays into the overall hardcover. As you are all probably familiar Crystal Bay Rd is a very narrow residential road with a 15 mph speed limit. There have been way too many close calls with cars driving way too fast on this road and residents backing out of their driveways. I have been witness to several of these near incidents. I am glad to see that the Olsen's considered this with a turn around space so they are able to safely turn into the road instead of backing out into it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Greg and Whitney Blasko 3295 Crystal Bay Rd 27 September 2019 John Quinlivan 5159 Main Street, Suite 200 Maple Plain, MN 55359 RE: Application Review Timing #LA19-000069 On August 21, 2019, the City of Orono received your application for variances to redevelop the property at 3315 Crystal Bay Road. Your application was determined to be complete on September 3rd, and was heard by the Planning Commission at a public hearing on Monday, September 16th. Due to the timing of potential final action on your request falling after the 60-day review period which ends on November 2, the City hereby notifies you that it is extending the time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The initial 60-day period would end on November 2nd; the time period is now hereby extended until January 1, 2020. This is a routine extension. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Melanie Curtis Planner Copies via email: Dale & Jonmarie Olsen Andrea Swan, Architect Date Application Received: 08/21/19 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/03/19 60-Day Review Period Expires: 11/02/19 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 September 2019 Subject: #LA19-000069, Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP Public Hearing Background The Olsens have owned the subject property on Crystal Bay Road since 2012. They have proposed a plan for redevelopment to suit their family. The redevelopment plan includes some subsurface stormwater improvements to offset the proposed hardcover levels. Due to the property’s small size and depth, it’s location on Crystal Bay Road, the proximity of the lake, the road, the Dakota Rail trail to the rear there are many challenges to re-development. The proposed plan requires a number of variances. An interim use permit (IUP) is also requested as most of the property is within the 75-foot setback and they propose to export approximately 1,120 cubic yards of material. The applicant’s haul route is attached as Exhibit J which shows the trucks entering Crystal Bay Road via Shadywood Road and exiting the site through Minnetonka Beach. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a number of approvals in conjunction with redevelopment of the property, including: Variances relating to the following: • lot area; • hardcover within the 75-foot setback; • building and structure within 75-foot setback; • driveway width within the 75-foot setback; • 49% total site hardcover where 25% is allowed; • 30% building/structural coverage where 20% is the maximum allowed; • rear yard setback; • front (street) setback; and • side yard setback. An IUP for export of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of material to be hauled from the property within 75-foot setback and off site is also requested. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial as proposed. FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 2 of 10 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Requested Variances are Highlighted) Section 78-78-350 & 78-1279 Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Front (Street) 30’ building ±18’ house ±6 detached garage ±12’ house - 2’ – 0’ retaining walls Rear 30’ 3.5’ 6.3’ house NE Side 10’ 56’ house 33.6’ SW Side 10’ 51’ house 14.5’ detached garage 31.08’ Lakeshore 75’ ±49’ house ±41’ detached garage ±41’ house ±30’ new walls (various) Average Lakeshore The existing detached garage encroaches approximately 8 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; the house is currently conforming. The applicant’s proposed building improvements are shown to meet the average lakeshore setback. There are walls proposed within the average lakeshore setback which are for the most part at or below 42”. The applicant has indicated the walls may be revised. *After meeting onsite with staff, the applicant verbally agreed to remove the walls, though no revised drawings have been submitted. Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 11,100 s.f. (0.25 acre)* 149’ @ 75’ / 149’ @ OHWL *The total lot area excludes the bituminous, travelled area of Crystal Bay Road; therefore 14,459 (total) – 3,359 (road) = 11,100 square feet. Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 11,100 s.f. (0.25 acre) Allowed: 2,220 s.f. (20%) Existing: 1,226 s.f. (11%) Proposed: 3,454 s.f. (31.1%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 11,100 s.f. 2,775 s.f. (25 %) 3,666 s.f. (33%)** 5,509 s.f. (49.6%) w/in 75’ ** Note, the existing conditions hardcover calculations do not identify 75-foot zone hardcover separately. IUP for export of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of material to be hauled from the property within 75-foot setback and off site is also requested. FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 3 of 10 Applicable Regulations: Lot Area Variance (Section 78-350) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met; 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicant’s request for structural, hardcover, and setback variances results in the property’s inability to conform to all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area variance is required in order to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property consistent with other existing developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are not granted. Front and Rear Setback Variances (Section 78-350) The property is approximately 150 feet wide however, the property’s ±95 feet of depth introduces challenges. This is illustrated particularly when the average lakeshore setback (approximately 44-feet from the OHWL) is applied to the property, in addition to the 75-foot lake setback and the 30-foot rear yard setback. These required setbacks eliminate a legal building envelope, completely rendering the property “unbuildable.” Crystal Bay Road properties share many of these setback versus lot depth challenges. The City has dealt with this conflict by applying a higher priority to some of the setbacks. For example, the average lakeshore setback has been relied on more heavily than the 75 foot lake setback because of the possible impact to adjacent homes. That said, the applicant’s proposed 6.3’ foot setback on the rear of the home may not afford reasonable separation from the rear property line. Note that setback is measured at the foundation, typical improvements, including roof overhangs will encroach up to 4.3’ from the rear property line as well. Further, Staff would suggest the planning commission consider requiring a minimum 10 foot setback on the rear. Further, there is an existing fence which encroaches up to 20 feet on to the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority (HCRAA) property which the applicant indicates is to be protected and kept. Staff would recommend its removal unless expressly permitted by HCRAA. Removals, silt fencing placement, any staging, or any activity within the HCRAA property will require a temporary access permit from HCRAA. Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The 75-foot setback from the OHWL leaves only 20 feet of lot area, which is also covered by the required 30-foot rear yard setback. There is no buildable area. The new home, while proposed to meet the average lakeshore setback, includes retaining walls and hardcover within the 75 lake yard. The proposed hardcover level of 49.6% is a 1,843 square foot increase from the existing conditions. The increase is primarily resulting from the increased building coverage. The FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 4 of 10 proposed home is nearly twice the size of the existing home. The applicant is asking to exceed the 20% building coverage limit thus further exceeding the hardcover limits. Structural (Building) Coverage Variance (Section 78-1403) Existing building coverage is 11%. The applicant is proposing 3,454 square feet, or 31.1%, of building coverage. As proposed, the property exceeds the permitted structural limit by 11.1% or 1,234 square feet. As with most other Crystal Bay Road lots, this calculation is based on an adjusted lot area excluding traveled Crystal Bay Road. The applicant’s proposal exceeds that which would be allowed even if the road area was included… 20% of the unadjusted lot area (14,459 square feet) is still only 2,891 square feet of allowed structure; the proposal would still be 563 square feet over. Hardcover Variances (Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700) The applicant is proposing 49.6% total site hardcover (5,509 square feet) where 25% is permitted; and approximately 3,697 square feet within the 75-foot setback where no hardcover is permitted. Structural coverage: As noted above, the proposed building coverage in excess of the permitted 20% further exasperates the hardcover overages. If the proposed building footprint were to be reduced to be more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood e.g. 20% (2,220 square foot footprint), the resulting proposed overall hardcover would obviously be lessened. The existing hardcover level is 33%. Access Points: As proposed, the property will have a total of four improved access points on to Crystal Bay Road: 1. The stair from the upper yard on the southwest; 2. the sidewalk walkout access to the recreation room on the lower level; 3. a lower level foyer entry; and 4. the driveway. Considering the level of hardcover proposed staff would recommend elimination or consolidation of one or more access points to limit excess hardcover. Driveway: The total width of the proposed three garage doors is 35 feet; the width of the driveway/parking area as it connects with the garage is shown to be approximately 38 feet. However, in an effort to reduce the 75 foot and overall hardcover the driveway as it connects with the garage can be reduced to 35 feet. Further, 78-1681 requires a minimum turn around depth for driveways serving side loading garages to be 20 feet as measured from the garage doors. This plan reflects a three car garage with a middle stall bumped out approximately 3.5 feet from the other two, outer doors. The