Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
11-12-2019 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 6:00 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 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 October 28, 2019 2.City Council Work Session Minutes of October 28, 2019 3.Claims/Bills 4.Credit Card Convenience Fee 5.Approval of Rental Licenses 6.Approval Proposed Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2020 7.Resolution of Appreciation for Jackie Young 8.Approval of Recording Service Agreement – TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial for Meeting Minutes 9.Approve to Dispose of City Property – Office Filing Cabinets 10.Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Years 2019, 2020 and 2021 11.Approval of Legal Services Agreement – Campbell Knutson 12.2018 Streets Reconstruction Project – Pay Request No. 5 – Final 13.Orono Preserve – Formal Acceptance Public Improvements – Resolution 14.Approval to Dispose of Forfeited Vehicle 15.LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP – Resolution 16.LA19-000079 – Stephanie Griffin o/b/o Weekley Homes, 580 Sandhill Drive, Trail Vacation and Realignment – Resolution 17.LA19-000081 – David & Stacey Royal, 3135 Jamestown Rd, Variance – Resolution 18.LA19-000082 – Alexander Design Group o/b/o John & Christine Buboltz, 1973 Fagerness Point Rd –Resolution 19.LA19-000083 – Jim Cleary Everlast Enterprises Inc., 315 Crestview Ave, Variances – Resolution Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Agenda Council Meeting Tuesday, November 12, 2019, 6:00 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 Planning Department Report 20. LA19-000074 – William Griffith o/b/o Theodore Bonnett, 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, Request for street vacation 21. LA19-000078 – LakeWest Development, 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Review Mayor/Council Report City Administrator Report 22. Approval of Official 2020 Calendar City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2019 11-18-19 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday 6:30 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) 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. 12-24-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 12-25-19 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 2020 01-01-20 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 01-06-19 Parks Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:30 p.m. 01-13-16 City Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 9 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson, Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, 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 OCTOBER 14, 2019 2. CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 14, 2019 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 5. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT 6. COUNCIL CHAMBERS TECHNOLOGY UPGRADE 7. APPOINTMENT OF 2019 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 8. #851 PORTABLE GENERATOR REPLACEMENT 9. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION 10. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY 10A. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION FOR RICK M EYERS, PARK COMMISSION CHAIR, RESOLUTION NO. 7039 15. LA18-000038 JAMES AND MARY JUNDT, 1400 BRACKETS POINT ROAD, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 2 APPROVAL Printup moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as revised, with the addition of Item No. 10A and Item No. 15. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS None MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 9 PUBLIC HEARING 11. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT BILLS: RESOLUTION NOS. 7035 & 7036 Olson stated each year the City certifies to Hennepin County unpaid general accounts receivable in the amount of $50 or more to be collected with the following year’s taxes. At this time the City has one invoice for a sewer connection fee in the amount of $5,250. Prior to issuing this invoice, the owner of the property requested the City consider special assessing the connection fee, which is a departure from normal. Staff informed the property owner that they cannot approve it but that the Council had to do it. As a result, the accountant issued an invoice in the amount of the connection fee, which has not been paid. Tonight the Council can either approve a special assessment with a three percent interest rate, which is similar to what has been done in recent assessments, or certify it as a delinquent bill, at which point it would be eight percent for one year and the property owner would likely just pay the invoice up front. Walsh asked if the City has ever done something like this in the past. Olson stated in the past the City had an illegal wetland that was filled, and the property owner claimed the City jumped the gun on fixing the violation. In that situation the City approved a five-year assessment at zero percent interest. There was also a property across the street where the City paid for their sewer connection and special assessed it to the property because the person was not able to come up with funding on their own. In that situation it was a leaking septic system. Johnson asked if there is a primary residence on the property. Olson stated there is. Johnson asked if this is a hardship situation. Olson stated if he remembers correctly, the property owner spent $30,000 getting the connection from the house to the City’s sewer main. A sewer line was put in in the neighborhood, but this property was not included in that original project and then their septic failed. Edwards indicated they had received a failing septic service notice, and the options were to either replace the septic or connect to the city sewer. The property was already in the MUSA, and because there was an abutting sewer line, they asked whether they could connect to city sewer. The property owner is required to pay for the physical connection, and they asked if the fees the City charges could be assessed to them as opposed to a lump sum at the beginning. Walsh commented the City does not want to be the bank for anyone who requests some special service. Printup asked if Staff has a preference for how the City proceeds. Olson stated if it is not assessed over time, his understanding is that the property owner will simply pay it. Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. There were no public comments on this item. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 9 Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at 7:12 p.m. Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7035, a Resolution for the Certification of Delinquent 2019 General Service Charges to Hennepin County for Collection with the 2020 Property Taxes and to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7036, a Resolution Approving the Special Assessment of a Sewer Connection Charge. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 12. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES, RESOLUTION NO. 7037 Olson stated each year the City certifies to Hennepin County all unpaid annual service charges for the septic program, the recycling program, and all delinquent sewer and water accounts of $50 or more. Attached to Staff’s report is a listing of properties that are delinquent as of Friday and they will have until November 22 to pay. The amount to be certified is $125,840.06. The City Council should hold a public hearing and vote approving the resolution. Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this item. Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at p.m. Seals moved, Printup seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7037, a Resolution for the Certification of Delinquent 2019 Water and Sewer Utility Service Charges, Recycling Program Fees, On-Site Sewage treatment (Septic) Program, Storm Water Charges to Hennepin County for Collection with the 2020 Property Taxes. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 13. 2010 STREET PROJECT UPDATE AND SELECTION Edwards stated this item is to update the City Council on the 2020 street maintenance projects and refine the list of roads to be completed. Since the Council last discussed this in the spring, Staff has received the design preliminary numbers from the consulting engineer. In addition, some of the assumptions that Staff used have changed slightly. As a result, there are more roads on the list for next year than the City can currently afford. Staff has placed them in a priority order and those are the ones highlighted in green. Also included in Staff’s report are the estimated costs for the other utility funds that help fund the road projects. While those funds have adequate funding at this time, the limiting factor is the pavement fund. Staff made some assumptions early in the planning phase on what type of project would be required on each road. As an example, Casco Circle was originally projected to require a mill and overlay, but after a more thorough review, Staff now feels a total reclaim is necessary in order to help make all the storm sewer improvements work. Edwards noted the engineering work that has been done on these roads is still valid and will not need to be redone. Printup asked if all the preliminary work can be done on all the roads. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 9 Edwards stated the design work can be completed. Walsh stated the City’s goal is to continue to increase the road management levy until it is approximately $1 million. The fund currently has $620,000 right now. Walsh suggested the City continue with the projects in the order listed with the removal of Casco Circle and replacing it with Togo, Briar, and Fox since it is anticipated the City will be receiving some extra funds which have not already been allocated. Casco Circle will be the number one priority on the list to get approved for 2021. There were no public comments regarding this item. Edwards noted the portion of Fox Street slated for improvement is the portion that is currently gravel. Staff would recommend Dickenson, Russell, and Fox be completed at the same time since they are all in the exact same area of the City. Combining those together for 2020 or 2021 would make sense. Walsh stated they have had a lot of residents that were promised road improvements and the City never got them done. Fox is probably the only gravel road in the City and this is a good opportunity to get some of these done. Printup moved, Johnson seconded, to direct the City Engineer to move forward with design and coordination of the 2020 street maintenance projects as highlighted in Staff report, with the removal of Casco Circle and the addition of Togo Road, Fox Street east of Orono Orchard, and Briar Street. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 14. OUTDOOR RECREATION GRANT AGREEMENT APPROVAL FOR BIG ISLAND Edwards noted the City did apply for a grant from the DNR for improvements at the Big Island Park. The City has received preliminary notice that that grant has been approved subject to some additional administrative actions. Those actions have been taken and the DNR has sent over the grant agreement for approval and signature. Overall the grant is for $200,000, which is a matching grant. If the City approves and signs the grant, they are agreeing to come up with another $200,000 in funding. Twenty percent of that must come directly from the City but the remaining amount can come from other sources. The other stipulation in the grant agreement is that the City will have to encumber the property on its title stating it is public park going into perpetuity. Johnson stated the other thing is maintaining the ADA access into perpetuity. Johnson asked what kind of burden that places on the City. Edwards stated the main portion of the project is to improve ADA access to the island and trails. Those trails will be granite chipped trails and ongoing maintenance is not that onerous. The biggest expense is getting the grades to meet the ADA standards. Once that is done, there will not be a lot of expense and it is anticipated that every few years the City will have to patch any holes in the trails. Johnson asked whether this covers the dock. Edwards indicated the grant does not cover the docks but simply the trails. One trail leads from the dock up to the lookout point and another trail leads down to the beach. There are three main areas where there MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 9 is activity, and with the funds from the grant and with City funds, the goal is to get anybody with any kind of disability from the three main areas to one another. Other aspects of the grant include a pavilion-like structure up in the lookout area and provision of some ADA bathroom features and installation of interpretative signage, but those are smaller items. Seals asked if those trails are intended to connect. Edwards stated they are. Currently the park is covered with an easement that was granted by the City to the Watershed District. Within that easement is the recreation area and the lookout area, which is where all of the construction of the pavilion and the bathroom will happen. The easement does restrict what can happen in the natural areas and prohibits the use of asphalt or concrete on the trails, but the City is able to use a rock type surface, which is what is planned. Seals asked what the priority of projects is within the grant since there is no guarantee there will be enough in donations. Edwards stated the grant was written and granted based on providing accessibility. Currently the plan includes two bathrooms at a cost of approximately $70,000 apiece. If there is a budgeting concern, the City could drop one of the bathrooms. Staff is currently working with the engineer consultant and landscape consultant. One bathroom would be placed near the visitor’s center since it would be easier to maintain. Seals asked whether the City is obligated to fund everything if sufficient donations are not received. Edwards stated the City would be reimbursed for half of any money that is spent on the project under the grant. Walsh pointed out the City portion is coming out of park dedication funds and not the General Fund. The 501(3)(c) was formed specifically to help raise funds. Currently they have pledges for $40,000. Walsh commented there is tremendous history associated with the island and the Veterans camp has been there since World War I. There also used to be 40 cabins out there as well as an amusement park. Over time it is the City’s goal to have an archeological study completed of the island. Johnson asked if part of the grant incudes a responsibility for the City to maintain a dock. Walsh stated when the City purchased the property, there was an Island Management Plan that was adopted, which provided access to the veterans, and that a dock is necessary. Rief stated a dock is already a requirement. Johnson asked what assurances there are that the bathrooms will not be vandalized and whether the City has looked at seasonal structures rather than something permanent. Edwards stated the City has looked at using temporary structures but there is no way to get a weekly service truck out to the island. The other structures that were on the island were predominantly constructed out of wood and built more to a residential standard. Staff has looked at best practices at other park systems and what is being considered is a preformed concrete structure with large vault type MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 9 toilets made predominantly out of concrete. Wood and other burnable material will be used as little as possible, which naturally drives up the costs. Walsh noted the visitor’s center has already been improved and security cameras have been installed. Seals moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Outdoor Recreation Grant Agreement with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources for Big Island and to authorize Mayor Walsh to sign the agreement on behalf of the City. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 16. LA19-000067 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP ON BEHALF OF MARK AND KRISTIE TIES, 3129 CASCO CIRCLE, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7038 Sven Gustafson, Stonewood; Kathy Alexander, Alexander Design Group; and Mark and Kristie Ties, Property Owners, were present. Curtis noted at the last meeting the City Council directed Staff to draft an approval resolution. Since that time, the City has received a letter from the neighbor’s attorney, which has been included in Council’s packet. Staff is requesting the Council adopt or amend the resolution that has been provided. Walsh stated he will allow three minutes for each party. Phil Kaplan, Attorney–at-Law, noted the City received a letter from Attorney Steinhoff that said the City Council has broad discretion in granting variance requests. While that is true to some extent, there are bounds to the City Council’s discretion and this variance request is out of bounds. Legally the City cannot grant this variance request because it does not meet two requirements under the statute and the ordinance. Variance approval would not be consistent with the intent, purpose, and spirit of the average lakeshore setback and no practical difficulties have been demonstrated that justify the variance. The second point to address is the language in the resolution and in Mr. Steinhoff’s letter regarding the distance from the proposed house to the shoreline. The average lakeshore setback would be 202 feet away from the lake. The variance would put the new house 156 feet from the lake. At this point Ms. Marks’ house is 181 feet away from the lake. Because these two lots are parallel, it does not make any sense for the new house to be 25 feet closer to the lake than Ms. Marks’ house. Kaplan stated that leads to the overarching problem with the variance. The applicants are not asking for something that they need in order to preserve the view. If the applicants get what they are asking for, it will require Ms. Marks to sacrifice a lake view that she should not have to sacrifice, and they will be getting a better view than what currently exists. Kaplan requested the City Council deny the request. Sven Gustafson stated he does not believe anything new was presented in the letter from the neighbor other than some mockups that misrepresented the views. Overall the project improves several nonconformities, such as reducing the side and lake yard setbacks, reducing the number of structures on the property, and is similar to many other requests that have been approved by the City in the past. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 9 Printup moved Johnson seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 7038, a Resolution Approving a Variance from Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 3129 Casco Circle. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. 17. LA19-000069 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF DALE AND JONMARI OLSEN, 3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Curtis noted the City Council reviewed this application at their October 14 meeting. The applicants were directed to make reductions in structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant’s revised plan still requires a number of variance approvals and an interim use permit. The updated plan provided today clarifies the hardcover number and removes the duplication of an entry terrace in that calculation. The structural coverage that is currently proposed is 2,891 square feet or 26 percent. The total site hardcover proposed is 4,586 square feet, which is 39.7 percent of the site. Additional public comment was received today and was included in the record. Staff continues to recommend denial of the application as proposed. The variance to permit structural coverage in excess of 20 percent of the adjusted lot area results in a house which is out of character with the neighborhood and small lots in general. Staff does support redevelopment of the property with variances provided the structural coverage is at a conforming level. Tonight the Council should review the revised plans and direct Staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s decision. John Quinlivan, Gordon James, stated since the last time they were here, they have brought the structural coverage from 3,454 square feet down to 2,891 square feet, which is 26 percent of the adjusted lot coverage. If Crystal Bay Road is considered a practical difficulty, it brings it down to 20 percent. The initial plan was 31 percent. From a hardcover perspectival, the initial plan was at 49.5 percent, which has been reduced to 39.4 percent Currently the existing home is approximately four feet from the rear property line and encroaches on the easement. The proposed home is 6.3 feet from the rear property line and will not encroach on the easement. The side yard setbacks are proposed at 34 and 34.2 feet. The lakeside setback meets the required setback, which is approximately a 5-foot improvement over what exists today. The road counts for 23.3 percent of the total lot coverage. The road, for most of the other houses in the neighborhood, is between 13, 14, and 15 percent of the total lot coverage. The road is a larger burden on this property. At the last meeting the Council provided direction to leave the road as is. The road is wider in that area. A discussion with had with Staff and the property owners have agreed to remove the roadside curbs to improve the ability of the Public Works Department to plow in that area. The homeowners are also agreeable to no parking on either side of the street due to the narrowness of the street. Walsh stated because the lot is wide and shallow, the Council thought the road was a practical difficulty and directed them to reduce the structural coverage down to 20 percent, which they have done. Previously the Council had approved a home in this neighborhood at 22 percent structural coverage and 39.9 percent hardcover. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 9 Walsh commented he appreciates the applicants reducing it down to 20 percent structural coverage and 39.6 percent hardcover as well as keeping the road wider, which is good for the neighborhood. Printup stated he is hearing 20 percent structural coverage, but he reads 26 percent in Staff’s report. Walsh noted the 20 percent is without the road and that the City Council at the last meeting indicated they would be willing to not include the road. Johnson stated the lot area with the road is 11,000 some square feet and with the road eliminated it becomes a 14,000 square foot lot. Johnson stated in his view it is consistent with the density in the rest of the neighborhood and that he would be in favor of it. Johnson asked what the no parking relates to. Quinlivan noted no street parking was brought up at the last meeting and how it limits emergency vehicle access. Both homeowners are okay with no parking on either side of the street. Walsh noted this is a private street. Curtis stated Crystal Bay Road is a public road. Walsh stated the City maintains the road, but they do not own it. The City does not have a right-of-way and they do not have an easement. Because the City does not own the road, they cannot erect no parking signs. Johnson moved, Printup seconded, Application No. LA19-000069, Gordon James Construction on behalf of Dale and Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, directing Staff to draft an approval resolution granting a street side setback variance, rear and side yard setback variances, a lakeshore variance, an average lakeshore setback variance, and a structural coverage variance due to the practical difficulty of the road being included in the total lot area calculation. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals reported the Bederwood project is currently underway and looks amazing. The Park Commission has requested she contact the United Team to come for the grand opening. Seals stated she also spoke with the Park Commission about the golf course and the City’s plans included installation of a really fancy fire pit at a cost of around $26,000. Following discussion, it was felt it would be better to have a small fire pit with a gas insert that can be stored away. Seals moved to approve construction of a fire pit with a gas inset at the Orono Golf Course. Edwards asked if the other fire pit item would be removed totally from the Capital Improvement Plan. Seals indicated that it would be. Johnson seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 9 Seals noted the Christmas tree lighting will be December 7 at the golf course. Starting this year the clubhouse will be open for limited hours on the weekends. Edwards stated the current plan is to have the clubhouse open on Saturdays and Sundays when there is snow from around 10:00 to 2:00. Seals stated she will ask Anna to put together some promotional items for the event. Printup thanked the Park Commission for developing a plan to allow memorial pavers be installed at the Dog Park. Johnson noted there was a crackdown at the Lurton Dog Park and that people should be sure to purchase their permit for the year. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Rief reported he meet with Police Chief Farniok and Adam Edwards to follow up on Hennepin County’s projection of construction projects in the Orono area. In 2020 there will be a number of closures, including a four to six-week closure of the Narrows Bridge. The improvement project at County Roads 15 and 19 will start at the beginning of the construction season and is projected to be done by July 4. Work on the Tanager Bridge will start July 2nd. In addition, Hennepin County is projecting to have CR44 open by December 1st of this year. The current expectation is that CR101 will be open mid-November in Wayzata. Starting next year west of Mound, there will be a one to two-month complete closure of CR15. A number of other projects are planned for 2021 and 2022, including a closure of Highway 12 west of Maple Plain. Rief noted there will be a weight restriction on Fox Street and Orono Orchard to prevent any additional truck traffic that will be attempting to bypass the bridge. In 2022 work will commence on Hendrick’s Bridge and Tanager. Edwards noted Tanager will not be a complete road closure and that they are planning on building a new bridge in place so there will be lane shifts and some short closures. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Printup moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:02 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, October 28, 2019 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 3 PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Aaron Printup, Matt Johnson and Victoria Seals. Representing staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Accountant Maggie Ung, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. Sanitary Service Line Point of Sale Inspections Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards presented background information in regards to current and possible Sanitary Sewer Line Point of Sale processes. Edwards is looking for the Council’s guidance on whether or not the City should develop and adopt a Point of Sale Inspection Ordinance for Sanitary Sewer Service pipes. Mayor Dennis Walsh indicated that it makes sense to support the ordinance to help avoid possible issues that could come up in the future. Council Member Matt Johnson mentioned that independent contractors conduct these types of inspections and they aren’t typical in the residential side. Edwards mentioned that he had included some of the surrounding City’s that do require the inspections in the memorandum and in some cases their procedure. He added it varies by City and noted that it can be done by the City and in some cases can be done by a plumber if the resident prefers. Walsh explained that it is mainly done for the sanitary sewer only and that it is usually includes a certified compliance certificate from the City. Edwards noted the process would be similar to what we currently do for septic. Johnson mentioned that often times the pipes need to be cleaned to be inspected. He noted that there have been some City’s that had made this a requirement and later got rid of it. He asked why the preferred method is at the time of sale versus making it a requirement for all. Edwards mentioned that there are a few different options that could be discussed. Council Member Aaron Printup mentioned that it may be a bit easier to do at the Point of Sale versus hitting the resident with the fees. Johnson asked if the City would be able to enforce this by the age of the house or age of the system. City Administrator Dustin Rief mentioned that is something the staff could look into. Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, October 28, 2019 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 2 of 3 Staff could search the City’s permit data for each lift station and use the addresses associated with it to find which addresses have pulled a permit in the last twenty years. Walsh mentioned we know it needs to be done, now we need to possibly put it in the budget now, and incrementally take care of it. There is a lot of things that we need to consider. He added staff may need to do some further research. There was discussion about various aspects that Council would like to be considered before developing this type of policy or ordinance. Aspects discussed were: how and when to require inspections; when and how to determine prioritization of areas in need; education to the public; possibilities of assessing for it; and responsibilities of the City and residents. Printup mentioned the City should be sure to provide communications to residents in the newsletters and possibly look at beginning Point of Sale in 2021. Printup added it is important that residents know that the city has actively been addressing I&I. Walsh mentioned that this is part of best practices from the City’s standpoint it is going to cost money and it’s going to maintain infrastructure. He added that guidance to staff would be to develop the Point of Sale ordinance and bring it back to Council for further discussion. Johnson indicated the he was in favor of having inspections required for every house and certificates of compliance for every house that would come directly from the City. 2. 2020 Utility Billing and Rates a. Utility Rates b. Monthly vs. Quarterly Billing c. Water Utility Shut-Off Policy Finance Director Ron Olson presented the 2020 Utility Billing and Rates item. Olson added that staff is recommending significant increases for next year. The reason for this is due to the level of expected capital expenditures over the near term. Higher increases next year allow the City to meet funding goals while keeping rates lower in future years. Olson noted that some of these rates particularly water, sewer, recycling are significant but if we wait it could be worse off. Walsh asked that staff work on making sure these increases are communicated to residents and make sure to share the reasons for the increases. Printup added that it needs to be communicated that this is and has been ongoing. Walsh added the goal of approaching this in this way is so the City doesn’t have to assess. Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, October 28, 2019 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 3 of 3 There was discussion about going to monthly billing versus quarterly. There was a consensus for monthly billing. 3. Capital Improvement Plan Printup mentioned that we need to be aware and need to know what certain items mean on the Fire CIP. We don’t want to approve something and then it be used for something differently and it is important to know what we are actually approving. We are not familiar with the terms used and need clarification. Adjourned: 6:51p.m. ATTEST: ___________________________________ __________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO 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 112814 to 112887, totaling $307,147.27. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #112836 Compass Minerals $24,984.79 Payment for purchase of non-treated road salt for Winter 2019-2020. #112861 Mint Roofing $27,560.00 Payment for the roofing replacement at the Post Office. #112872 Park Construction Co. $81,042.49 Final payment for the 2018 Street Improvement project. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims list as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Exhibits A. Check Register Item No.: 3 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CHAMPION COATINGS INC 11/05/2019 112668 942-FINAL 601-16500 Water Plant Painting 19-023 66,100.00- Total 112668:66,100.00- City of Wayzata\DMV 11/01/2019 112814 103019 231-45650-441 2000 GMC Yukon 37.00 Total 112814:37.00 David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-1 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS18-000119 2855 Duck Wood Tr 10,000.00 David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-1 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS18-000119 2855 Duck Wood Tr 30.00- David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-2 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS18-000030 2835 Goldenrod Wa 10,000.00 David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-2 101-39615 Escrow Refund RPS18-000030 2835 Goldenrod Wa 300.00- David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-3 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS19-000021 2850 Goldenrod Wa 10,000.00 David Weekley Homes 11/01/2019 112815 103119-3 101-39615 Escrow Refund RPS19-000021 2850 Goldenrod Wa 300.00- Total 112815:29,370.00 Lake Country Builders LTD 11/01/2019 112816 102819 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS19-000065 310 Big Island 1,000.00 Lake Country Builders LTD 11/01/2019 112816 102819 101-39615 Escrow Refund RPS19-000065 310 Big Island 30.00- Total 112816:970.00 LaPointe Utilities Inc 11/01/2019 112817 103119 101-22205 Escrow Refund ROW19-000056 3345 Fox St 1,500.00 LaPointe Utilities Inc 11/01/2019 112817 103119 101-22205 Escrow Refund ROW19-000072 Mooney Lake Dr/Ct 1,500.00 LaPointe Utilities Inc 11/01/2019 112817 103119 101-22205 Escrow Refund ROW19-000073 Walters Port Ln & 1,500.00 Total 112817:4,500.00 Smith, Greg 11/01/2019 112818 103119 101-22205 Escrow Refund RPS18-000058 2895 Casco Pt Rd 1,000.00 Smith, Greg 11/01/2019 112818 103119 101-22205 Escrow Refund D18-000020 2895 Casco Point Rd 1,000.00 Total 112818:2,000.00 CHAMPION COATINGS INC 11/05/2019 112819 942-FINAL 601-16500 Water Plant Painting 19-023 66,100.00 Total 112819:66,100.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/12/2019 112822 398505123 710-49970-413 PW Copier Lease 10/20/19-11/20/19 116.76 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112822:116.76 ALLSTREAM 11/12/2019 112823 16448889 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 300.20 ALLSTREAM 11/12/2019 112823 16448889 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 420.27 ALLSTREAM 11/12/2019 112823 16448889 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 70.05 ALLSTREAM 11/12/2019 112823 16448889 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 210.13 Total 112823:1,000.65 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 11/12/2019 112824 91425 101-42110-580 New Portable Radios Chargers and Ear Jack Police Department 1,028.20 Total 112824:1,028.20 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 11/12/2019 112825 18941 101-41900-319 Administrative Fee 11/19 Central Services 567.00 Total 112825:567.00 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 11/12/2019 112826 10209061 701-49800-222 Sander Screen Repair Unit 426 155.62 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 11/12/2019 112826 10209341 701-49800-402 Unit #427 Onspot Chains Repair Task 33265 358.83 Total 112826:514.45 BARRY RATHBUN 11/12/2019 112827 102819 101-43000-226 Reimb Jacket & Overall Public Works Department 259.98 Total 112827:259.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 081619 101-41300-489 Flowers Administration 55.84 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 090919-1 101-41110-439 CC Cookies 9/9/19 Mayor & Council 4.49 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 100419 101-41300-489 Flowers Administration 76.17 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 101419 101-41110-439 WS Food 10/14/19 Mayor & Council 44.02 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 101419-1 101-41110-439 WS/CC Cupcakes 10/14/19 Mayor & Council 7.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102219 101-42110-437 Training - K. Beck Police Department 250.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102319 101-42110-437 DMT Registration - J. Raze Police Department 75.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102419 101-42110-439 Meeting Expense Police Department 26.45 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102819 101-41110-439 WS Food 10/28/19 Mayor & Council 71.74 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102819-1 101-41110-439 WS/CC Coffee & Cookies Mayor & Council 17.66 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102819-2 701-49800-212 Unit #714 Jetter Pump Fuel Non-Oxy 65.01 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102919 101-43000-437 CEAM Conference/Membership Public Works Department 125.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102919 601-49400-437 CEAM Conference/Membership Water 125.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 102919 602-49450-437 CEAM Conference/Membership Sewer 125.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 103019 101-42110-437 Training/Staff Meeting Police Department 48.09 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 110119 101-42110-437 Forensic Consulting Training - J. McCoy & J. Wittke Police Department 400.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/12/2019 112828 110719 101-42110-437 Training - T. Datwyler Police Department 259.00 Total 112828:1,776.45 CEMSTONE 11/12/2019 112829 C2118213 101-43000-224 Building Bins for Material Storing - Concrete Blocks Public Works Department 440.00 Total 112829:440.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102319 602-49450-381 1222 Bracketts Pt Rd Gas 9/20-10/21 Sewer 17.13 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102919 101-45210-381 Gas 9/21-10/21/19 Golf Course 54.15 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102919 101-42110-381 Gas 9/21-10/21/19 Police Department 93.90 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102919 101-41900-381 Gas 9/21-10/21/19 Central Services 210.91 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102919 602-49450-381 Gas 9/21-10/21/19 Sewer 295.96 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/12/2019 112830 102919 601-49400-381 Gas 9/21-10/21/19 Water 445.18 Total 112830:1,117.23 Century Link 11/12/2019 112831 101919 101-45210-321 GC phone/internet 10/19/19-11/18/19 Golf Course 240.30 Total 112831:240.30 CINTAS CORPORATION 11/12/2019 112832 4033601356 101-41900-404 Mats/Air Service - City Hall Central Services 21.92 CINTAS CORPORATION 11/12/2019 112832 4033601382 101-41900-401 Mat Service - Council Chambers Central Services 10.80 CINTAS CORPORATION 11/12/2019 112832 4034044098 101-43000-226 Uniform Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 11/12/2019 112832 4034044098 101-43000-221 Shop Towels Public Works Department 2.63 Total 112832:94.89 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 11/12/2019 112833 1900313 601-49400-489 Bacterial Water Testing Water 31.50 Total 112833:31.50 Coban Technologies Inc 11/12/2019 112834 24733 101-42110-402 Mic for Squad #251 Police Department 212.00 Total 112834:212.00 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 11/12/2019 112835 191031 101-43000-224 Road Patching Public Works Department 469.32 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112835:469.32 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 11/12/2019 112836 513285 101-43000-224 2019-2020 Non Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 2,081.58 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 11/12/2019 112836 514179 101-43000-224 2019-2020 Non Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 6,280.61 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 11/12/2019 112836 515856 101-43000-224 2019-2020 Non Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 2,059.89 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 11/12/2019 112836 516788 101-43000-224 2019-2020 Non Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 12,460.27 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 11/12/2019 112836 519387 101-43000-224 2019-2020 Non Treated Road Salt Public Works Department 2,102.44 Total 112836:24,984.79 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 11/12/2019 112837 482736-CRC 602-49450-227 Bacto Dose Sewer 855.00 Total 112837:855.00 DELTA DENTAL 11/12/2019 112838 7794518 101-21709 4842130001 November 2019 Dental 2,985.64 DELTA DENTAL 11/12/2019 112838 7794518 101-15998 4842130001 November 2019 Dental 436.40 Total 112838:3,422.04 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/12/2019 112839 737029 101-42400-340 Public Hearing - November Building & Zoning 68.54 Total 112839:68.54 EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 11/12/2019 112840 47308 101-42110-402 Squads Repairs Police Department 725.15 Total 112840:725.15 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 11/12/2019 112841 ZZ10193 602-49450-406 Sewer Manhole 2415 Task 33440 Sewer 280.00 Total 112841:280.00 FAST SIGNS 11/12/2019 112842 100 30282 225-45200-223 Tree Walk Project 1,323.03 Total 112842:1,323.03 FASTENAL 11/12/2019 112843 MNPLY11875 101-43000-226 PPE Safety Glasses Public Works Department 54.53 Total 112843:54.53 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 11/12/2019 112844 0336378 601-49400-227 Water Meter Water 3,162.99 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 11/12/2019 112844 B122762 / 32 601-49400-403 New Meter Reader - Duplicate Payment Water 3,070.25- Total 112844:92.74 Gasterland, Jan 11/12/2019 112845 110619 101-22205 Refund Escrow D18-000006 1920 Shadywood Rd 1,000.00 Total 112845:1,000.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/12/2019 112846 3270-456763 101-42110-402 Squad Headlights Bulb Police Department 38.97 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/12/2019 112846 3270-457050 701-49800-222 Unit #450 Repair Task 33357 5.06 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/12/2019 112846 3270-457802 101-42110-240 Compressor PD Police Department 239.00 Total 112846:283.03 GO PERMITS 11/12/2019 112847 110419 101-32510 Refund Permit RBG19-000141 2135 Salem Ct 154.45 Total 112847:154.45 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 11/12/2019 112848 9100649 601-49400-489 locates Water 270.68 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 11/12/2019 112848 9100649 602-49450-489 locates Sewer 270.67 Total 112848:541.35 GRAFIX SHOPPE 11/12/2019 112849 130572 101-42110-402 Rapir Unit #253 Police Department 57.86 Total 112849:57.86 GROUP HEALTH INC 11/12/2019 112850 W816533 101-42110-135 EAP health for 10/2019 Police Department 12.00 Total 112850:12.