proposed driveway turnaround depth at the most restricted location (center door) is shown to be about 24.8 feet, and the outer doors have a depth of 28 feet. It is possible for this parking pad/garage access area to be reduced to limit excess hardcover and still meet the hardcover minimum requirements. Driveway Width Variance (Sections 78-1282; 78-1680, 78-1681) The Code permits certain hardcover improvements within the 75-foot lake setback. An 8 foot wide driveway is permitted in this area. Crystal Bay Road is a narrow roadway; its ±20 foot width FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 5 of 10 does not allow for reasonable on street parking. The applicant has proposed a 24.5 foot driveway approach including radii, with an 11 foot width as it connects to the parking area and garage access. The hardcover regulations in the code specify a minimum width to match the garage doors serving the home which is reasonable. Section 78-1282 which specifies an 8 foot maximum width appears to be in conflict in this circumstance with Section 78-1681 which requires specific minimum widths. Based on an aerial photo analysis, many of the properties along Crystal Bay Road have driveways exceeding 8 feet in width within the 75-foot setback. Staff supports this particular variance. Retaining Wall Setback Variance (Section 78-1405) Section 78-1405 (6) guides retaining walls in Orono: Retaining walls, planters and similar structures, subject to the following provisions: a) Retaining walls, planters and similar structures may be located in all required yards when all of the following conditions are met: 1. The structure is located at least ten feet from the edge of the traveled roadway; The applicant has verbally indicated that he intends to remove the retaining walls along the road, though no revised plans have been submitted. Staff’s analysis is based on those walls remaining. As shown an approximate 4 foot retaining wall is proposed along portions of Crystal Bay Road. 2. The structure is not located within a drainage, utility, or other easement, except upon approval in writing for an encroachment agreement by the city; or similar approval from another regulatory and/or utility agency; 3. The structure creates no impacts to drainage direction, rate or volume for adjacent properties. 4. The structure is two feet in height or less above existing grade. b) Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding two feet in height above existing ground level or which are located less than five feet from a side property line, shall require a permit and upon recommendation of the building official may require city council review or a conditional use permit per the provisions of section 78-967. c) Retaining walls, planters and similar structures exceeding the allowed height of a fence shall be located so as to meet the required accessory structure setbacks established for that yard. Historically, in Orono, housing development has been designed in partnership with the lot. The unique slope, tree placement, and configuration of each lot has resulted in Orono’s unique housing character. Noting the number, height, and placement of retaining walls, it appears that the lot is being adjusted to accommodate a desired house: 1. The proposed side load garage requires a nearly 8’ retaining wall between the auto court and the property to the east. 2. The creation of a flat lawn area to the west of the house requires raising of the grade up to 8 feet from existing levels. 3. The proposed top of wall along Crystal Bay Road is up to 5 feet higher than Crystal Bay Road inches off the paved surface. Staff does not support variances that allow retaining walls higher than 2 feet in the required yards that appear to result in development inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 6 of 10 In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Due to the scope, some of the proposed variances are not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. However, the small, shallow lot does include difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to permit redevelopment. The lot is also challenged by Crystal Bay Road which runs through the lake yard. The average lakeshore setback is proposed to be met protecting views of the lake for adjacent properties. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A number of the type of variances proposed to develop a nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan, such as lot area, rear setback, lake setback, and some level of hardcover variance. However the hardcover and structural coverage levels proposed are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the required 75- foot lake setback, front setback, and rear yard setback, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties. However, the requested structural and hardcover levels, amount of rear setback variance and retaining wall encroachments proposed within the lake yard appear to be unreasonable and are not supported by practical difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The uniquely small size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. There should be consideration for variance approvals from the hardcover limitation, the lake and street setback, the rear setback and the lot area