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 11/12/2019 112851 1000138836 710-49970-401 Network Support 11-2019 58.00 Total 112851:58.00 JANE SZCZEPANIK 11/12/2019 112852 103019 101-42110-311 Search Warrant Sent Out of State, CN 19-7708 Police Department 11.89 Total 112852:11.89 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE I 11/12/2019 112853 60516 101-43000-404 Garage Door Repair PW Public Works Department 262.50 JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE I 11/12/2019 112853 60729 101-43000-404 Garage Door Repair PW Public Works Department 574.71 Total 112853:837.21 KYLE KIRSCHNER 11/12/2019 112854 102219 101-42110-317 Xerxes Food Police Department 90.82 KYLE KIRSCHNER 11/12/2019 112854 102219 101-42110-437 First Responder Lunch Police Department 59.03 Total 112854:149.85 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47711 710-49970-401 DMZ - Laserfiche Weblink 93.75 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47740 101-41900-329 Backups 11/19 Central Services 850.00 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47740 101-42110-310 Police Records 11/19 Police Department 7,293.00 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47740 614-49840-329 Internet 11/19 Cable Franchise 218.00 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47740 710-49970-329 Internet 11/19 218.00 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47792 405-48500-580 Network Server 5,374.02 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47792 405-48500-580 Network Server 5,374.02 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47792 405-48500-580 NAS 4,126.91 LOGIS 11/12/2019 112855 47792 710-49970-416 Adobe Licensing 862.75 Total 112855:24,410.45 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/12/2019 112856 21474719 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 2,620.51 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/12/2019 112856 21516970 101-42110-212 Unleaded Fuel Police Department 721.21 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/12/2019 112856 21516971 701-49800-212 Diesel Fuel 664.57 Total 112856:4,006.29 Martha, Stephanie 11/12/2019 112857 110619 101-22205 Escrow Refunding 17-3887 2092 Shadywood Rd 2,500.00 Total 112857:2,500.00 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/12/2019 112858 103119 101-39610 October 2019 SAC 149.10- MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/12/2019 112858 103119 101-20809 October 2019 SAC 14,910.00 Total 112858:14,760.90 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/12/2019 112859 0001102548 602-49450-383 Wastewater Charges 12/2019 Sewer 46,280.36 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112859:46,280.36 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 11/12/2019 112860 2185 101-42400-310 Inspection Services September 2019 Building & Zoning 8,082.50 Total 112860:8,082.50 MINT ROOFING 11/12/2019 112861 13145 405-48500-520 Post Office Roof Repair 27,560.00 Total 112861:27,560.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS 11/12/2019 112862 25427 101-41900-352 Newsletter Postage Central Services 710.74 MINUTEMAN PRESS 11/12/2019 112862 25428 101-41900-352 Fall Newsletter Postage Central Services 1,597.03 Total 112862:2,307.77 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 601-39610 Sales Tax 10/2019 124.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37910 Sales Tax 10/2019 274.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37920 Sales Tax 10/2019 155.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37930 Sales Tax 10/2019 56.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37940 Sales Tax 10/2019 16.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37960 Sales Tax 10/2019 11.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 11/12/2019 112863 103119 101-37970 Sales Tax 10/2019 3.00 Total 112863:639.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/12/2019 112864 163953 101-42110-240 Bait Station Police Department 10.98 MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/12/2019 112864 164092 101-42110-221 Cleaning Supplies Police Department 42.25 MOUND TRUE VALUE 11/12/2019 112864 164323 101-42110-240 PD Supplies Police Department 94.94 Total 112864:148.17 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/12/2019 112865 321322 601-49400-322 UPS Water Water 46.48 NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/12/2019 112865 K21107 101-41900-201 Office Supplies Central Services 2.29 Total 112865:48.77 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.11/12/2019 112866 67320011201 101-21710 Pera life 11/2019 320.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112866:320.00 NEWEGG INC 11/12/2019 112867 1302462898 710-49970-221 PD Printer Grandview School 45.89 Total 112867:45.89 NORTHLAND CHEMICAL CORP 11/12/2019 112868 4337 101-42110-404 Men's Restroom Sani Mat - PD Police Department 125.55 Total 112868:125.55 Northland Petroleum Service 11/12/2019 112869 22344 701-49800-403 Unlead Fuel Pump Repair 153.00 Total 112869:153.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 11/12/2019 112870 103119 101-42110-402 10/19 Car Washes Police Department 49.50 Total 112870:49.50 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 11/12/2019 112871 103119 101-42110-402 10/19 Car Washes Police Department 174.75 Total 112871:174.75 PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPA 11/12/2019 112872 RFP #5 435-20600 RFP#5 Final 2018 Street Improvements 49,901.09 PARK CONSTRUCTION COMPA 11/12/2019 112872 RFP #5 435-48971-590 RFP#5 Final 2018 Street Improvements 31,141.40 Total 112872:81,042.49 PIRTEK 11/12/2019 112873 OL-T000000 701-49800-222 Hydraulic Hose repair, Unit #450 Task 33358 432.30 Total 112873:432.30 RYAN AUTO MALL 11/12/2019 112874 235952 101-42110-550 Squad #258, 259, 260 Mats Police Department 495.00 Total 112874:495.00 STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 11/12/2019 112875 11736 101-42110-402 GMC Yukon Key-Unclaimed Property Police Department 155.00 Total 112875:155.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount STOP STICK LTD 11/12/2019 112876 0015827-IN 101-42110-550 New Stop Stick for Squads Police Department 1,441.00 Total 112876:1,441.00 T W TUPY INC 11/12/2019 112877 102419 601-49400-227 Rock for Road, Water, Sewer, SW, Park Projects an Water 641.01 T W TUPY INC 11/12/2019 112877 102419 602-49450-223 Rock for Road, Water, Sewer, SW, Park Projects an Sewer 641.01 T W TUPY INC 11/12/2019 112877 102419 651-49910-227 Rock for Road, Water, Sewer, SW, Park Projects an Storm Water 641.01 T W TUPY INC 11/12/2019 112877 102419 101-43000-224 Rock for Road, Water, Sewer, SW, Park Projects an Public Works Department 641.01 T W TUPY INC 11/12/2019 112877 102419 101-45200-223 Rock for Road, Water, Sewer, SW, Park Projects an Parks 640.99 Total 112877:3,205.03 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 11/12/2019 112878 102219 101-41600-306 Prosecution Services-10/2019 Law/Legal Services 2,835.90 Total 112878:2,835.90 THOMSON WEST 11/12/2019 112879 841209999 101-42110-311 West Information Police Department 204.96 Total 112879:204.96 TONY WHITE 11/12/2019 112880 102919 101-42110-226 Clothing Reimbursement Police Department 153.23 Total 112880:153.23 TOXALERT 11/12/2019 112881 20560 101-41900-404 2019-Service-Gas Detection System Central Services 143.00 Total 112881:143.00 US Bank Equipment Finance 11/12/2019 112882 398331371 710-49970-413 Copiers 596.76 Total 112882:596.76 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 11/12/2019 112883 68972 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 11/12/2019 112883 68972 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50 Total 112883:2,475.00 VESSCO INC 11/12/2019 112884 78051 601-49400-403 Pump Repair Water 700.72 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 10/29/2019 - 11/12/2019 Nov 07, 2019 11:49AM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 112884:700.72 WACONIA FORD SALES INC 11/12/2019 112885 97674 101-42110-402 Squad #242 Seat Belt Police Department 94.66 WACONIA FORD SALES INC 11/12/2019 112885 97703 101-42110-402 Squad #251 Module Police Department 24.13 Total 112885:118.79 WATER CONSERVATION SVC IN 11/12/2019 112886 9878 601-49400-405 Leak Locates & Report Water 1,568.00 Total 112886:1,568.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 11/12/2019 112887 150989 231-45650-436 tow case #OR199534 155.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 11/12/2019 112887 152061 231-45650-436 tow case #OR19009565 155.00 Total 112887:310.00 Grand Totals: 307,147.27 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agenda item is to gain council approval for the institution of a convenience fee for credit card transactions. 2. Background. The City has been accepting credit card payments for payments since 2010. When a credit card payment is accepted, the City is charged a processing fee by our credit card processor. Governmental entities have the ability to charge a convenience fee to recover these costs. At the time that the decision to accept credit card payments was made, the Council decided not to charge a convenience fee. As the use of credit cards has increased, the amount of the convenience fee has grown significantly. Last month, a single credit card transaction resulted in a $1,500 processing fee. This transaction led to staff initiating a review of the amount being paid for credit card processing. For the first ten months of 2019 the amount paid for processing fees totals $32,492.46. By year’s end this amount will be approaching $40,000. The institution of a 2.75% convenience fee would cover the amount of the current processing fee expenditures. Customers will, and currently have, the ability to pay for their services through alternative methods that would not incur a convenience fee. These include payment by check or cash, and ability to pay by direct debit of their bank account. The direct debit option is available for selection when the online payment screen is accessed. A portion ($3,661.86) of the processing fees that have been charged to the City in 2019 are at the golf course. Because the golf course is more retail in nature, and customers would not expect to have a convenience fee added to their payment, staff is not recommending that a convenience charge be applied at that location. 3. Cost. There is no cost to this action. It will result in an increase of revenue that will offset expenditures. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the addition of a convenience fee of 2.75% effective January 1st 2020. This fee will be added to the 2020 fee schedule. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the institution of a convenience fee on non-retail credit card transactions. Item No.: 4 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Credit Card Convenience Fee Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Rental Licenses for the license period of November 12, 2019 to December 31, 2021. 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental licenses as listed in Exhibit A for the license period of November 12, 2019 to December 31, 2021. The Rental License Applicants in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of November 12, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Exhibits A. Listing of Rental Licenses Item No.: 5 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A City Council 2019 Rental License RL19-000016 Ally Restaurants 100 RL19-000018 Steven Johnson 100 RL19-000024 Richard Wagman 100 RL19-000032 Real Estate Services of MN, LLC 100 RL19-000034 John Grotans 100 RL19-000035 John Grotans 100 RL19-000036 JT Classic Homes, LLC 100 RL19-000037 John C Noble Childrens Trust 100 RL19-000038 DAVID & KAREN DIANIS 100 RL19-000039 Navarre Realty, LLC 100 RL19-000040 n/a 100 RL19-000042 Barbara Roberts 100 RL19-000043 Jeffrey Carlson 100 License# Licensee Total License Fees AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the monthly Planning Commission meetings during 2020. PLANNING COMMISSION 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the schedule for Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings during 2020. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider a motion to approve the schedule for Council attendance at Planning Commission meetings during 2020. Item No.: 6 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval Proposed Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2020 Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Meeting Date Representative January 21, 2020 (Tuesday) Aaron Printup February 18, 2020 (Tuesday) Victoria Seals March 16, 2020 Matthew Johnson April 13, 2020 Dennis Walsh May 28, 2020 Richard Crosby June 15, 2020 Aaron Printup July 20, 2020 Victoria Seals August 17, 2020 Matthew Johnson September 21, 2020 Dennis Walsh October 19, 2020 Richard Crosby November 16, 2020 Aaron Printup AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A. Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To recognize Jackie Young for her services to the City of Orono. 2. Background. Jackie Young had resigned from her position of recorder on November 5, 2019. She originally started taking meeting minutes with the City of Orono on August 9, 2004. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt A Resolution of Appreciation to Jackie Young for her service to the City of Orono. Exhibits A. Resolution of Appreciation to Jackie Young Item No.: 7 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description : Resolution of Appreciation to Jackie Young Presenter Anna Carlson. City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda A RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION TO JACKIE YOUNG FOR HER 15 YEARS OF DEDICATED SERVICE TO THE CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION NO. _____ WHEREAS, Jackie has served the City of Orono since August 9, 2004 as the City’s trusted recorder of the meeting minutes; and WHEREAS, Jackie has demonstrated thorough transcription of the discussion and actions taken at City Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission meetings throughout the years; and WHEREAS, Jackie has earned both respect and friendship of Council and Commission members as well as city staff members; and WHEREAS, Jackie’s years with the City have been marked by a strong commitment to providing transparent meeting minutes for the City; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby express its sincere gratitude and appreciation to Jackie Young for her dedicated service to the City, and does commend her for the manner in which she has carried out her duties and responsibilities. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby extend to Jackie its best wishes for success in her future endeavors. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held this 12th day of November, 2019. ATTEST: _______________________________ _____________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval of the contract proposal from TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Service for transcription of all regular meeting minutes for the City Council, Planning Commission and Parks Commission. The contract proposals are for the remainder of 2019 and for all regular meetings held in 2020. 2.Background. The meeting minutes have been transcribed and provided to the City by recorder Jackie Young since August of 2004. Jackie has resigned as of November 5, 2019. Recording services are funded through the General Fund. 3.Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Council approve the contract proposal from TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial for transcription of all regular meeting minutes for the City Council, Planning and Parks Commissions for the remainder of 2019 and through 2020. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the contract proposal from TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial for transcription of all regular meeting minutes for the City Council, Planning and Parks Commissions for the remainder of 2019 and through 2020. Exhibits A.2019-2020 Agreement for Recording Secretary Services Item No.: 8 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Recording Service Agreement – TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial for Meeting Minutes Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of city property, which are 18 file cabinets. 2. Background. The Administration Department has 18 file cabinets that can be disposed of. The cabinets were used to store paper files for the city and are no longer needed. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the files cabinets get sent to an online auction through k-bid. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the disposal of the City’s 18 file cabinets. Item No.: 9 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of City Property – Office Filing Cabinets Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By:RJO Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to appoint the professional auditing firm for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2019, 2020 and 2021. 2.Background. The City Council adopted a resolution to establish a schedule of 5 year reviews through the RFP process for professional services contracted by the City. Staff reviews the document annually for any scheduled RFP’s. The auditor schedule was for 2017, however because of staffing issues the RFP was not performed at that time. The City is required to undergo an annual audit of its financial statements. The purpose of the audit is to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement. The audit also covers internal controls and Minnesota legal compliance. Upon completion of the audit, a management report will be prepared for the City Council and administration to be presented at a council meeting. Staff received four proposals for auditing services. The lowest cost was the proposal from Adbo, Eick & Meyers, LLP. A summary of costs are provided in Exhibit A. In addition, Adbo, Eick & Meyers showed the most interest and commitment in providing auditing service to the City through their initial contact, meet and greet, and interview. 3.Staff Recommendation. Based on the interviews and a favorable audit fee, staff recommends a motion to appoint the audit firm of Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP to perform the required audits for the City of Orono for the 2019, 2020 and 2021 fiscal years. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to appoint the audit firm Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLP to perform the required audits for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2019, 2020 and 2021. Exhibits A.Cost Summary Item No.: 10 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Appoint Auditor for Fiscal Years 2019, 2020 and 2021 Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A Quote Summary Firm For Year Ending December 31 Total Quote 2019 2020 2021 Abdo, Eick & Meyers, LLC $ 30,000.00 $ 30,900.00 $ 31,700.00 $ 92,600.00 CliftonLarsonAllen LLP $ 37,140.00 $ 38,510.00 $ 39,880.00 $ 115,530.00 MMKR & Co., P.A. $ 38,900.00 $ 38,900.00 $ 39,625.00 $ 117,425.00 Schlenner Wenner & Co. $ 33,630.00 $ 34,830.00 $ 36,030.00 $ 104,490.00 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for Council to approve the agreement with Campbell Knutson to provide Legal Services to the City. 2. Background. The City Council adopted a resolution to establish a schedule of 5 year reviews through the RFP process for professional services contracted by the City. Staff reviews the document annually for any scheduled RFP’s. The civil attorney schedule is for 2019 and was last published in 2005. This RFP is in accordance with the RFP schedule adopted by Resolution No. 6585 adopted February 8, 2016. The City approved the Request for Proposal process on August 12, 2019. 3. Details. The City received two proposals for consideration from Ekberg Lammers Attorneys at Law and Campbell Knutson Professional Association. The Legal Services Review Committee reviewed the two proposals and decided to continue utilizing Campbell Knutson for the City’s Legal Services. 4. Funding. Legal Services fees are paid for by each department based on actual usage. The proposed fee schedule is a part of the attached agreement 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Agreement for Legal Services with Campbell Knutson Professional Association. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the agreement for Legal Services between the City of Orono and Campbell Knutson Professional Association. Exhibits A. Agreement for Legal Services with Campbell Knutson Professional Association Item No.: 11 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Legal Services Agreement – Campbell Knutson Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council authorization for Pay Request No. 5 – Final for the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project. 2. Background. On April 23rd, 2019 the City awarded the Contract to Park Construction. Construction was completed in 2018 with site restoration completed in 2019. 3. Project Scope. The project consisted of the reclamation of the bituminous pavement, select subgrade corrections, and the replacement / improvement of the associated stormwater system of Wildhurst Trail Network, Vine Place, Lyric Avenue (Livingston to Blaine), Minnetonka Highlands, and West Lafayette. Also included was the realignment of Linden Lane and the replacement of the water main that runs underneath West Lafayette Rd. 4. Cost. Pay request 5 is for $81,042.49. This included payment of the retainage. Total payments to Park Construction including Pay request 5 is $ 1,029,163.28. The bid Amount was $1,245,652.45. 5. Funding. This project is funded from MSA, the Pavement Management Fund and the Storm Water fund. The cost split by funding source for construction are: 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that Park Construction be paid $81,042.49. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve Pay Request No. 5-Final to Park Construction Paving in the amount of $81,042.49 for the 2018 Street Reconstruction Project. Exhibits A. Pay Request Item No.: 12 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: 2018 Streets Reconstruction Project – Pay Request No. 5 – Final Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda H:\ORNO\C13114279\7_Construction\E_Pay Applications\Pay App 5\114279 Letter 5.doc October 30, 2019 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 2018 Street Improvements Dear Mr. Edwards: Enclosed is Payment Request No. 5-Final from Park Construction Company for work completed on the 2018 Street Improvements Project through June 30, 2019. This estimate includes removal of erosion control devices, grading, rip rap, boulder wall construction, turf restoration, and landscaping. We have reviewed the estimate, verified the quantities, and recommend payment in the amount of $81,042.49, which releases all retainage and closes out the project. Please contact me if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, BOLTON & MENK, INC. David P. Martini Principal Engineer Partial Pay Estimate No.:5 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART A CITY OF ORONO, MN BMI PROJECT NO. C13.114279 WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NO.ITEM PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT 1 MOBILIZATION $66,000.00 1 LUMP SUM $66,000.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $66,000.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $66,000.00 2 CLEARING & GRUBBING 4"-12"$260.00 4 EACH $1,040.00 5.00 EACH $1,300.00 -1.00 EACH -$260.00 4.00 EACH $1,040.00 3 CLEARING & GRUBBING 13"-24"$962.00 1 EACH $962.