requirements. Nevertheless, the proposed hardcover and structural levels are above and beyond that which would be supported by practical difficulty; and FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 7 of 10 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home which is reasonable, however as designed the home and improvements do not fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family residence is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size and depth with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property’s substandard size and applied setbacks creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area, rear yard and lake setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant as when combined they eliminate any legal buildable area on the property. The variances for the hardcover and structural coverage levels proposed are a request beyond preservation of a basic property right. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting some level of hardcover variance, the driveway width, lot area, front, rear yard and lake setback variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. However the proposed level of structure and hardcover is not supported by practical difficulty and is contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for lot area, rear, front, and lakeshore setback including some more appropriately scaled level of hardcover variances are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The additional variances for hardcover and structure as proposed would be strictly for the convenience of the property owner and unsupported by practical difficulties. 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. FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 8 of 10 Applicable Regulation: Interim Use Permit (Section 78-1726) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant an Interim Use Permit (IUP). On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city council determines that the use will comply with the following: 1) The use will meet the general performance standards in section 78-916 of this chapter; the proposed grading will conform to the standards within Section 78-916 of the Zoning Code. 2) The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district; this statement is true. 3) The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site; the proposed grading activity will be conducted in conjunction with the development of the new single family home on the property. This statement is true. 4) The use will not be in conflict with any provisions of the city code on an ongoing basis; the proposed grading activity will not be in conflict with the Code. 5) The use will not adversely affect the adjacent property, the surrounding neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located; this standard requires that the proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The result of the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the Property so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the export of fill materials. However, activity of exporting approximately 1,120 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property during construction can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors particularly on this extremely narrow roadway. The grading work on the Property as well as the forthcoming construction of the proposed home could result in additional noise, dust, vibration and traffic on the haul routes and immediate neighbors. To the degree possible, negative impacts should be limited and mitigated. Trucks hauling material shall observe the speed and traffic laws and provide on site traffic control to improve safety. The applicant’s proposal to exit the site through Minnetonka Beach residential streets is inconsistent with the city’s goal to getting to county roads as soon as practical. All local streets used for the haul route should be inspected prior to activity that any damage can be repaired. 6) The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public; the property owner, builder, and contractors will be responsible for keeping debris off of the public roadways. The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading and construction project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. 7) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty; the conclusion of the grading activity will coincide with the finalization of the construction of the proposed home on the property. An as-built survey will be submitted to confirm conformance with the approved grading plan at the closing of the permits. FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 9 of 10 8) And the applicant agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for the use, including a requirement for a financial security to ensure removal of all evidence of the use upon termination, and restoration of the site to prior or better conditions. The conditions shall be set forth in a development agreement between the property owner and the city, which agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds. The conditions of approval will be documented as required. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit C, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The City adopted ordinances over the past few years to address inadequacies in the small, and/or narrow existing properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75- foot setback for hardcover on Tier 1 lots. On Crystal Bay Road, Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the lot, and location of the roadway and lake affecting the property which justify the variances allowing development and redevelopment. However, the applicant is proposing redevelopment on this property at a scale which is unsupported by practical difficulties, and is far beyond what is reasonable for the property and neighborhood to support. In particular, the proposed plan for 49.6% hardcover and 31.1% structural coverage far exceeds the reasonable flexibility allowed by variance from a staff perspective. In fact, staff finds the proposed structure and hardcover levels do not reflect sensitivity to the neighborhood character or community goals established by ordinance. Engineer Comments The City’s Engineer has reviewed the proposed plans and makes the following comments (reference L201 Grading and Drainage Plan). 1. Plans depict a retaining wall and some monuments immediately adjacent to the travel way (pavement) of the road. The wall, if needed, should be set back 10 feet from the edge of pavement. This setback is required for traffic safety, street maintenance operations, and to avoid impact on the water main located at the edge of pavement. 2. It appears the drainage design will utilize underground infiltration (French drains). Applicant should provide the calculations used to size the system. Also a detail of the French drain should be included in the plan set. 3. The drainage system appears to have drain tiles running though the root system of a large tree that is supposed to be saved near the road in the 75-foot setback. Also the proposed retaining wall appears to cut through that tree’s root system. 4. Prior to building permit review, the site plan should be updated to show all existing utilities in accordance the city survey and site plan requirements. 5. The current haul route for the 1120 CYs of soil is shown using city streets within Minnetonka Beach. This should be coordinated with Minnetonka Beach. 6. Based on the amount of soil removal and proximity to the lake, a complete stormwater pollution prevention plan will be required as part of the building permit review. FILE #LA19-000069 16 Sept 2019 Page 10 of 10 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends denial of the plan as proposed. Recognizing some variances are necessary and appropriate, Staff met with the property owner and their team on a number of occasions and recommended a reduction in both structure and hardcover in order to reach a plan including variances which were more reasonable. The resulting plan does not follow staff’s guidance. The applicant should be directed to submit a revised plan which reduces structural coverage to a conforming level, and reduces the superfluous hardcover. Staff does not have a specific hardcover level in mind, however feels that a level less than 40% may be supportable. The building footprint should be modified to meet a rear setback of 10-feet. The use of retaining walls should be reevaluated. The existing fence, and any other encroachments on the HCRAA property should be eliminated. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Applicant Narrative Exhibit C. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit D. Existing Survey & Hardcover Exhibit E. Photo of Existing Site Exhibit F. Site Plan - Proposed Exhibit G. Plans and Elevations - Proposed Exhibit H. Renderings - Proposed Exhibit I. Hardcover Calculations – Proposed Exhibit J. Cut & Fill and Haul Route Exhibit K. Truckload Cubic Yardage Exhibit Exhibit L. Aerial Photos Exhibit M. Property Owners List Exhibit N. Plat Map References 2040 Community Management Plan AGENDA ITEM Prepared By:RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agenda item is to adopt a Resolution Certifying the Assessment Roll of the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District. 2. Background. On July 24th, 2017 the Orono City Council passed resolution number 6871, A Resolution Approving the Establishment of the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District. The district is required to hold an annual meeting in which it adopts an annual budget and a tax roll. On September 17, 2019 the district held its annual meeting and adopted its 2020 budget and tax roll. The district has forwarded the assessment roll to the City for certification to Hennepin County. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolution levying the Assessment Roll for the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt the Resolution Certifying the Assessment Roll of the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District. Exhibits A. Assessment Role B. Resolution C. Annual Meeting Notice D. Annual Meeting Minutes E. CBLID Budget Item No.: 29 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Carman Bay Lake Improvement District Levy Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report City of Orono Special Assessment Certification Rolls Tax Assessment for 2020 Carman Bay Lake Improvement District Adopted at CBLID Annual Meeting September 17, 2019 House # Street PID Catagory Total Principal 2525 Kelly Ave 2011723110022 LS $300.00 2545 Kelly Ave 2011723110023 LS $300.00 3555 Frederick St 2011723120017 LS $300.00 3565 Frederick St 2011723120068 LS $300.00 3585 Frederick St 2011723120067 LS $300.00 2474 Carman St 2011723120027 LS $300.00 2480 Carman St 2011723120028 LS $300.00 2509 Kelly Ave 2011723120037 LS $300.00 2515 Kelly Ave 2011723120038 LS $300.00 2523 Kelly Ave 2011723120039 LS $300.00 2497 Kelly Ave 2011723120051 Cove $300.00 2499 Kelly Ave 2011723120052 Cove $300.00 2501 Kelly Ave 2011723120053 Cove $300.00 2503 Kelly Ave 2011723120054 Cove $300.00 2440 Carman St 2011723120058 Cove $300.00 2450 Carman St 2011723120059 Cove $300.00 2507 Kelly Ave 2011723120063 Cove $300.00 2414 Carman St 2011723120064 Cove $300.00 2490 Carman St 2011723120065 LS $300.00 2470 Carman St 2011723120066 LS $300.00 2697 Kelly Ave 2011723140007 Cove $300.00 2695 Kelly Ave 2011723140008 Cove $300.00 3225 Carman Rd 2011723140009 Cove $300.00 3245 Carman Rd 2011723140010 Cove $300.00 3265 Carman Rd 2011723140011 Cove $300.00 3275 Carman Rd 2011723140012 LS $300.00 3285 Carman Rd 2011723140013 LS $300.00 3295 Carman Rd 2011723140014 LS $300.00 3300 Carman Rd 2011723140015 LS $300.00 2565 Kelly Ave 2011723140019 LS $300.00 2585 Kelly Ave 2011723140020 LS $300.00 2587 Kelly Ave 2011723140021 LS $300.00 2605 Kelly Ave 2011723140022 LS $300.00 2655 Kelly Ave 2011723140025 LS $300.00 2625 Kelly Ave 2011723140026 LS $300.00 2500 Casco Point Rd 2011723210010 LS $300.00 2530 Casco Point Rd 2011723210014 LS $300.00 2528 Casco Point Rd 2011723210015 LS $300.00 2510 Casco Point Rd 2011723210016 LS $300.00 2520 Casco Point Rd 2011723210017 LS $300.00 2590 Casco Point Rd 2011723210034 LS $300.00 2480 Casco Point Rd 2011723210037 LS $300.00 2540 Casco Point Rd 2011723210038 LS $300.00 2660 Casco Point Rd 2011723240002 LS $300.00 2684 Casco Point Rd 2011723240003 LS $300.00 2726 Caroline Ave 2011723240005 LS $300.00 2691 Caroline Ave 2011723240025 LS $300.00 2690 Caroline Ave 2011723240033 LS $300.00 1 2696 Caroline Ave 2011723240034 LS $300.00 2618 Casco Point Rd 2011723240038 LS $300.00 2648 Casco Point Rd 2011723240039 LS $300.00 2732 Caroline Ave 2011723240041 LS $300.00 2600 Casco Point Rd 2011723240043 LS $300.00 2696 Ethel Ave 2011723240044 LS $300.00 2697 Ethel Ave 2011723240045 LS $300.00 2691 Ethel Ave 2011723240046 LS $300.00 2914 Casco Point Rd 2011723310031 Cove $300.00 2916 Casco Point Rd 2011723310032 Cove $300.00 2920 Casco Point Rd 2011723310033 Cove $300.00 2930 Casco Point Rd 2011723310034 Cove $300.00 2940 Casco Point Rd 2011723310035 Cove $300.00 2948 Casco Point Rd 2011723310036 Cove $300.00 2990 Casco Point Rd 2011723310038 Cove $300.00 3700 Casco Ave 2011723310040 LS $300.00 3630 Casco Ave 2011723310041 LS $300.00 3600 Casco Ave 2011723310042 LS $300.00 3650 Casco Ave 2011723310043 LS $300.00 2970 Casco Point Rd 2011723310060 Cove $300.00 2980 Casco Point Rd 2011723310061 Cove $300.00 3020 Casco Point Rd 2011723340025 Cove $300.00 3026 Casco Point Rd 2011723340026 Cove $300.00 3570 Ivy Pl 2011723420037 LS $300.00 3600 Ivy Pl 2011723420038 LS $300.00 3550 Ivy Pl 2011723420016 LS $300.00 3548 Ivy Pl 2011723420017 LS $300.00 3546 Ivy Pl 2011723420018 LS $300.00 3534 Ivy Pl 2011723420019 LS $300.00 3516 Ivy Pl 2011723420022 LS $300.00 3560 Ivy Pl 2011723420027 LS $300.00 3486 Ivy Pl 2011723420031 LS $300.00 3532 Ivy Pl 2011723420033 LS $300.00 3545 Ivy Pl 2011723420034 Cove $300.00 3535 Ivy Pl 2011723420035 Cove $300.00 3508 Ivy Pl 2011723420036 LS $300.00 3229B Casco Circle 2011723430003 LS $300.00 3229 Casco Circle 2011723430004 LS $300.00 3466 Ivy Pl 2011723430006 LS $300.00 3251 Casco Circle 2011723430007 LS $300.00 3249 Casco Circle 2011723430008 LS $300.00 3247 Casco Circle 2011723430009 LS $300.00 3243 Casco Circle 2011723430010 LS $300.00 3237 Casco Circle 2011723430013 LS $300.00 3235 Casco Circle 2011723430014 LS $300.00 3233 Casco Circle 2011723430015 LS $300.00 3231 Casco Circle 2011723430016 LS $300.00 3241 Casco Circle 2011723430050 LS $300.00 3034 Casco Point Rd 2011723430051 Cove $300.00 3030 Casco Point Rd 2011723430052 Cove $300.00 2702 Walters Port Ln 2111723230039 Cove $300.00 2701 Kelly Ave 2111723230040 Cove $300.00 2 2699 Kelly Ave 2111723230041 Cove $300.00 2703 Walters Port Ln 2111723230042 Cove $300.00 2705 Walters Port Ln 2111723230043 Cove $300.00 2707 Walters Port Ln 2111723230044 Cove $300.00 2710 Pence Ln 2111723230046 LS $300.00 2709 Walters Port Ln 2111723230059 LS $300.00 2791 Pheasant Rd 2111723320001 LS $300.00 2795 Pheasant Rd 2111723320002 LS $300.00 2799 Pheasant Rd 2111723320003 LS $300.00 2800 Pheasant Rd 2111723320004 LS $300.00 2789 Pheasant Rd 2111723320005 LS $300.00 2715 Pence Ln 2111723320007 LS $300.00 112 Properties Total $33,600.00 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION CERTIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF THE CARMAN BAY LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Whereas, The Carman Bay Lake Improvement District has adopted its 2020 budget and tax levy; and Whereas, The district has forwarded the assessment roll to the City for approval; and Whereas, Hennepin County requires the City to approve the assessment roll for certification to the property tax rolls. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono as follows: That the Hennepin County Special Assessment Division is hereby authorized to place the costs totaling $33,600, on the 2019 property tax rolls, payable in 2020. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 14th day of October, 2019. ATTEST: _____________________________________ ______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor -Public Notice Ad Proof- Ad ID: 968218 Copy LIne: Annual Meeting PO Number: Start: 08/31/19 Stop: 08/31/2019 Total Cost: $23.13 # of Lines: 27 Total Depth: 3.0 # of Inserts: 1 Ad Class: 155 Phone # (763) 691-6000 Email: publicnotice@ecm-inc.com Rep No: SW700 Date: 08/16/19 Account #: 480564 Customer: CARMAN BAY LAKE IMPROVEMENT Address: 3241 CASCO CIRCLE WAYZATA Telephone: (612) 716-1932 Fax: This is the proof of your ad scheduled to run on the dates indicated below. Please proof read carefully if changes are needed, please contact us prior to deadline at Cambridge (763) 691-6000 or email at publicnotice@ecm-inc.com Ad Proof Enlarged Publications: Laker Pioneer Contract-Gross CARMAN BAY LAKE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING Notice is hereby given that the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District will hold their Annual Meet- ing Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. at Good Shepherd Church located at 3745 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, MN 55391. The proposed budget for 2020 will be discussed and voted upon. We also will be electing 4 board mem- bers for a 2 year term. The cur- rent 4 incumbents have all agreed to serve another 2 year term if so elected. All members of the public are welcome to attend. Anyone having questions rela- tive to this meeting may contact Steve Nielsen, Chair CBLID at (612) 716-1932 or info@carmansbay.org Published in the Laker Pioneer August 31, 2019 968218 Carman Bay Lake Improvement District Annual Meeting Minutes Meeting Minutes Date: September 17th 2019 Place: Good Shepherd Church, 3745 Shoreline Drive, Wayzata, MN. 55391 Present: Steve Nielsen, Kevin Kennefick, Mark Kieper, Mary Tucker, Ted Chalupsky, and Dave Owen. Mark Plewka I. Call to Order Meeting was called to order at 6pm by Chairman Steve Nielsen. II. Establish Quorum A quorum was established of the seven board members. III. Proof on Notice of Meeting Proof of Notice of Meeting (Orono Website and Post Office, Published in Laker/Pioneer newspaper) A maIling was sent out to all the residents. IV. Approval of Minutes Approval of Minutes from August 27, 2019 Chalupsky moved to approve meeting minutes. 2nd by Owen VOTE by the Board, Ayes 7, Nays 0). MOTION PASSES V. Old Business CBLID web page established on Orono web site. https://www.ci.orono.mn.us/Search?searchPhrase=Carman%20Bay%20Lake%20Improv ement%20District%20(CBLID) VI. New Business 1. 2019 Carman Bay treatment update by Patrick Selter of PLM • Procellacor used in Zone 1A- 12 acres (guarantee of 3 yrs) • 24.9 Acres treat with Diquat. • 37 total acres treated for milfoil • Treatment costs increased about $9k above budgeted amount due to increased amounts of milfoil found. • Results were very effective. Only 2% of milfoil occurrence in Carman Bay after fall survey. This is the lowest occurrence we have ever accomplished in our bay wide treatments. Our goal is to have less than 20% milfoil post treatment. • 22 acres were treated for Curly Leaf in May. It can take 7-10 years to deplete the seed bank. We are in year 3 of treating Curly Leaf. • Wild Celery, a native species, is prevalent in every bay this year whether treated or not treated for AIS • DNR will be giving out grants this year for AIS treatment. Application needs to be submitted in January which Patrick will assist us with. 2. Discussion of proposed 2020 Budget from Kevin Kennefick. • Much of the 2018 and 2019 budget went to cove treatment. This is a change from the past because now milfoil is being found in the coves. • Board recommends a proposal to have a one tier system of $300 per resident for cove and lakeshore residents. This will raise $33.6K for 2020. • We would like to build our reserve for when we may need to react to any new invasive species. 3. Motion to assign tax levy of $300 per property in the CBLID for AIS treatment in 2020 made by Tucker and 2nd by Kennefick, Voice vote taken with all residents present. All present were in favor and there was no decent. MOTION PASSES. 4. Election of 4 open board members for a 2 year term was taken via paper ballots passed out at the meeting. The board members elected for 2 year terms are: Ted Chalupsky, Mark Kieper, Dave Owen, and Mark Plewka. Official ballots were handed out to all in attendance. No write ins were recorded. The officers for the next year are: Steve Nielsen Chair, Mark Plewka VP, Mary Tucker Secretary, and Kevin Kennefick Treasurer. VII. Adjournment Motion made by Kennefick and 2nd by Chalupsky to adjourn meeting. VOTE by the board, Ayes 7, Nayes 0. Motion Passes and meeting adjourned at 7:38pm. Attachment: 2020 CBLID Proposed Budget Submitted by Secretary: Mary Tucker Carman Bay Lake Improvement District 2020 Proposed Budget Source of Funds Caryover from prior year $12,949.12 Tax receipts projected for 2020 $33,617.50 Total Available $46,566.62 Expenses PLM:CLP and EWM Delineation $2,400.00 CLP Treatment Diquat $3,500.00 