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $962.00 1.00 EACH $962.00 4 SAWING BITUMINOUS (FULL DEPTH)$1.90 1065 LIN FT $2,023.50 785.00 LIN FT $1,491.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 785.00 LIN FT $1,491.50 5 SAWCUT CONCRETE $3.80 95 LIN FT $361.00 108.50 LIN FT $412.30 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 108.50 LIN FT $412.30 6 MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT (ANY DEPTH)$1.30 3880 SQ YD $5,044.00 3,210.00 SQ YD $4,173.00 0.00 SQ YD $0.00 3,210.00 SQ YD $4,173.00 7 MILL ADJACENT TO BITUMINOUS CURB $0.59 100 LIN FT $59.00 50.00 LIN FT $29.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 50.00 LIN FT $29.50 8 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (8")$5.90 5960 SQ YD $35,164.00 6,936.00 SQ YD $40,922.40 0.00 SQ YD $0.00 6,936.00 SQ YD $40,922.40 9 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (10")$2.95 1120 SQ YD $3,304.00 1,120.00 SQ YD $3,304.00 0.00 SQ YD $0.00 1,120.00 SQ YD $3,304.00 10 CRACK REPAIR $6.90 250 LIN FT $1,725.00 208.00 LIN FT $1,435.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 208.00 LIN FT $1,435.20 11 DISPOSE EXCESS RECLAIM MATERIAL OFF-SITE (LV)$24.10 150 CU YD $3,615.00 150.00 CU YD $3,615.00 0.00 CU YD $0.00 150.00 CU YD $3,615.00 12 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB (ANY TYPE)$18.20 340 LIN FT $6,188.00 367.00 LIN FT $6,679.40 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 367.00 LIN FT $6,679.40 13 REMOVE BOLLARDS $40.90 7 EACH $286.30 7.00 EACH $286.30 0.00 EACH $0.00 7.00 EACH $286.30 14 SALVAGE & REINSTALL PAVERS $16.10 100 SQ FT $1,610.00 72.00 SQ FT $1,159.20 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 72.00 SQ FT $1,159.20 15 SALVAGE & REINSTALL LANDSCAPE ROCK $2.05 1470 SQ FT $3,013.50 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 90.00 SQ FT $184.50 90.00 SQ FT $184.50 16 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MULCH $1.30 1990 SQ FT $2,587.00 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 820.00 SQ FT $1,066.00 820.00 SQ FT $1,066.00 17 SALVAGE & REINSTALL FENCE (ANY TYPE)$13.00 40 LIN FT $520.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 40.00 LIN FT $520.00 40.00 LIN FT $520.00 18 SALVAGE & REINSTALL IRRIGATION PIPE $15.60 40 LIN FT $624.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 84.00 LIN FT $1,310.40 84.00 LIN FT $1,310.40 19 6" PVC CONDUIT $8.45 50 LIN FT $422.50 50.00 LIN FT $422.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 50.00 LIN FT $422.50 20 COMMON EXCAVATION (CV)$22.00 1920 CU YD $42,240.00 2,320.00 CU YD $51,040.00 0.00 CU YD $0.00 2,320.00 CU YD $51,040.00 21 COMMON EXCAVATION (PATCHING) (CV)$29.80 225 CU YD $6,705.00 250.00 CU YD $7,450.00 0.00 CU YD $0.00 250.00 CU YD $7,450.00 22 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (CV)$19.50 3110 CU YD $60,645.00 509.00 CU YD $9,925.50 0.00 CU YD $0.00 509.00 CU YD $9,925.50 23 GRANULAR BORROW (CV)$34.40 3110 CU YD $106,984.00 491.00 CU YD $16,890.40 0.00 CU YD $0.00 491.00 CU YD $16,890.40 24 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC TYPE V $0.88 4700 SQ YD $4,136.00 1,707.00 SQ YD $1,502.16 0.00 SQ YD $0.00 1,707.00 SQ YD $1,502.16 25 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED)$17.90 2820 TON $50,478.00 3,193.00 TON $57,154.70 0.00 TON $0.00 3,193.00 TON $57,154.70 26 AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED) LIMESTONE $37.80 40 TON $1,512.00 55.65 TON $2,103.57 0.00 TON $0.00 55.65 TON $2,103.57 27 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B)$63.50 1440 TON $91,440.00 1,661.00 TON $105,473.50 0.00 TON $0.00 1,661.00 TON $105,473.50 28 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B)$61.10 1285 TON $78,513.50 1,340.60 TON $81,910.66 0.00 TON $0.00 1,340.60 TON $81,910.66 29 TYPE SP 12.5 NON WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) FOR PATCHING $86.60 95 TON $8,227.00 32.00 TON $2,771.20 0.00 TON $0.00 32.00 TON $2,771.20 30 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY $5.70 1140 SQ FT $6,498.00 787.50 SQ FT $4,488.75 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 787.50 SQ FT $4,488.75 31 3" BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY $21.90 1094 SQ YD $23,958.60 775.20 SQ YD $16,976.88 0.00 SQ YD $0.00 775.20 SQ YD $16,976.88 32 BITUMINOUS CURB $6.30 300 LIN FT $1,890.00 47.00 LIN FT $296.10 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 47.00 LIN FT $296.10 33 MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER $15.60 540 LIN FT $8,424.00 525.00 LIN FT $8,190.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 525.00 LIN FT $8,190.00 34 MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER (SPOT REPAIRS)$26.00 100 LIN FT $2,600.00 127.00 LIN FT $3,302.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 127.00 LIN FT $3,302.00 35 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 $10.90 4430 LIN FT $48,287.00 4,948.00 LIN FT $53,933.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 4,948.00 LIN FT $53,933.20 36 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 $15.60 680 LIN FT $10,608.00 752.00 LIN FT $11,731.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 752.00 LIN FT $11,731.20 37 MAINTAIN DRIVEWAY ACCESS $133.00 5 EACH $665.00 5.00 EACH $665.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 5.00 EACH $665.00 38 MAINTAIN MAIL SERVICE $216.00 1 LUMP SUM $216.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $216.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $216.00 39 8" CONCRETE CROSS PAN $9.00 640 SQ FT $5,760.00 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 0.00 SQ FT $0.00 40 TRAFFIC BARRIER, DESIGN B8338 $26.00 75 LIN FT $1,950.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 41 GUIDE POST TYPE B $52.00 12 EACH $624.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 13.00 EACH $676.00 13.00 EACH $676.00 42 END TREATMENT-TANGENT TERMINAL $3,536.00 2 EACH $7,072.00 2.00 EACH $7,072.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $7,072.00 43 TRAFFIC CONTROL $1,870.00 1 LUMP SUM $1,870.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,870.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,870.00 44 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)$41.70 937 CU YD $39,072.90 787.00 CU YD $32,817.90 0.00 CU YD $0.00 787.00 CU YD $32,817.90 45 LANDSCAPING $5,000.00 1 ALLOWANCE $5,000.00 0.58 ALLOWANCE $2,892.86 0.35 ALLOWANCE $1,750.00 0.93 ALLOWANCE $4,642.86 ESTIMATED AS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE THIS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATE Partial Pay Estimate No.:5 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART A CITY OF ORONO, MN BMI PROJECT NO. C13.114279 WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NO.ITEM PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED AS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE THIS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATE 46 HYDROMULCH WITH SEED MIXTURE 25-151 $1.35 2810 SQ YD $3,793.50 899.00 SQ YD $1,213.65 4,850.00 SQ YD $6,547.50 5,749.00 SQ YD $7,761.15 47 SOD $6.00 5910 SQ YD $35,460.00 509.50 SQ YD $3,057.00 1,452.50 SQ YD $8,715.00 1,962.00 SQ YD $11,772.00 48 BYPASS PUMPING $2,290.00 1 LUMP SUM $2,290.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $2,290.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $2,290.00 49 SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION $524.00 30 HOUR $15,720.00 18.50 HOUR $9,694.00 0.00 HOUR $0.00 18.50 HOUR $9,694.00 50 REMOVE WATERMAIN $13.50 500 LIN FT $6,750.00 30.00 LIN FT $405.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 30.00 LIN FT $405.00 51 REMOVE FORCEMAIN $13.50 170 LIN FT $2,295.00 30.00 LIN FT $405.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 30.00 LIN FT $405.00 52 REMOVE HYDRANT $337.00 3 EACH $1,011.00 2.00 EACH $674.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $674.00 53 REMOVE GATE VALVE & BOX $168.00 4 EACH $672.00 2.00 EACH $336.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $336.00 54 REMOVE WATER SERVICE PIPE $9.60 250 EACH $2,400.00 219.00 EACH $2,102.40 0.00 EACH $0.00 219.00 EACH $2,102.40 55 TRENCH ROCK $39.20 200 TON $7,840.00 130.57 TON $5,118.34 0.00 TON $0.00 130.57 TON $5,118.34 56 TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE $14,000.00 1 LUMP SUM $14,000.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $14,000.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $14,000.00 57 CONNECT TO EXISTING WATERMAIN $1,250.00 1 EACH $1,250.00 2.00 EACH $2,500.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $2,500.00 58 CONNECT TO EXISTING FORCEMAIN $1,170.00 2 EACH $2,340.00 2.00 EACH $2,340.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $2,340.00 59 1" CURB STOP & BOX $491.00 10 EACH $4,910.00 8.00 EACH $3,928.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 8.00 EACH $3,928.00 60 1" CORPORATION STOP $405.00 10 EACH $4,050.00 8.00 EACH $3,240.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 8.00 EACH $3,240.00 61 TAPPING SADDLE $412.00 10 EACH $4,120.00 8.00 EACH $3,296.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 8.00 EACH $3,296.00 62 6" GATE VALVE & BOX $1,520.00 3 EACH $4,560.00 3.00 EACH $4,560.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 3.00 EACH $4,560.00 63 8" GATE VALVE & BOX $2,010.00 3 EACH $6,030.00 3.00 EACH $6,030.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 3.00 EACH $6,030.00 64 HYDRANT $4,220.00 3 EACH $12,660.00 2.00 EACH $8,440.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $8,440.00 65 HYDRANT EXTENSION $854.00 3 LIN FT $2,562.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 1.00 LIN FT $854.00 1.00 LIN FT $854.00 66 GATE VALVE EXTENSION $104.00 4 LIN FT $416.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 67 1" COPPER WATER SERVICE, TYPE K $39.10 360 LIN FT $14,076.00 235.00 LIN FT $9,188.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 235.00 LIN FT $9,188.50 68 6" DIP, CL. 52 FORCEMAIN $43.50 170 LIN FT $7,395.00 163.00 LIN FT $7,090.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 163.00 LIN FT $7,090.50 69 6" DIP, CL. 52 WATERMAIN $45.30 36 LIN FT $1,630.80 23.00 LIN FT $1,041.90 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 23.00 LIN FT $1,041.90 70 8" PVC C900 DR 18 WATERMAIN (OPEN CUT)$42.40 220 LIN FT $9,328.00 235.00 LIN FT $9,964.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 235.00 LIN FT $9,964.00 71 8" PVC C900 DR 18 (DIPS) WATERMAIN (DIRECTIONAL DRILL)$62.50 1010 LIN FT $63,125.00 961.00 LIN FT $60,062.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 961.00 LIN FT $60,062.50 72 WATERMAIN/FORCEMAIN FITTINGS $8.95 600 POUND $5,370.00 795.00 POUND $7,115.25 0.00 POUND $0.00 795.00 POUND $7,115.25 73 ADJUST GATE VALVE & BOX $261.00 4 EACH $1,044.00 5.00 EACH $1,305.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 5.00 EACH $1,305.00 74 ADJUST FRAME & RING CASTING $693.00 18 EACH $12,474.00 22.00 EACH $15,246.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 22.00 EACH $15,246.00 75 REMOVE SEWER PIPE (STORM)$16.20 327 LIN FT $5,297.40 395.00 LIN FT $6,399.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 395.00 LIN FT $6,399.00 76 REMOVE STORM MANHOLE OR CATCH BASIN $503.00 4 EACH $2,012.00 4.00 EACH $2,012.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 4.00 EACH $2,012.00 77 4" HDPE PERFORATED DRAINTILE $14.00 200 LIN FT $2,800.00 10.00 LIN FT $140.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 10.00 LIN FT $140.00 78 6" HDPE DRAINTILE $21.70 5 LIN FT $108.50 5.00 LIN FT $108.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 5.00 LIN FT $108.50 79 12" RC PIPE APRON $803.00 3 EACH $2,409.00 3.00 EACH $2,409.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 3.00 EACH $2,409.00 80 12" HDPE PIPE APRON $329.00 1 EACH $329.00 1.00 EACH $329.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $329.00 81 18" ARCH RC PIPE APRON $952.00 4 EACH $3,808.00 4.00 EACH $3,808.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 4.00 EACH $3,808.00 82 24" RC PIPE APRON $961.00 1 EACH $961.00 1.00 EACH $961.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $961.00 83 30" RC PIPE APRON $1,170.00 1 EACH $1,170.00 1.00 EACH $1,170.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 1.00 EACH $1,170.00 84 36" RC PIPE APRON $1,540.00 2 EACH $3,080.00 2.00 EACH $3,080.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 2.00 EACH $3,080.00 85 12" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V $50.00 645 LIN FT $32,250.00 657.00 LIN FT $32,850.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 657.00 LIN FT $32,850.00 86 12" HDPE PIPE SEWER - DIRECTIONAL DRILL $74.60 66 LIN FT $4,923.60 66.00 LIN FT $4,923.60 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 66.00 LIN FT $4,923.60 87 15" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V $55.00 21 LIN FT $1,155.00 21.00 LIN FT $1,155.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 21.00 LIN FT $1,155.00 88 18" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V $56.10 220 LIN FT $12,342.00 220.00 LIN FT $12,342.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 220.00 LIN FT $12,342.00 89 18" ARCH RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL V $81.60 56 LIN FT $4,569.60 45.00 LIN FT $3,672.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 45.00 LIN FT $3,672.00 90 21" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III $62.80 58 LIN FT $3,642.40 58.00 LIN FT $3,642.40 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 58.00 LIN FT $3,642.40 91 24" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III $91.80 10 LIN FT $918.00 4.00 LIN FT $367.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 4.00 LIN FT $367.20 Partial Pay Estimate No.:5 2018 STREET IMPROVEMENTS PART A CITY OF ORONO, MN BMI PROJECT NO. C13.114279 WORK COMPLETED THROUGH JUNE 30, 2019 ITEM UNIT ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED ESTIMATED NO.ITEM PRICE QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT QUANTITY AMOUNT ESTIMATED AS BID PREVIOUS ESTIMATE THIS ESTIMATE COMPLETED TO DATE 92 30" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III $95.60 52 LIN FT $4,971.20 46.00 LIN FT $4,397.60 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 46.00 LIN FT $4,397.60 93 36" RC PIPE SEWER DES 3006 CL III $124.00 49 LIN FT $6,076.00 35.00 LIN FT $4,340.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 35.00 LIN FT $4,340.00 94 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER $1,010.00 5 EACH $5,050.00 5.00 EACH $5,050.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 5.00 EACH $5,050.00 95 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN H $301.00 24 LIN FT $7,224.00 25.30 LIN FT $7,615.30 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 25.30 LIN FT $7,615.30 96 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN R-1 $436.00 43.7 LIN FT $19,053.20 42.70 LIN FT $18,617.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 42.70 LIN FT $18,617.20 97 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 4020-48"$340.00 7 LIN FT $2,380.00 14.50 LIN FT $4,930.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 14.50 LIN FT $4,930.00 98 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 4022-48"$428.00 20.3 LIN FT $8,688.40 15.90 LIN FT $6,805.20 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 15.90 LIN FT $6,805.20 99 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 4020-60"$675.00 4.8 LIN FT $3,240.00 4.80 LIN FT $3,240.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 4.80 LIN FT $3,240.00 100 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 4022-60"$478.00 8.3 LIN FT $3,967.40 14.60 LIN FT $6,978.80 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 14.60 LIN FT $6,978.80 101 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE DESIGN 4022-72"$777.00 17.3 LIN FT $13,442.10 10.50 LIN FT $8,158.50 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 10.50 LIN FT $8,158.50 102 FURNISH & INSTALL CASTING ASSEMBLY - STORM $697.00 31 EACH $21,607.00 33.00 EACH $23,001.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 33.00 EACH $23,001.00 103 RANDOM RIPRAP CLASS III $66.90 314 TON $21,006.60 62.20 TON $4,161.18 0.00 TON $0.00 62.20 TON $4,161.18 104 SILT FENCE, TYPE MS $2.05 700 LIN FT $1,435.00 680.00 LIN FT $1,394.00 210.00 LIN FT $430.50 890.00 LIN FT $1,824.50 105 FLOATATION SILT CURTAIN, TYPE STILL WATER $15.30 35 LIN FT $535.50 35.00 LIN FT $535.50 15.00 LIN FT $229.50 50.00 LIN FT $765.00 106 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION $136.00 28 EACH $3,808.00 28.00 EACH $3,808.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 28.00 EACH $3,808.00 107 SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG TYPE STRAW $8.00 700 LIN FT $5,600.00 480.00 LIN FT $3,840.00 0.00 LIN FT $0.00 480.00 LIN FT $3,840.00 EXTRA WORK EW-1 EXTERNAL CHIMNEY SEALS $197.00 0 EACH $0.00 30.00 EACH $5,910.00 0.00 EACH $0.00 30.00 EACH $5,910.00 EW-2 UNMARKED SEWER CLEANOUT FOREST LAKE LANDING $1,593.73 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,593.73 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,593.73 EW-3 STUMP WITH GAS AND PHONE THROUGH ROOT BALL FOREST LAKE $2,497.55 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $2,497.55 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $2,497.55 EW-4 ADJUST PIPE GRADE TO AVOID ELEC. WILDHURST DITCH $1,581.80 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,581.80 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,581.80 EW-5 GAS MAIN CONFLICT CATSH BASINS WILDHURST $812.90 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $812.90 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $812.90 EW-6 REMOBILIZATION FOR CENTURY LINK CURB WEST LAFAYETTE $963.00 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $963.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $963.00 EW-7 JERSEY BARRIERS $1,875.00 0 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,875.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $1,875.00 EW-8 REGRADE DITCH AROUND GAS MAIN,REMOVE TREES ADD RIP RAP $3,430.50 LUMP SUM $0.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $3,430.50 1.00 LUMP SUM $3,430.50 EW-9 GRADE AND PLACE RIP RAP AT 305. CONSTRUCT BOULDER WALL $4,725.50 LUMP SUM $0.00 0.00 LUMP SUM $0.00 1.00 LUMP SUM $4,725.50 1.00 LUMP SUM $4,725.50 ON WILDHURST TOTAL AMOUNT:$1,245,652.45 $998,021.88 $31,141.40 $1,029,163.28 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is for City Council to accept the sanitary sewer, water and stormwater utilities as well as the public streets within the Orono Preserve development. 2. Background. The Orono Preserve development was approved subject to the terms of the Development Contract and Residential Planned Unit Development Agreement, Orono Preserve, PUD#11, 16-3807 / 16-3842, executed by the developer and the City September 16th, 2016. Per the contract the water, sanitary sewer and storm water utilities as well as the roadway are to be a public facilities owned, operated and maintained by the City of Orono. The sidewalks are a public improvement to be maintain by the homeowners with the exception of the connection between the cul- de-sac and Wayzata Blvd which will be maintained by the City. In subsection 23 the agreement states that the final security will be returned to the developer once the public improvements are accepted by the City Council. 3. Public Improvements. The development infrastructure that is public include the water system, sanitary sewer system, the stormwater system, the roadway and sidewalks. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommended formal acceptance of the water system, sanitary sewer system, the stormwater system, the roadway. Numerous sidewalk panels are damaged and not ready for acceptance at this time. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to adopt a resolution accepting the water system, sanitary sewer system, the stormwater system, the roadway improvements within Orono Preserve as public facilities. Exhibits A. Resolution Draft B. City Engineer final inspection letter Item No.: 13 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Orono Preserve – Formal Acceptance Public Improvements – Resolution Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SANITARY SEWER UTILITY, WATER UTILITY, STORMWATER UTILITY AND THE STREETS WITHIN ORONO PRESERVE AS PUBLIC FACILITIES WHEREAS, on September 16th , 2016 the City of Orono and OP5 Orono, LLC entered into Development Contract and Residential Planned Unit Development Agreement, Orono Preserve, PUD#11 16-3807/ 16-3842, (the "Contract") which documented the terms and conditions under which the development known as Orono Preserve was approved; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of the Agreement state that final acceptance of the improvements to be publicly owned, including, water, sanitary sewer, storm water utilities and roadway, shall take the form of a Resolution passed by the Orono City Council, on the advice of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has recommended that the City formally accept the water, sanitary sewer, storm water utilities and roadway improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono does hereby formally accept the Public Improvements (water, sanitary sewer, storm water utilities and roadway) associated with Orono Preserve and shall assume ownership and maintenance of said facilities. Adopted by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this 12th day of November, 2019. ATTEST: ____________________________ _____________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Exhibit B 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 vehicle. 2. Background. The Police Department has 1 forfeited vehicle that can be disposed. The vehicle was seized and forfeited by the Orono Police Department from a driver that had multiple violations for Driving While Intoxicated. The police department would recommend the vehicle be sent to an auto auction. 3. Project Scope. Disposal of a forfeited vehicle. 2003 Mazda Tribute VIN# 4F2YZ04183KM18357 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the disposal of a forfeited vehicle. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to dispose of a forfeited vehicle. Vehicle will be sent to an auto action. Item No.: 14 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Forfeited Vehicle Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 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 City Council reviewed this application at meetings on October 14th, and October 28th. At the October 28th meeting staff was directed to draft an approval resolution for consideration based on the structural coverage level of 26.9%. 4. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are incorporated by reference. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff has drafted an approval resolution including all of the requested variances based on the applicant’s revised structural coverage level of 26.9%. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should consider adopting or amending the resolution granting lot area, hardcover, structural coverage, setback variances, and an interim use permit to develop the property. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Draft Council Minutes 10/28/19 References PC Memo & Exhibits 09/16/19 PC Minutes 09/16/19 Council Memos & Exhibits 10/14/19 & 10/28/19 Council Minutes 10/14/19 2040 Community Management Plan Item No.: 15 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000069 – Gordon James Construction o/b/o Dale & Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, Variances & IUP – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-350; 78-1279; 78-1282; 78-1403; 78-1405; 78-1680; 78-1681 & 78-1700 AND GRANTING AN INTERIM USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO SECTION 78-1726 FILE NO. LA19 -000069 WHEREAS, on August 21, 2019, Dale Olsen and Jonmari Olsen (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a number of variances from the City Code for the property addressed 3315 Crystal Bay Road and legally described as: Lots 2, 3 and 4, “Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach”. A strip or piece of land 5 feet wide and 150 feet long, being all that part of the right-of-way of the railway of the Great Northern Railway Company in Government Lot 6, Section 17, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian, lying parallel with and adjoining the Southeasterly line of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Wallace's Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach. (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for variances to the following Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections to allow redevelopment of the Property: 1. Section 78-350 for a lot area variance to develop a lot with 11,100 square feet in defined lot area where 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) of area is required; 2. Sections 78-1608 and 78-1700 for hardcover variances to allow 49.6% total site hardcover where 25% is allowed; and 3,697 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback; 3. Section 78-1405 for a structural coverage variance to allow 31.1% building/structural coverage where 20% is the maximum allowed based on a defined lot area of 11,100 square feet; 4. Sections 78-350; 78-1279; and 78-1405 for setback variances to allow: a. 2,353 square feet of building/structure within the 75-foot setback where no structure is allowed; b. Retaining walls within the 75-foot setback, 30 feet from the OHWL; c. Retaining walls within 10-feet of the paved roadway, between 0-2 feet; d. Retaining walls in excess of 2 feet in height within the side yard setback; CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 e. 6.3-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building where 30-foot setback is required; f. 41-foot setback from the OHWL for the principal building where a 75-foot setback is required; g. Driveway width within the 75-foot setback wider than the permitted 8-foot allowance; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for an interim use permit (hereinafter the “IUP”) pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 1726 to permit export of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of material from within the 75-foot setback from the OHWL; 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 denial of the variances as proposed; and WHEREAS, on October 14, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and voted to table the application, and advised the Applicants to redesign the plan reducing the proposed structural coverage level; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the City Council reviewed the revised request which included the following: 1. Section 78-350 for a lot area variance to develop a lot with 11,100 square feet in defined lot area where 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) of area is required; 2. Sections 78-1608 and 78-1700 for hardcover variances to allow 39.7% total site hardcover where 25% is allowed; and 3,218 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback; 3. Section 78-1405 for a structural coverage variance to allow 26.9% building/structural coverage; 4. Sections 78-350; 78-1279; and 78-1405 for setback variances to allow: a. 2,103 square feet of building/structure within the 75-foot setback where no structure is allowed; b. Retaining walls within the 75-foot setback, 32 feet from the OHWL; c. Retaining walls within 10-feet of the paved roadway, 2 feet from the paved road; d. Retaining walls in excess of 2 feet in height within the side yard setback; CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 e. 6.3-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building where 30-foot setback is required; f. 41-foot setback from the OHWL for the principal building where a 75-foot setback is required; g. Driveway width within the 75-foot setback wider than the permitted 8-foot allowance; and 5. An IUP for removal of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of fill from the 75-foot setback. WHEREAS, on October 28, 2019, the City Council directed preparation of findings for approval of the revised plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances and IUP 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 #LA19-000069. 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-1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 11,100 square feet (0.25 acre) in defined lot area and has a defined lot width of 149 feet. 4. Total defined lot area of the Property excludes the bituminous, travelled area of Crystal Bay Road; therefore 14,459 square feet (total) minus the 3,359 square feet of paved public road equals 11,100 square feet. 5. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 6. The applied building setbacks on the Property overlap resulting in an absence of any legal buildable area. 7. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Lot Area Variance b. Structural Coverage Variance CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 c. Hardcover Variances– Overall and within 75-foot Setback d. Lake Setback Variance e. Street Setback Variance f. Side Yard Setback Variance g. Rear Yard Setback Variance h. Driveway Width within 75-foot Setback Variance 8. In considering this application for variances and IUP, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. VARIANCE ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small, shallow lot includes difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to allow redevelopment. The lot is also challenged by Crystal Bay Road which subtracts 3,359 square feet from the calculated lot area and runs through the lake yard. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variances requested to develop the nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan. The requested hardcover and structural coverage variances are supported by the undue burden caused by the 3,359 square feet of paved Crystal Bay Road. 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 request to permit construction of the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the 75-foot lake setback, front setback, and rear yard setback, appears to be reasonable as the Property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, Crystal Bay Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Property’s uniquely small, shallow size, location with respect to the lake and roadway, and required setbacks prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. Approval of the requested variances provides relief from the hardcover limitation, the lake and street setback, the rear setback and the lot area requirements. The presence of the Crystal Bay Road improvements limits the usability of the Property. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a home which is reasonable. Other homes in the immediate neighborhood have been granted similar levels of variances for redevelopment. 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. The burden of the 3,359 square feet of roadway and the shallow depth are unique to the Property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting the variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the Applicants as when all setbacks are combined they eliminate any legal buildable area on the Property. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting variances 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 variances are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants. INTERIM USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 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. 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. 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. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants the following approvals: • A Variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 for a lot area variance to develop a lot with 11,100 square feet in defined lot area where 21,780 square feet (0.5 acre) of area is required; • Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1608 and 78-1700 for hardcover variances to allow 39.7% total site hardcover where 25% is allowed; and 3,218 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback; CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 8 • A Variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1405 for a structural coverage variance to allow 26.9% building/structural coverage; • Variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350; 78-1279; and 78-1405 for setback variances to allow: - 2,103 square feet of building/structure within the 75-foot setback where no structure is allowed; - Retaining walls within the 75-foot setback, 32 feet from the OHWL; - Retaining walls within 10-feet of the paved roadway, 2 feet from the paved road; - Retaining walls in excess of 2 feet in height within the side yard setback; - 6.3-foot rear yard setback variance for the principal building where 30-foot setback is required; - 41-foot setback from the OHWL for the principal building where a 75-foot setback is required; - Driveway width within the 75-foot setback wider than the permitted 8-foot allowance; and • An IUP pursuant to Section 78-1726 for removal of approximately 1,120 cubic yards of fill from the 75-foot setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the hardcover calculations and improvements as shown on the revised site plan dated 10/18/19 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. No grading within the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority’s (HCRAA) easement is permitted without HCRR permit / permission. 5. To offset the hardcover increases, the plan proposes underground infiltration (French drains). Applicant shall provide the calculations used to size the system with the Building Permit submittal. Also a detail of the French drain should be included in the plan set, and the locations shown on the as-built certificate of survey. 6. A complete stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be required as part of the building permit review. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 9 7. Prior to building permit review the survey shall be updated to show all existing utilities in accordance the City survey and site plan requirements. 8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 12, 2020). 9. 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 12th day of November, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor TR A F F I C F L O W TR A F F I C F L O W 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 5POBACAC 1 GA S & EL E C . 6 6 2 1 2 LA K E M I N N E T O N K A CR Y S T A L B A Y OH W : 9 2 9 . 4 0 EX I S T I N G HO U S E EX I S T I N G HO U S E CR Y S T A L B A Y R O A D P R O P E R T Y L I N E HC R R E A S E M E N T HC R R E A S E M E N T 75 ' O H W S E T B A C K 1 0 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E AV G . B L D G . S E T B A C K AV G . B L D G . S E T B A C K DA K O T A R A I L T R A I L EX I S T I N G A D J A C E N T G R E E N S P A C E 1 0 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PR O P O S E D H O U S E MA I N L E V E L S U B - F L O O R : 9 4 5 . 3 2 LO W E R L E V E L S U B F L O O R : 9 3 4 . 5 0 PR O P O S E D GA R A G E FF E : 9 3 4 . 2 5 SC R E E N E D PO R C H W.W . LA W N AU T O C O U R T EN T R Y TE R R A C E FE S C U E PL A N T I N G A R E A P L A N T I N G A R E A FE S C U E PL A N T I N G AR E A FE S C U E PL A N T I N G AR E A FE S C U E 4 93 8 93 9 93 7 94 4 94 3 94 2 94 0 94 3 94 2 93 7 93 693 5 93 4 94 1 93 8 93 6 93 9 93 4 94 0 94 1 93 4 93 5 93 6 93 5 93 7 93 7 93 8 93 9 94 1 94 2 94 0 93 5 93 4 93 6 94 3 94 4 DN DN DN DN DN DN DN DN 10 ' 6 ' - 3 " 34 ' - 2 " 9'- 9 " 34 ' 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 ' SI T E P L A N 1 L1 0 1 SI T E P L A N 1" = 8 ' SC A L E : 1 i n c h = 8' 1 6 ' 4' 0 8 f e e t c r e a t i o n d a t e : 1 0 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 9 f i 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 l a s t s a v e d : b r e t w i e s e l e r O c t o b e r 2 2 , 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 3 2 A M Th e d e s i g n s s h o w n a n d d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n i n c l u d i n g a l l t e c h n i c a l d r a w i n g s , gr a p h i c s a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t h e r e o f , a r e p r o p r i e t a r y a n d c a n n o t b e c o p i e d , du p l i c a t e d o r c o m m e r c i a l l y e x p l o i t e d , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s wr i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f T r a v i s V a n L i e r e S t u d i o , L L C . T h e s e a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r li m i t e d r e v i e w a n d e v a l u a t i o n b y c l i e n t s , c o n s u l t a n t s , c o n t r a c t o r s , go v e r n e m e n t a g e n c i e s , a n d v e n d o r s o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s n o t i c e . © C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 T r a v i s V a n L i e r e S t u d i o , L L C . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . li c e n s e n o : 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 un 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 L a n d s c a p e Ar 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 . 43 7 2 8 TR A V I S V A N L I E R E da t e : 1/ 2 3 / 2 0 1 8 33 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 OL S E N R E S I D E N C E Dr a w n B y : Da t e : Sc a l e : Dr a w i n g : Sh e e t : 10 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 9 BW Re v # De s c r i p t i o n Da t e 1 S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N R E V I E W 08 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 2 V A R I A N C E A P P L I C A T I O N 08 . 2 6 . 2 0 1 9 3 LA N D S C A P E R E V S . P E R C I T Y R E V I E W 10 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 9 NO T E : GE N E R A L N O T E S 1. SE E S H E E T L 0 0 1 F O R G E N E R A L N O T E S . 2. RE F E R T O A R C H I T E C T U R A L D R A W I N G S F O R B U I L D I N G I N F O . 3. EL E C T R I C A L C O N T R A C T O R , M E C H A N I C A L C O N T R A C T O R , A N D IR R I G A T I O N C O N T R A C T O R T O C O O R D I N A T E W I T H P A V I N G , C O N C R E T E , AN D W A L L C O N T R A C T O R S O N S L E E V E L O C A T I O N S U N D E R D R I V E W A Y S , WA L K S , A N D W A L L S . 4. R E F E R T O S H E E T L 0 1 0 F O R E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N F O R B O U N D A R Y IN F O R M A T I O N . A L L C O N S T R U C T I O N S T A K I N G M U S T B E P E R F O R M E D B Y A RE G I S T E R E D L A N D S U R V E Y O R 5. DO N O T S C A L E T H E D R A W I N G S . W R I T T E N D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O B E U S E D FO R A L L L A Y O U T W O R K . 6. T H E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L I M M E D I A T E L Y N O T I F Y T H E L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T O F A N Y L A Y O U T D I S C R E P A N C I E S . 7. A L L S I T E E L E M E N T S S H A L L B E S T A K E D I N T H E F I E L D A N D A P P R O V E D B Y LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . 8. AU T O C A D F I L E A V A I L A B L E T O C O N T R A C T O R U P O N R E Q U E S T F O R FI E L D L A Y O U T . LE G E N D : EX I S T I N G T R E E TO B E S A V E D DE C I D . C O N I F . O R N A . EX I S T I N G SP O T E L E V A T I O N EX I S T I N G CO N T O U R PR O P O S E D NE W T R E E PR O P O S E D NE W S H R U B DE C I D . CO N I F . PR O P O S E D NE W P E R E N N I A L PE R E N N I A L G R A S S PR O P O S E D CO N T O U R PR O P O S E D SP O T E L E V A T I O N 00 0 . 0 0 DR A I N A G E FL O W PR O P O S E D BU I L D I N G E N T R Y PR O P O S E D CA T C H B A S I N CB PR O P O S E D LI G H T F I X T U R E 00 0 . 0 0 PR O P O S E D DR A I N T I L E P. E . PR O P O S E D PO P - U P E M I T T E R DE C I D . C O N I F . O R N A . KE Y N O T E S 1. EX I S T I N G S I G N I F I C A N T T R E E ( S ) T Y P . - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 2. E X I S T I N G N E I G H B O R I N G P R O P E R T Y / S I T E F E A T U R E - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 3. EX I S T I N G C I T Y S T R E E T / A L L E Y - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T , R E P A I R A N Y DA M A G E D A R E A S P E R C I T Y S T A N D A R D S 4. E X I S T I N G O V E R H E A D P O W E R P O L E - T O B E R E L O C A T E D 5. E X I S T I N G C L E A N O U T - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 6. EX I S T I N G F E N C E - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 21 1 1 S T S T R E E T N O R T H , S U I T E 3 5 0 MI N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 t 6 1 2 3 4 5 4 2 7 5 N SH E E T N O T E S 1. N E W D O C K L O C A T I O N B Y O W N E R 2. RO O F O V E R H A N G , T Y P I C A L LO T C O V E R A G E PR O P E R T Y A R E A 14 , 4 5 9 s . f . AR E A O F R O A D W A Y 3, 3 5 9 s . f . AD J U S T E D P R O P E R T Y A R E A 11 , 1 0 0 s . f . EX I S T I N G I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E Ex i s t i n g H o u s e a n d S h e d 1, 2 2 6 s . f . Ex i s t i n g P a v i n g 2, 0 4 1 s . f . Ex i s t i n g b o u l d e r w a l l a n d c o n c . r e t a i n i n g w a l l s a s E X C L U D E D p e r c i t y c o d e S e c 7 8 - 1 6 8 4 18 7 s . f . Ex i s t i n g D e c k 39 9 s . f . EX I S T I N G I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E A R E A 3, 6 6 6 s . f . EX I S T I N G I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E R A T I O 33 % EX I S T I N G S T R U C T U R A L C O V E R A G E R A T I O 11 % PR O P O S E D I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E Pr o p o s e d H o u s e 2, 8 9 1 s . f . Pr o p o s e d P a v i n g 1, 6 9 7 s . f . Mi n u s t h e f i r s t 1 0 0 s q u a r e f e e t o f p e r v i o u s p a v e r s ( a u t o c o u r t ) -1 0 0 s . f . To t a l P a v i n g 15 9 7 s . f . Wi n d o w W e l l a n d P l a n t e r W a l l s 4 7 s . f . Pr o p o s e d r e t a i n i n g w a l l s a s E X C L U D E D p e r c i t y c o d e S e c 7 8 - 1 6 8 4 19 3 s . f . PR O P O S E D I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E A R E A 4, 5 3 5 s . f . PR O P O S E D I M P E R V I O U S S U R F A C E R A T I O 40 . 8 6 % PR O P O S E D S T R U C T U R A L C O V E R A G E R A T I O 26 . 0 5 % 3 M O D 3 M O D 3 M O D TR A F F I C F L O W TR A F F I C F L O W 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2:1 5POB94 5 . 1 7 ACAC 1 1 . 4 8 % GA S & EL E C . 6 6 CB 2 1 2 2 : 1 2:1 93 4 . 2 5 93 4 . 2 5 BO S 93 8 . 0 0 TO W CB CBCB LA K E M I N N E T O N K A CR Y S T A L B A Y OH W : 9 2 9 . 4 0 EX I S T I N G HO U S E EX I S T I N G HO U S E CR Y S T A L B A Y R O A D P R O P E R T Y L I N E HC R R E A S E M E N T HC R R E A S E M E N T 75 ' O H W S E T B A C K 1 0 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K P R O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E AV G . B L D G . S E T B A C K AV G . B L D G . S E T B A C K DA K O T A R A I L T R A I L EX I S T I N G A D J A C E N T G R E E N S P A C E 1 0 ' S I D E Y A R D S E T B A C K PR O P O S E D H O U S E MA I N L E V E L S U B - F L O O R : 9 4 5 . 3 2 LO W E R L E V E L S U B F L O O R : 9 3 4 . 5 0 PR O P O S E D GA R A G E FF E : 9 3 4 . 2 5 SC R E E N E D PO R C H W.W . LA W N AU T O C O U R T EN T R Y TE R R A C E FE S C U E PL A N T I N G A R E A P L A N T I N G A R E A FE S C U E PL A N T I N G AR E A FE S C U E PL A N T I N G AR E A CB CBCB CB 93 3 . 4 0 ± M. E . 93 3 . 4 0 ± M. E . 93 4 . 2 5 93 4 . 8 3 TO S 93 5 . 0 0 BO S 93 4 . 5 0 BO W 94 1 . 3 3 BO W 94 5 . 0 8 TO S TO W : 9 3 6 . 0 0 BO W : 9 3 5 . 0 0 93 4 . 5 0 BO W 93 4 . 4 2 BE Y O N D TO W : 9 4 2 . 0 0 BO W : 9 4 1 . 5 0 94 4 . 5 8 BO S 93 3 . 7 5 BO S 94 1 . 5 0 94 1 . 2 5 94 1 . 5 0 94 1 . 0 0 BO W 94 4 . 5 8 BO S 94 0 . 0 0 BO W 93 9 . 5 0 TO W 94 5 . 0 0 TO W 93 7 . 0 0 TO W 94 2 . 0 0 TO W 94 1 . 2 5 94 1 . 0 0 ± VI F 94 3 . 1 7 ± VI F 93 4 . 4 2 BE Y O N D 93 4 . 3 3 TO S 93 4 . 2 5 TO S 93 3 . 6 7 BO S CB93 4 . 4 2 BE Y O N D FE S C U E 94 3 . 4 2 BO W CB CB 94 4 . 1 7 BO W 94 0 . 5 8 BO W 4 93 8 93 9 93 7 94 4 94 3 94 2 94 0 94 3 94 2 93 7 93 693 5 93 4 94 1 93 8 93 6 93 9 93 4 94 0 94 1 93 4 93 5 93 6 93 5 93 7 TO W : 9 3 4 . 0 0 BO W : 9 3 3 . 5 0 TO W : 9 3 4 . 0 0 BO W : 9 3 3 . 5 0 TO W : 9 3 8 . 5 0 BO W : 9 3 8 . 0 0 TO W : 9 3 8 . 5 0 BO W : 9 3 8 . 0 0 93 7 93 8 93 9 94 1 94 2 94 0 93 5 93 4 93 6 94 3 94 4 DN DN DN DN DN DN DN 94 4 . 5 8 BO S DN 11 1 2 3 3 3 1 4 4 3 4 5 6 6 6 6 6 3 3 4 3 3 GR A D I N G A N D D R A I N A G E P L A N 1 L2 0 1 GR A D I N G A N D D R A I N A G E PL A N 1" = 8 ' N SC A L E : 1 i n c h = 8' 1 6 ' 4' 0 8 f e e t c r e a t i o n d a t e : 1 0 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 f i 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 l a s t s a v e d : b r e t w i e s e l e r O c t o b e r 1 8 , 2 0 1 9 8 : 3 6 A M Th e d e s i g n s s h o w n a n d d e s c r i b e d h e r e i n i n c l u d i n g a l l t e c h n i c a l d r a w i n g s , gr a p h i c s a n d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s t h e r e o f , a r e p r o p r i e t a r y a n d c a n n o t b e c o p i e d , du p l i c a t e d o r c o m m e r c i a l l y e x p l o i t e d , i n w h o l e o r i n p a r t , w i t h o u t t h e e x p r e s s wr i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n o f T r a v i s V a n L i e r e S t u d i o , L L C . T h e s e a r e a v a i l a b l e f o r li m i t e d r e v i e w a n d e v a l u a t i o n b y c l i e n t s , c o n s u l t a n t s , c o n t r a c t o r s , go v e r n e m e n t a g e n c i e s , a n d v e n d o r s o n l y i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s n o t i c e . © C o p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 T r a v i s V a n L i e r e S t u d i o , L L C . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . li c e n s e n o : 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 un 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 L a n d s c a p e Ar 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 . 43 7 2 8 TR A V I S V A N L I E R E da t e : 1/ 2 3 / 2 0 1 8 33 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 OL S E N R E S I D E N C E Dr a w n B y : Da t e : Sc a l e : Dr a w i n g : Sh e e t : 10 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 BW Re v # De s c r i p t i o n Da t e 1 S C H E M A T I C D E S I G N R E V I E W 08 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 2 V A R I A N C E A P P L I C A T I O N 08 . 2 6 . 2 0 1 9 3 LA N D S C A P E R E V S . P E R C I T Y R E V I E W 10 . 1 8 . 2 0 1 9 NO T E : GE N E R A L N O T E S 1. SE E S H E E T L 0 0 1 F O R G E N E R A L N O T E S . 2. RE F E R T O A R C H I T E C T U R A L D R A W I N G S F O R B U I L D I N G I N F O . 3. EL E C T R I C A L C O N T R A C T O R , M E C H A N I C A L C O N T R A C T O R , A N D IR R I G A T I O N C O N T R A C T O R T O C O O R D I N A T E W I T H P A V I N G , C O N C R E T E , AN D W A L L C O N T R A C T O R S O N S L E E V E L O C A T I O N S U N D E R D R I V E W A Y S , WA L K S , A N D W A L L S . 4. R E F E R T O S H E E T L 0 1 0 F O R E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N F O R B O U N D A R Y IN F O R M A T I O N . A L L C O N S T R U C T I O N S T A K I N G M U S T B E P E R F O R M E D B Y A RE G I S T E R E D L A N D S U R V E Y O R 5. DO N O T S C A L E T H E D R A W I N G S . W R I T T E N D I M E N S I O N S A R E T O B E U S E D FO R A L L L A Y O U T W O R K . 6. T H E C O N T R A C T O R S H A L L I M M E D I A T E L Y N O T I F Y T H E L A N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T O F A N Y L A Y O U T D I S C R E P A N C I E S . 7. A L L S I T E E L E M E N T S S H A L L B E S T A K E D I N T H E F I E L D A N D A P P R O V E D B Y LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . 8. AU T O C A D F I L E A V A I L A B L E T O C O N T R A C T O R U P O N R E Q U E S T F O R FI E L D L A Y O U T . LE G E N D : EX I S T I N G T R E E TO B E S A V E D DE C I D . C O N I F . O R N A . EX I S T I N G SP O T E L E V A T I O N EX I S T I N G CO N T O U R PR O P O S E D NE W T R E E PR O P O S E D NE W S H R U B DE C I D . CO N I F . PR O P O S E D NE W P E R E N N I A L PE R E N N I A L G R A S S PR O P O S E D CO N T O U R PR O P O S E D SP O T E L E V A T I O N 00 0 . 0 0 DR A I N A G E FL O W PR O P O S E D BU I L D I N G E N T R Y PR O P O S E D CA T C H B A S I N CB PR O P O S E D LI G H T F I X T U R E 00 0 . 0 0 PR O P O S E D DR A I N T I L E P. E . PR O P O S E D PO P - U P E M I T T E R DE C I D . C O N I F . O R N A . KE Y N O T E S 1. EX I S T I N G S I G N I F I C A N T T R E E ( S ) T Y P . - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 2. E X I S T I N G N E I G H B O R I N G P R O P E R T Y / S I T E F E A T U R E - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 3. EX I S T I N G C I T Y S T R E E T / A L L E Y - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T , R E P A I R A N Y DA M A G E D A R E A S P E R C I T Y S T A N D A R D S 4. E X I S T I N G O V E R H E A D P O W E R P O L E - T O B E R E L O C A T E D 5. E X I S T I N G C L E A N O U T - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 6. EX I S T I N G F E N C E - S A V E A N D P R O T E C T 21 1 1 S T S T R E E T N O R T H , S U I T E 3 5 0 MI N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 1 t 6 1 2 3 4 5 4 2 7 5 SH E E T N O T E S 1. P R O P O S E D F R E N C H D R A I N B E N E A T H 2. P R O P O S E D C I S T E R N B E N E A T H 3. P R O P O S E D C A T C H B A S I N 4. PR O P O S E D D R A I N T I L E , T Y P I C A L 5. N E W D O C K L O C A T I O N B Y O W N E R 6. RO O F O V E R H A N G , T Y P I C A L MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 17. LA19-000069 GORDON JAMES CONSTRUCTION ON BEHALF OF DALE AND JONMARI OLSEN, 3315 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Curtis noted the City Council reviewed this application at their October 14 meeting. The applicants were directed to make reductions in structural coverage and hardcover. The applicant’s revised plan still requires a number of variance approvals and an interim use permit. The updated plan provided today clarifies the hardcover number and removes the duplication of an entry terrace in that calculation. The structural coverage that is currently proposed is 2,891 square feet or 26 percent. The total site hardcover proposed is 4,586 square feet, which is 39.7 percent of the site. Additional public comment was received today and was included in the record. Staff continues to recommend denial of the application as proposed. The variance to permit structural coverage in excess of 20 percent of the adjusted lot area results in a house which is out of character with the neighborhood and small lots in general. Staff does support redevelopment of the property with variances provided the structural coverage is at a conforming level. Tonight the Council should review the revised plans and direct Staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s decision. John Quinlivan, Gordon James, stated since the last time they were here, they have brought the structural coverage from 3,454 square feet down to 2,891 square feet, which is 26 percent of the adjusted lot coverage. If Crystal Bay Road is considered a practical difficulty, it brings it down to 20 percent. The initial plan was 31 percent. From a hardcover perspectival, the initial plan was at 49.5 percent, which has been reduced to 39.4 percent Currently the existing home is approximately four feet from the rear property line and encroaches on the easement. The proposed home is 6.3 feet from the rear property line and will not encroach on the easement. The side yard setbacks are proposed at 34 and 34.2 feet. The lakeside setback meets the required setback, which is approximately a 5-foot improvement over what exists today. The road counts for 23.3 percent of the total lot coverage. The road, for most of the other houses in the neighborhood, is between 13, 14, and 15 percent of the total lot coverage. The road is a larger burden on this property. At the last meeting the Council provided direction to leave the road as is. The road is wider in that area. A discussion with had with Staff and the property owners have agreed to remove the roadside curbs to improve the ability of the Public Works Department to plow in that area. The homeowners are also agreeable to no parking on either side of the street due to the narrowness of the street. Walsh stated because the lot is wide and shallow, the Council thought the road was a practical difficulty and directed them to reduce the structural coverage down to 20 percent, which they have done. Previously the Council had approved a home in this neighborhood at 22 percent structural coverage and 39.9 percent hardcover. Walsh commented he appreciates the applicants reducing it down to 20 percent structural coverage and 39.6 percent hardcover as well as keeping the road wider, which is good for the neighborhood. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, October 28, 2019 7:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Printup stated he is hearing 20 percent structural coverage, but he reads 26 percent in Staff’s report. Walsh noted the 20 percent is without the road and that the City Council at the last meeting indicated they would be willing to not include the road. Johnson stated the lot area with the road is 11,000 some square feet and with the road eliminated it becomes a 14,000 square foot lot. Johnson stated in his view it is consistent with the density in the rest of the neighborhood and that he would be in favor of it. Johnson asked what the no parking relates to. Quinlivan noted no street parking was brought up at the last meeting and how it limits emergency vehicle access. Both homeowners are okay with no parking on either side of the street. Walsh noted this is a private street. Curtis stated Crystal Bay Road is a public road. Walsh stated the City maintains the road, but they do not own it. The City does not have a right-of-way and they do not have an easement. Because the City does not own the road, they cannot erect no parking signs. Johnson moved, Printup seconded, Application No. LA19-000069, Gordon James Construction on behalf of Dale and Jonmari Olsen, 3315 Crystal Bay Road, directing Staff to draft an approval resolution granting a street side setback variance, rear and side yard setback variances, a lakeshore variance, an average lakeshore setback variance, and a structural coverage variance due to the practical difficulty of the road being included in the total lot area calculation. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Laura Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By DJR 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting approval of an easement vacation in conjunction with establishing a new trail easement. 2. Background. The applicant proposes relocated an easement to correspond to a trail at 580 Sandhill Drive. The trail was established as part of Orono Preserve to connect the interior sidewalks to the crosswalk at Old Crystal Bay Road and Wayzata Blvd. During a review of the work it was recognized that the trail was installed outside the easement area. The replacement easement will be the same size but realigned over the existing trail. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The application was deemed complete on October 25, 2019. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and voted unanimously to approve the application. 5. Public Comment. To date, no public comment has been received. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation and new proposed easement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The council should motion to approved or amend the included resolution. Exhibits A. Resolution B. Vacation and New Easement Documents C. PC Minutes D. PC Staff report E. Existing Easement References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Proposed Site Plan – area to be vacated C. Legal Description D. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 16 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000079 – Stephanie Griffin o/b/o Weekley Homes, 580 Sandhill Drive, Trail Vacation and Realignment – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 1 of 2 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PARTIAL RELEASE AND VACATION AND GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRAIL WITHIN THE PLAT OF ORONO PRESERVE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. LA19-000079 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, Stephanie Griffin o/b/o Weekley Homes LLC, (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of a portion of the public trail easement within Lot 8, Block 1, Orono Preserve, legally described and depicted in Exhibit A WHEREAS, on October 21, 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 21, 2019, the Planning Commission unanimously for a motion to recommend approval of the requested vacation; and WHEREAS, on November 12, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Orono Council finds the vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: 1. There are no drainage or utility improvements within the Easement. 2. The City Council finds that the existing Easement has no apparent present or future benefit to the public. 3. A new easement must be established over the existing trail to maintain public access depicted in Exhibit A. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 2 of 2 4. The City Council finds that: a. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. b. The City does not intend to develop, improve, or use the Easement. c. A new trail easement in favor of the City will be recorded in conjunction with the vacations documents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the vacation of the trail easement area as described in Exhibit A is hereby granted by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 12nd day of November, 2019. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor S A N D H I L L D R I V E 8 1 WAYZATA BLVD Date: Dwg Name: Design File: DBO DPE 140157 Checked By: Drawn By: 1" = 20' Scale: TRAIL EASEMENT 8/26/19 ORONO PRESERVE TRAIL EASEMENT EXHIBIT ORONO, MINNESOTA 733 Marquette Ave, Ste 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 612.758.3099 www.alliant-inc.com MAIN Alliant Engineering, Inc. FAX TRAIL EASEMENT LEGAL DESCRIPTION A 10.00 foot wide easement area for trail purposes over, under, and across Lot 8, Block 1, ORONO PRESERVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 8; thence South 75 degrees 02 minutes 45 seconds East, assumed bearing along the northerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 61.85 feet to an angle point in said northerly line; thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 56 seconds East, along said northerly line, 4.04 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 62 degrees 36 minutes 23 seconds West 52.88 feet to the westerly line of said Lot 8, and said line there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the northerly and westerly lines of said Lot 8. TRAIL EASEMENT AREA 3216116.v2 ______________________________________________________________________________ (Above Space Reserved for Recording Data) PARTIAL RELEASE AND VACATION OF GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRAIL PURPOSES This Partial Release and Vacation of Grant of Permanent Easement for Public Trail Purposes (“Release”) is made effective as of the date of recording of this Release by WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Owner”), and the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation (the “City”). WHEREAS, Owner is the record owner of real property located in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, legally described on Exhibit A hereto (the “Property”); and WHEREAS, OP5 ORONO, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (the “Grantor”) granted to the City a permanent easement for public trail purposes pursuant to that certain Grant of Permanent Easement for Trail Purposes dated September 16, 2016, and recorded in the Office of the County Recorder in and for Hennepin County, Minnesota on October 18, 2016 as Document Number A10369460 (the “Easement”) over, across, on, under and through the land legally described on Exhibit B attached hereto (the “Easement Premises”) which said Easement Premises includes portions of the Property; and WHEREAS, the parties hereto desire to have the Easement partially released and vacated solely as to that portion of the Property legally described on Exhibit C (the “Vacated Easement Area”) in accordance with the terms hereof. NOW, THEREFORE, Owner and the City hereby enact this Release for the purposes hereinafter set forth. 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 2. Capitalized Terms. Any capitalized term used herein but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning assigned to such term in the Easement. 3216116.v2 3. Partial Release. Effective upon recording this Release, the Easement shall be and is hereby partially released and vacated solely as to the Vacated Easement Area and the Vacated Easement Area shall be and hereby is released from the lien and encumbrance of the Easement. 4. Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Exhibit A and Exhibit B to the Easement containing the legal description and depiction of the Easement Premises, respectively, shall be and are hereby amended to eliminate the legal description and depiction of the Vacated Easement Area. 5. Reaffirmation. Except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the Easement shall remain in full force and effect and all the terms, conditions, provisions, agreements, requirements, promises, obligations, duties, covenants and representations in the Easement, as amended hereby, are hereby ratified and reaffirmed in all respects. Any conflict between the terms and conditions of this Release and the terms and conditions of the Easement shall be resolved in favor of this Release. 6. Applicability and Binding Effect. This Release is effective upon recording in the applicable Hennepin County recording office and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. 7. Severability; Controlling Law. The provisions of this Release shall be severable, and in the event any provision hereof is declared unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect. This Release shall be interpreted, controlled, governed and construed in all respects by the laws of the State of Minnesota. 8. Integration of Agreement. This Release and the Easement constitute the full and complete understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the matters contained herein, and supersedes any prior understanding or agreement between the parties relating thereto. 9. Counterparts. This Release may be executed in several counterparts, each of which will be deemed than original, but all of which will constitute one and the same agreement. [Signature pages follow] 3216116.v2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Release as of the date hereof. WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC By:______________________________________ Its:______________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______________, 2019, by ____________________, the _________________ of WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of said company. Notary Public 3216116.v2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Release as of the date hereof. CITY OF ORONO By:______________________________________ Its: Mayor By:______________________________________ Its: City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ______________, 2019, by ____________________ and _________________, respectively, the Mayor and City Administrator of the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. Notary Public DRAFTED BY: FELHABER LARSON (MSR) 220 South Sixth Street, Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 373-8409 3216116.v2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY Lot 8, Block 1,ORONO PRESERVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 3216116.v2 EXHIBIT B LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE EASEMENT PREMISES A permanent easement for public trail purposes over and across the northerly ten (10) feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, Block 1, ORONO PRESERVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a 10.00 foot permanent easement for public trail purposes over and across that part of Lot 8, Block 1, lying 10 feet northwesterly of a line beginning at the center of the 50 foot radius cul-de-sac of SANDHILL DRIVE as dedicated in said plat; thence northeasterly 93.83 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 8 distant 53.77 feet southeasterly of the northwest corner of Lot 8 and there terminating. 3216107.v1 (reserved for recording information) GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRAIL PURPOSES WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as “Grantor”, in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto the CITY OF ORONO, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, the grantee, hereinafter referred to as the “City”, its successors and assigns, forever, a permanent easement for public trail purposes over, across, on, under, and through land situated within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as described on the attached Exhibit “A” and depicted on the attached Exhibit “B” (the “Easement Premises”) . INCLUDING the rights of the City, its contractors, agents, servants, and assigns, to enter upon the Easement Premises at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, and maintain said public trail system over, across, on, under, and through the Easement Premises, together with the right to grade, level, fill, drain, excavate and pave the Easement Premises, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of said public trail systems. The above named Grantor, its successors and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee title of the above described Easement Premises; that it has the sole right to grant and convey the easement to the City; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Easement Premises; and that it will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. 