EWM Treatment Diquat $4,000.00 EWM Treatment ProcellaCor $17,600.00 Point Intercept Survey $2,400.00 Total PLM $29,900.00 Misc Exp $250.00 Total Expenses $30,150.00 Remaining Carryover $16,416.62 Note: CLP is Curly Leaf Pondweed EWM is Eurasian Water Milfoil Tribune (Diquat) is a less expensive treatment used in narrow bands of Milfoil ProcellaCor is a new treatment for dense Milfoil control 1 PLM Treatment details Quantity Cost per unit Toatl Cost in acres Curly Leaf Pondweed Diquat 15.79 $380.00 $6,000 Eurasion Milfoil ProcellaCor 4.96 $1,613.00 $8,000 Eurasian Milfoil Diquat 10 $250.00 $2,500 Check Register check #Jan-18 Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-18 19-Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec-19 est Beginning Balance $13,284.07 $13,284.07 $13,284.07 $13,284.07 $13,534.07 $13,437.44 $13,437.44 $13,437.44 $27,223.29 $27,223.29 $15,533.32 $15,411.09 Total $21,964.50 $21,959.81 $21,955.65 $21,951.49 $21,947.33 $21,873.84 $21,869.68 $21,865.52 $21,861.36 $5,851.09 $5,851.09 $5,851.09 Deposits $250.00 $13,808.98 $6,553.41 $20,612.39 10358.16 Expenses: PLM Treatment $9,431.21 $9,431.21 26227.38 PLM Point intercept $2,200.00 $2,200.00 Delux Check $69.64 $69.64 Steve Nielsen $58.76 $58.76 67.76 ECM 1501 $26.99 $23.13 $50.12 26.99 23.13 50 Mary Tucker Internet site $123.00 $123.00 42.34 100 p.o. box $0.00 46.00 Google test -$0.77 -$0.77 4.69 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 4.16 50 Ending Balance $13,284.07 $13,284.07 $13,284.07 $13,534.07 $13,437.44 $13,437.44 $13,437.44 $27,223.29 $27,223.29 $15,533.32 $15,411.09 $21,964.50 $21,959.81 $21,955.65 $21,951.49 $21,947.33 $21,873.84 $21,869.68 $21,865.52 $21,861.36 $5,851.09 $5,851.09 $5,851.09 $5,851.09 Estimated misc expenses 2 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose: To designate how to allocate proceeds received from a right of way vacation. 2. Background: The Council approved the vacation of right away on July 22, 2019 for land located adjacent to Forest Lake associated with application LA19-000017 in which a contribution in lieu of the vacation was received by the City of $35,000. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends allocating the proceeds to the Parks Fund COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to allocate proceeds received from right of way vacation to the Parks Fund. Reference A. July 22, 2019 City Council Minutes, Item #13. LA19-000017 Stephen and Jennifer Paidosh, 4300 North Shore Drive + 1453 Park Drive, ROW Vacation. Item No.: 30 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Designate Contributions received by the City Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda Section: City Administrator’s Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose: The Labor Agreement for Police Sergeants is set to expire on December 31st, 2019. The City has met with the Sergeants’ Union (Law Enforcement Labor Services (LELS Local No. 168) to negotiate a new labor agreement. 2. Background: There was considerable negotiation time spent on wages, insurance and a focus on longer term employee retention. • Three year contract duration: 2020, 2021 and 2022 • Wages o 10% above police officer top pay (top patrol plus top longevity) equivalent to 5% in 2020 o 3% in 2021 o 2% on 1/1/22 and 1% on 7/1/22 • Insurance contribution o $915 for singles and $1,472.50 for family in 2020 o $915 for singles and $1,472.50 plus 50% of any increase to the family premium in 2021 o $915 for singles and the amount established in 2021 plus 50% of any increase to the family premium. o Request for a representative to be a part of insurance selection committee for 2021 cycle. • Longevity o Addition of a longevity step at 18 years of service an additional 11% will be added to base. • Vacation o Additional 8 hours for employees over 20 years. • Compensatory Time o Adjusted compensatory bank to accommodate 12 hour schedules, moved from 40 hour max to 48 hour max and from 20 hour annual carry over to 24 hour carry over. • Court Standby Time: o Adjusted to match Police Officers’ agreement language • Other o Items discussed and not agreed to: increase of sick leave bank, increase of vacation bank, specialty pay for investigators, and Health Savings Account contributions. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends adopting the Police Sergeants Labor agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached “Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and Law Enforcement Labor Services (Local No. 168) – Police Sergeants 2020-2022”. Exhibits A. Labor Agreement between the City of Orono and Law Enforcement Labor Services, Inc. Local No. 168 Police Sergeants: January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2022. Item No.: 31 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Labor Agreement with Sergeants LELS Local #168 Presenter: Dustin Rief Agenda Section: City Administrator AGENDA ITEM 1. Purpose. The meeting will be closed as permitted by section 13D.05, Subdivision 3(c), to consider offers to purchase City owned properties identified as PID’s: 1711723430115; 17117230117; 1711723430119; and 1711723430123 Item No.: 32 Date: October 14, 2019 Item Description: Closed Session Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda Section: Closed Session