3216107.v1 2 IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor hereto has signed this easement this _______ day of ___________, 2019. GRANTOR: WEEKLEY HOMES, LLC By ____________________________________ Its ____________________________________ STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of ___________, 2019, by __________________________, the ___________________ of Weekley Homes, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, on behalf of the company, the Grantor. _______________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: FELHABER LARSON (MSR) 220 SOUTH SIXTH STREET SUITE 2200 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402 3216107.v1 3 EXHIBIT “A” to TRAIL EASEMENT A 10.00 foot wide easement area for trail purposes over, under, and across Lot 8, Block 1, ORONO PRESERVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The centerline of said easement is described as follows: Commencing at the northwest corner of said Lot 8; thence South 75 degrees 02 minutes 45 second East, assumed bearing along the northerly line of said Lot 8, a distance of 61.85 feet to an angle point in said northerly line; thence South 89 degrees 04 minutes 56 seconds East, along said northerly line, 4.04 feet to the point of beginning; thence South 62 degrees 36 minutes 23 seconds West 52.88 feet to the westerly line of said Lot 8, and said line there terminating. The sidelines of said easement are to be prolonged or shortened to terminate at the northerly and westerly lines of said Lot 8. 3216107.v1 4 EXHIBIT “B” to TRAIL EASEMENT 3216116.v2 EXHIBIT C LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE VACATED EASEMENT AREA That part of Lot 8, Block 1, lying 10 feet northwesterly of a line beginning at the center of the 50 foot radius cul-de-sac of SANDHILL DRIVE as dedicated in said plat; thence northeasterly 93.83 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 8 distant 53.77 feet southeasterly of the northwest corner of Lot 8 and there terminating MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis, Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Dennis Libby, Mark McCutcheon, and John Thiesse. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Chair Ressler called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 2. LA19-000079 DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES, 580 SANDHILL DRIVE, EASEMENT VACATION AND EASEMENT CREATION, 7:44 P.M. – 7:53 P.M. Stephanie Griffin, David Weekley Homes, was present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting approval of an easement vacation in conjunction with establishing a new trail easement. The subject portion of the trail is located along the west side lot at 580 Sandhill Drive in conjunction with establishing a new trail easement. The trail was established within the subdivision and is designed to connect the interior sidewalks to the city sidewalks. During a review of the work, it was recognized that the trail that was installed was outside the easement area. The replacement easement will be the same size but realigned over the existing trail. To date, no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation and new proposed easement. Ressler noted there is already an easement in place, but as it is written, the sidewalk would have to be relocated since it was placed in the wrong place. Oakden stated they could relocate the sidewalk or relocate the easement. Bollis asked if the new easement would impact the setbacks. Oakden indicated it will not. The applicant is working to provide title work to Staff to ensure the easement is recordable against the development. Stephanie Griffin, Excelsior Group, stated she is representing David Weekley Homes. The easement was originally filed. The sidewalk was completed in 2017 at the end of the season and it did not get placed in the correct spot. Redoing the easement would be an easier and simpler process rather than redoing the sidewalk. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:48 p.m. Ressler noted this easement only impacts one lot. Ressler asked whether the line would change. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Oakden noted the line would jog slightly to the west. The sidewalk connects to the outer sidewalk in a slightly different spot, but where it connects with the internal sidewalk system is close to what currently exists. Libby stated he is glad to know the developer is addressing the title work. Griffin stated they do have the title work ready and that the easement will be recorded once approved. Ressler noted there is not opposition by the development or the potential lot owner and that this seems to be a housekeeping item. Erickson moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000079, David Weekley Homes, 580 Sandhill Drive, easement vacation and easement creation. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Date: 21 October 2019 Subject: #LA19-000079, Stephanie Griffin o/b/o Weekley Homes, 580 Sandhill Drive, Trail Vacation and Realignment Public Hearing Background The applicant is seeking approval of vacation of a portion of a trail easement along the west side lot at 580 Sandhill Drive in conjunction with establishing a new trail easement. The train was established is the subdivision to connect the interior sidewalks to the city sidewalks. During a review of the work it was recognized that the trail that was installed was outside the easement area. The replacement easement will be the same size but realigned over the existing trail. Exhibit B Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation and new proposed easement. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Site Plan – area to be vacated Exhibit C. Legal Description Exhibit D. Property Owners List and Map Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of an easement vacation in conjunction with establishing a new trail easement. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Transfer Entered Oct 18, 2016 10:00 AM Hennepin County, Minnesota Mark Chapin County Auditor and Treasurer II I I 111111111111111 Doc No A10369460 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Oct 18, 2016 10:00 AM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County , Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 98 Pkg ID 1460190C Attested Copy or Duplicate Original $2 .00 Document Recording Fee $46 .00 Document Total $48 .00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. (reserved for recording infonnation) GRANT OF PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC TRAIL PURPOSES OPS ORONO, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "Grantor", in consideration of One Dollar ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, does hereby grant unto the CITY OF ORONO, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, the grantee, hereinafter referred to as the "City", its successors and assigns, forever , a permanent easement for public trail purposes over, across, on, under, and through land situated within the County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, as described on the attached Exhibit "A" and depicted on the attached Exhibit "B" (the "Easement Premises") . INCLUDING the rights of the City, its contractors, agents, servants, and assigns, to enter upon the Easement Premises at all reasonable times to construct, reconstruct, inspect, repair, and maintain said public trail system over, across, on, under, and through the Easement Premises, together with the right to grade, level, fill, drain, excavate and pave the Easement Premises, and the further right to remove trees, bushes, undergrowth, and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of said public trail systems. The above named Grantor, its successors and assigns, does covenant with the City, its successors and assigns, that it is well seized in fee title of the above described Easement Premises; that it has the sole right to grant and convey the easement to the City; that there are no unrecorded interests in the Easement Premises; and that it will indemnify and hold the City harmless for any breach of the foregoing covenants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Grantor shall be responsible for the construction and installation of the sidewalk/trail providing access between the cul-de-sac of 1638638.v2 Sandhill Drive and Wayzata Boulevard over the portion of Lot 8, Block 1 described in Exhibit A attached hereto. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor hereto has signed this easement this day of September, 2016. GRANTOR: OPS ORONO, LLC STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this (t}~ day of September, 2016, by T<Aa\~ '-:~snul.dJ, the E;lfiefMmerP.f_QP5 Orono, LLC, a Minnesota limited lia bility com~&E1,'bn b~~m~ compM.~~'Wan\~ DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNuTSON Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 86 0 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 29 0 Eagan, MN 55121 Tele phone: (651) 452-5000 SMM 1638638.v2 Notary Public 2 DEBORAH L RIDGEWAY Notary Public Minnesota My Comm. Expires Jan 31, 2020 EXIDBIT·A· to TRAIL EASEMENT A permanent easement for public trail purposes over and across the northerly ten (I 0) feet of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, Block 1, ORONO PRESERVE, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Together with a 10.00 foot permanent easement for public trail purposes over and across that part of Lot 8, Block 1, lying 10 feet northwesterly of a line beginning at the center of the 50 foot radius cul-de-sac of SANDHILL DRIVE as dedicated in said plat; thence northeasterly 93.83 feet to a point on the northerly line of said Lot 8 distant 53.77 feet southeasterly of the northwest comer of Lot 8 and there terminating. 1638638.vl 3 N ---· ... .. ...,_ -· --"' ---,._,., 1638638 .v2 EXHIBIT gB~ to TRAIL EASEMENT I I I • 'r-"" 6 -,-I •r: ,u, r 1 .. .u. : /.J, 10' w:oE TRAIL EASEMENT r, 1 I I,-- 1-4 I 'II ,-~ .. ., .. _ ' L.-. TRAIL EASEMENT EXHIBIT 8 ORONO t.41NNESOTA 4 ... V\'. -~Inc. .6 llllll'lrllMS,Bltlllll Jllnrwopalll, WU641& 1112.7IIUCIIIMIIN 812.7118..3DU9 lM -- AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a lake setback variance to construct a replacement barn, an 1,800 square foot oversize accessory building, on the property. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered to be complete on September 16, 2019. The 60-Day review period has been extended and now expires on January 15, 2020. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant has an existing 1,100 square foot barn on the property which is in need of replacement. They are proposing to construct a new 1,800 square foot barn in generally the same location on the property, but further from the lake. The proposed location is 124’ from the lake, within the required 150-foot setback from Lake Classen, which is a natural environment lake. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On October 21st, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested lake setback variance. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 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. Public Comment E. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 10/21/19 A. Application & Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey with Hardcover D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Property Owners List F. Plat Map G. Item No.: 17 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000081 – David & Stacey Royal, 3135 Jamestown Rd, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis 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 -000081 WHEREAS, on September 16, 2019, David Royal and Stacey Royal, a married couple, (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3135 Jamestown Road and legally described as: Land referred to in this commitment is described as all that certain property situated in the County of Hennepin, and State of Minnesota and being described in a deed dated 07/24/2006 and recorded 08/11/2006 in instrument number: 8844563 among the land records of the County and State set forth above, and referenced as follows: Lot 3, Block 1, Liberty Acres, except that part of said lot lying northeasterly of a line drawn from the most westerly corner of Lot 4, said Block 1, to a point of the east line of said Lot 3 distant 486 feet north from the southeast corner of said Lot 3; and an undivided one-fifth (1/5) interest in Outlot A, Liberty Acres; together with a permanent nonexclusive easement over, under and across the following described property for ingress, egress and utility purposes, Outlot A, Garden Grove and the north 66 feet of the west 66 feet of the southeast one quarter of the southwest one quarter of Section 28, Township 118, Range 23, except that part of Lot 3, Block 1, Liberty Acres, described as follows: beginning at the most easterly corner of Lot 2, Block 1, Camelot; thence south 26 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds west along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 198.33 feet; thence north 47 degrees 00 minutes, 00 seconds east a distance of 123.90 feet; thence north 14 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds east to the north line of said Lot 3; thence westerly along said north line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota, and That part of Lot 2, Block 1, Camelot, described as follows: commencing at the most easterly corner of said Lot 2; thence south 26 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds west along the southeasterly line of said Lot 2, a distance of 198.33 feet to the point of beginning of the parcel being described; thence south 47 degrees, 00 minutes,00 seconds west a distance of 54.10 feet; thence south 26 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds west to the shore of Lake Classen; thence southeasterly along said shoreline to the intersection with a line drawn south 26 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds west from the point of beginning; thence north 26 degrees, 00 minutes, 00 seconds east along said last described line to the point of beginning, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter the “Property”); CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an oversize accessory building 124 feet from the OHWL of Lake Classen where a 150-foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 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 21, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 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 #LA19-000081. 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-1B Zoning District. 3. The Property is located within the Shoreland. 4. The Property contains 3.06 acres in area and has a defined lot width of ±300 feet along an irregular shoreline. 5. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 6. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Lake Setback Variance 7. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The variance to allow construction of the barn is in harmony with the zoning code; the requested setback variance on this Property is generally consistent with the intent of the ordinance. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” This statement is true; the requested variance is in line with the rural residential goals within the comprehensive plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The variance request is residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique rural nature of the Property, and the neighborhood with significant separation between the properties as well as the elevation difference between the home and the lake. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The owner is proposing to place the new barn in the existing barn’s general location. The site configuration was not created by the Applicants, the elevation of the barn in relation to the OHWL of Lake Classen greatly reduces visual impact from the Lake; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The visual impacts of the replacement barn will be minimal from the lake due to the topography as well as from adjacent properties due to the physical distance separation. The proposed barn will not alter the character of the neighborhood. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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 an accessory building/barn is an allowed use in the RR-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 lake setback requirement, the size and shape of the Property is similar to the other properties in the Jamestown Road neighborhood within the RR-1B district. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The existing barn to be replaced is at 112’ from the OHWL. It is also located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback (116’); within the 150-foot setback from the OHWL. The proposed barn will improve the lake setback, meet the average setback and will be on the top of a slope. The shape of the lot and the location of the existing buildings are unique to this Property. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The barn is proposed in a location which serves the intent and goals of the ordinance by minimizing visual impacts to the lake, maintaining maximum distance from adjacent properties, and is located out of drainage ways. 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. 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of an accessory building, a barn not to exceed 1,800 square foot in footprint, 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 09/12/19 by W. Brown Land Surveying and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. By signing this Resolution, the Applicants agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the Property. The barn is considered an oversize accessory building (an “OAB”), and shall be allowed only when the Applicants agree and covenant in writing with the city as follows: a. No future subdivision will be approved that places the OAB within a lot that has no principal building, except that the city in its subdivision approval may grant a finite time period in which the OAB may remain without a principal building, in order that a principal building may be constructed. At the end of this time period, the OAB must be removed if no principal building has been constructed. b. If the Property is subdivided, the OAB and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the OAB. c. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the OAB shall remain. d. Such covenant shall be binding on current and future property owners and shall be filed in the chain of title of the Property. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the barn and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (November 12, 2020). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of November, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 ______________________________ ________________________________ David Royal Stacey Royal STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 20___, by David Royal, husband of Stacey Royal. ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 20___, by Stacey Royal, wife of David Royal. ____________________________________ Notary Public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oyal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D B A S E M E N T F L O O R P L A N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" 10/22/2019Royal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D E A S T E L E V A T I O N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" 3 6 ' 50 ' 1 6 ' - 5 " 12 ' - 1 " 1 8 ' - 2 1 / 2 " 18 ' - 6 3 / 4 " OF F I C E 1/ 2 BA T H GO L F SI M U L A T O R WI N D O W 10/22/2019Royal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D M A I N L E V E L F L O O R P L A N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" 10/22/2019Royal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D N O R T H E L E V A T I O N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" 10/22/2019Royal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D S O U T H E L E V A T I O N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" 10/22/2019Royal Barn21185 Viking Blvd.Wyoming, MN 55092 MN Lic#: BC026555 PR O P O S E D W E S T E L E V A T I O N SCALE: 1/4" = 1'0" MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. LA18-000081 DAVID AND STACEY ROYAL, 3135 JAMESTOWN ROAD, VARIANCE, 7:53 P.M. – 7:57 P.M. Stacey Royal, Applicant, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to rebuild an existing 1,100 square foot barn on the property in a different footprint and orientation. The applicants are proposing to construct a new 1,400 square foot barn in generally the same location on the property but further from the lake. The proposed location is 124 feet from the ordinary high-water level but closer than the required 150-foot setback from Lake Classen, which is classified as a natural environment lake. In light of the recent change to the City’s accessory structure ordinance, the applicant is considering increasing the size of the barn within the range of what was approved by the City Council. Staff does not object to these changes as they do not impact the setbacks. The survey shows the topography of the area is much higher than the lake. Staff finds practical difficulty in the location of the existing barn to be replaced, the sloping topography, and lake setback from the natural environment lake. Planning Staff recommends approval. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Stacey Royal, Applicant, stated the main reason they require a variance is because of where the neighbor’s house sits. A discussion was also had with the other neighbor that resides in the house directly to the west of them about the project and neither neighbor is opposed to the project. Curtin noted there is no lakeshore on the property to the east so it is just the setback from the lake that is impacted. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. There were no public comments on this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:55 p.m. Bollis noted the application is pretty straight forward and the setback is improving. Gettman, Thiesse, Libby, and McCutcheon stated they are in agreement with Commissioner Bollis. Erickson noted the aerial makes it clear that there are no view issues for the neighbors and that he would be in favor of it. Ressler concurred that the application is pretty straight forward. McCutcheon moved, Thiesse seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000081, David and Stacey Royal, 3135 Jamestown Road, variance. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Gary Larson <gary‐larson@hotmail.com> Thu 9/12/2019 5:53 PM Stacey: Certainly OK by us! Upgrades the ‘hood! Could you add an extra bay ‐ we’re thinking about a boat! Just saw one on e‐bay: 12‐footer, 10HP Merc., needs paint! What do you think? Larson’s Sent from my iPhone On Sep 12, 2019, at 3:40 PM, Stacey Royal <sroyal@phatminds.com> wrote: Barb, Gary, Merrill and Heidi, Dave and I are in the process of redoing our barn so that it has a foundation and is usable for storing our boat and another car. The barn will be in a similar location to where it is now, but it will be two stories. In doing this, we need to apply for a variance with the City of Orono because it's required based on some rules of how our property is setup on the lake. Part of the variance requirement is that we let the neighbors next to us know of our plans, and make sure we are not upsetting our neighbors. If you could kindly reply to this email letting me know if you are concerned about anything or if you are ok with us moving forward with this project. Thank you, Stacey hhcole@aol.com Thu 9/12/2019 4:48 PM Stacey Royal Date Application Received: 09/16/19 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/16/19 60-Day Review Period (Extension) Expires: 01/15/20 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: October 21, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000081, David & Stacey Royal, 3135 Jamestown Rd, Variances Public Hearing Background The applicant has an existing 1,100 square foot barn on the property which is in need of replacement. They are proposing to construct a new 1,400 square foot barn in generally the same location on the property, but further from the lake. The proposed location is 124’ from the lake, closer than the required 150-foot setback from Lake Classen, a natural environment lake. *The applicant is considering increasing the size of the barn structure, commiserate with recent changes to the oversized accessory building changes. Staff does not object as these changes do not change our analysis relative to the setback variance request. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: RR-1B Required Existing Barn Proposed Barn Rear/Street 50’ 369’ 344’ West Side 30’ 210’ 184’ East Side 30’ 185’ 190’ Wetland 25’ or MCWD buffer 112’ 124’ Lakeshore 150’ 112’ 124’ Average Lakeshore Because the property to the east is not considered lakeshore by definition, the property to the west (3145 Jamestown Rd) determines the average lakeshore setback at 116’. The applicants’ home and the proposed barn are further from the lake, meeting the setback. Section 78- 420 - Lot Area/Width: Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a lake setback variance to rebuild an existing barn on the property with a different footprint and orientation. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA19-000081 21 Oct 19 Page 2 of 4 Rr-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Actual 133,435 s.f. (3.06 acre) ±300 ‘ (irregular) @ 150’ / ±300’ (irregular) @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Structural coverage limitations do not apply as the property exceeds 1.99 acres. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 133,435 s.f. 33,358 s.f. (25 %) 10,778 s.f. (8.1%) 0 w/in 75’ 11,027 s.f. (8.3%) 0 w/in 75’ Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback Variance (Code Section 78-1279) There is an existing barn on the property which is no longer functional and is in disrepair. The applicants want to replace the barn in a similar location and setback yet improve the encroachment to the lake. Lake Classen is a natural environment lake requiring a 150-foot setback from the OHWL. The new barn will be 124-feet from the OHWL. The OHWL is situated upslope slightly from the open water as there is a wetland along the shoreline. The setback proposed from the open water of the lake is about 145 feet. 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 §462.357 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 variance to allow construction of the barn is in harmony with the zoning code; the requested setback variance on this Property is generally consistent with the intent of FILE # LA19-000081 21 Oct 19 Page 3 of 4 the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. This statement is true; the requested variance is in line with the rural residential goals within 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 variance request is residential in nature and are reasonable considering the unique rural nature of the property, and the neighborhood with significant separation between the properties as well as the elevation difference between the home and the lake. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the barn to be replaced and the site configuration was not created by the owner, the elevation of the home and barn in relation to the OHWL of Lake Classen greatly impedes visual impact from the Lake; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The visual impacts of the replacement barn will be minimal from the lake due to the topography as well as from adjacent properties due to the physical distance separation. The proposed barn will not alter the character of 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 an accessory barn is an allowed use in the RR-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 lake setback requirement, the size and shape of the property is similar to the other properties in the Jamestown Road neighborhood within the RR-1B district. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The existing barn to be replaced is at 112’ from the OHWL. It is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback (116’); within the 150-foot setback from the OHWL. The proposed barn will meet the average setback and is on the top of a slope. The shape of the lot and the location of the existing buildings are unique to this property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The existing barn can be re-built in kind, the proposed replacement barn is necessary to permit the property owners continued enjoyment of their property. The barn is located in a location which serves the intent and goals of the ordinance by minimizing visual impacts to the lake, maintaining maximum distance from adjacent properties, and is located out of drainage ways. FILE # LA19-000081 21 Oct 19 Page 4 of 4 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. 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. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status The property is served by sanitary sewer. 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 practical difficulty in the location of the existing barn to be replaced, the sloping topography, and lake setback from the natural environment lake. The applicant is proposing to improve the setback and resolve the average lakeshore setback encroachment with the new barn. 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. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey with Hardcover Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Property Owners List Exhibit F. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to construct additions to the existing home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on September 17, and considered to be complete on September 27. The 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on January 24, 2020. 3. Background/ Summary. The property has lakeshore on two sides which significantly limits the buildable area. The applicant is proposing additions/expansions to the 2nd story which are within the lake setback but are over existing first floor. The existing garage on the property is connected to the home via an underground tunnel. The proposed garage rebuild which will include a roof- top deck and an above ground addition requiring variances for rear/street setback, side yard setback, average lakeshore setback (road side) and 75-foot hardcover. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to move an existing west facing balcony to the opposite side of the home requiring a lake setback, 75-foot hardcover, and average lakeshore setback variances. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On October 21st the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 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. Public Comment E. PC Staff Report Item No.: 18 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000082 – Alexander Design Group o/b/o John & Christine Buboltz, 1973 Fagerness Point Rd – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda References PC Exhibits 10/21/19 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Staff Annotated Plans F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-350; 78-1279; & 78-1680 FILE NO. LA19-000082 WHEREAS, on September 17, 2019, John Buboltz and Christine Buboltz (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 1793 Fagerness Point Road and legally described as: Lot 7, Fagerness, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow rebuild of an attached garage addition with a 5.2 foot setback from the side where a 7.5 foot setback is required and a 5.7 foot setback from Fagerness Point Road where a 30 foot setback is required and a 1.7 foot setback currently exists; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of additions to the home, a reconfigured, reconstructed attached garage, and lakeside balcony within the average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot setback from the OHWL; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1680 to allow an additional 607 square feet of hardcover within the 75-foot setback where 1,197 square feet currently exists, and 1,804 square feet is proposed in conjunction with the home additions; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 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 21, 2019, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 2019, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000082. 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-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property has lake shore on two sides. 4. The Property contains 0.31 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 77 feet measured at the western 75 foot setback from the OHWL, and 78 feet at the western OHWL; and 75 feet measured at the 75 foot setback from the eastern OHWL and 63 feet at the eastern OHWL. 5. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 6. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Rear Setback Variance b. Side Setback Variance c. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance d. Lake Setback Variance e. 75-foot Hardcover Variance 7. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small lot includes difficulties in its double lake frontage, small size, CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 and width. The additions were designed to protect lake views for the neighbors and meant to be within existing improved areas. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The proposed variances to improve this nonconforming lot are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit the additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the Property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the dual frontage lakeshore, Fagerness Point Road, and adjacent properties create difficulties. The hardcover level and encroachments proposed within the average lake setback, side yard, street yard, and lake yard appear to be reasonable. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his 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. The proposed hardcover level and setbacks are unique to the Property; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The variances are requested in order to permit construction of additions to the home which are designed 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. ________________________ 4 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 residence and garage are allowed uses 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 orientation with respect to the lakeshore, 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, dual lakeshore frontage, topography, Fagerness Point Road, and adjacent properties 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 the requested variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the Applicants. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the requested variances 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 variances do not merely serve as a convenience to the Applicants. The variances are necessary as the Property has considerable practical difficulties affecting development. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-350 to allow the attached garage addition to be set back 5.2 feet from the side 5.7 feet from Fagerness Point Road; and Section 78-1279 to allow construction of additions to the home, a reconfigured, reconstructed attached garage, and lakeside balcony (on the west side) within the average lakeshore setback and within the 75-foot setback from the OHWL; and Section 78-1680 to allow 1,804 square feet of hardcover CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 within the 75-foot setback in conjunction with the home additions, 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 09/26/19 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. 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 variances will expire on that date (November 12, 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 12th day of November, 2019. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Co r r e c t e d A v e r a g e La k e s h o r e S e t b a c k l i n e - b y S t a f f 20 . 7 3 f t Sc h u g e l 3D C o n c e p tu a l I l l u s t r a t i o n Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 10 - 2 2 - 1 9 Fa g e r n e s s P o i n t R o a d Co r r e c t e d A v e r a g e La k e s h o r e S e t b a c k l i n e - b y S t a f f 20.73 f t Sc h u g e l 3D C o n c e p tu a l I l l u s t r a t i o n Co p y r i g h t 2 0 1 9 10 - 2 2 - 1 9 Fa g e r n e s s P o i n t R o a d MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. LA19-000082 ALEXANDER DESIGN GROUP, 1973 FAGERENESS POINT ROAD, VARIANCES, 7:58 P.M. – 8:12 P.M. Kathryn Alexander, Designer, and John and Christine Buboltz, Property Owners, were present. Curtis stated the subject property has lakeshore on two sides which significantly limits the buildable area. The applicant is proposing additions/expansions to the second story, which are within the lake setback but are over existing first floor. The existing garage on the property is connected to the home via an underground tunnel. This proposed garage rebuild, which will include a rooftop deck and an above-ground addition, requires variances for rear/street setback, side yard setback, average lakeshore setback, and 75-foot hardcover. In addition, the applicant has proposed to move an existing west facing balcony to the opposite side of the home requiring lake setback, 75-foot hardcover, and average lakeshore setback variances. The existing balcony is situated lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is requesting to move the balcony to the opposite side. The proposed location is technically no closer to the lake, but it is still within the setback. The proposed garage will be located approximately five feet further from the lake than existing but will still be almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback. The survey reflects an incorrect average lakeshore setback line on the roadside. The purple line, drawn by Staff, is correct. The proposed garage will be approximately four feet further from the lake than existing, but it will still be almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback. A majority of the change will be over existing hardcover or existing structure, but the hardcover will increase in the 75-foot setback area by 607 square feet. Overall the hardcover will increase from 18.5 percent to 21 percent due to the size of the addition. Staff finds that a number of the property characteristics are practical difficulties making development and improvement challenging. The topography of the lot, the dual lakeshore frontage, which applies lake and average lakeshore setbacks on both sides of the property, the narrowness of the lot, and the proximity to the road are all difficulties that support the requested variances. To date no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval. Ressler asked how further back the new garage would be. Curtis indicated it is four feet. Curtis illustrated the building envelope on the overhead. Thiesse asked if any comments from the neighbors have been received. Curtis indicated they have received comments from two of the neighbors in support of the application. Mr. Buboltz, Applicant, stated he has talked to them both and they have been given the plans. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Thiesse noted it is an average lakeshore setback encroachment and they are going up with the addition. Curtis stated a portion of the balcony will be closer to the lake. Kathryn Alexander, Alexander Design Group, stated this was a difficult lot and that they tried to improve from what was existing. The garage needs to be replaced because it is deteriorating and has been made wider so they could get two cars in it. Alexander provided a sketch of the house looking from the left. Ressler recommended they add the drawing to the packet prior to the City Council meeting. Ressler asked if there is any reason why they would not be able to move the garage further inward. Alexander indicated they were also attempting to have access to the front door and the garage is 24 feet deep, which is pretty standard. Thiesse commented they will not want to go less than that. McCutcheon asked how long the driveway is between the garage and the street. Alexander indicated it was more than 20 feet from the street to the face of the existing garage. McCutcheon asked whether a FedEx truck or other delivery vehicles could park there. Alexander noted they are pushing it four feet further back from the street and that currently they can park a pickup truck there. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:08 p.m. Thiesse stated his main concern was the elevation into the average lakeshore setback but that there appears to be no issues by the neighbors. Ressler pointed out the majority of the building envelope appears to be outside of that setback. Curtis stated the line does cut through the one-story above the garage porch. Thiesse stated the balcony on the other side is small and does not appear to affect anyone’s view. Erickson stated he would accept Staff’s recommendation. Ressler noted there are lakeshore setbacks on both sides, which makes it more complicated, and that he would like to see the garage a little further back, but that there could be a practical difficulty regarding use if that were done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Thiesse stated they are proposing a 7’ x 7’ entrance, which is not large, and the size of the garage is not excessive. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000082, Alexander Design Group, 1973 Fagerness Point Road, variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 09/17/19 Date Application Considered as Complete: 09/27/19 60-Day Review Period (Extension) Expires: 01/24/20 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 October 2019 Subject: #LA19-000082, Alexander Design Group o/b/o John & Christine Buboltz 1973 Fagerness Point Rd, Variances Public Hearing Background The subject property has lakeshore on two sides which significantly limits the buildable area. The applicant is proposing additions/expansions to the 2nd story which are within the lake setback but are over existing first floor. The existing garage on the property is connected to the home via an underground tunnel. This proposed garage rebuild which will include a roof-top deck and an above ground addition require variances for rear/street setback, side yard setback, average lakeshore setback (road side) and 75-foot hardcover. Additionally, the applicant has proposed to move an existing west facing balcony to the opposite side of the home requiring lake setback, 75-foot hardcover, and average lakeshore setback variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Street/Fagerness Pt Rd 30’ 1.7’ 5.7’ North Side 7.5’ 28’ 29’ addition South Side 7.5’ 5.6’ 5.2’ West Lakeshore 75’ 90’ 95’ East Lakeshore 75’ 43.5’ balcony 38’ balcony Average Lakeshore Balcony: The existing balcony is situated lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. The proposed location is technically no closer to the lake however is still within the setback. Garage Addition: The survey reflects an incorrect ALS line on the road side, the staff (purple) line on the survey is correct. The proposed garage will be approximately 4 feet further from the lake than existing although still almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to rebuild an attached garage with a larger footprint, and relocate a balcony. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA19-000082 21 Oct 19 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 13,679 s.f. (0.31 acre) West 77’ @ 75’ / 78’ @ OHWL East 75’ @ 75’ / 63’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 13,679 s.f. (0.31 acre) Allowed: 2,735 s.f. (20%) Existing: 1,866 s.f. (13.6%) Proposed: 2,232 s.f. (16.3%) Section 78-1680 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 13,679 s.f. 3,419.7 s.f. (25 %) 2,536 s.f. (18.5%) 1,197 s.f. w/in 75’ 2,878 s.f. (21%) 1,804 s.f. w/in 75’ Applicable Regulations: Lake Setback, Average Lakeshore Setback & 75-foot Hardcover Variances (Code Sections 78- 1279 and 78-1680) The property has an approximate 27’ x 60’ building envelope. The existing home only occupies about a third of this with most of the home situated in the 75-foot setback(s). The existing balcony is situated on the northern side of the west facing portion of the home, lakeward of the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is requesting to move the balcony to the opposite side of this face of the home proposed location is technically no closer to the lake however is still within the setback. Additions to the 2nd floor to make a full story rather than a half/partial story are proposed. The applicant is not requesting to expand beyond the existing setbacks, however the mass will be increased primarily on the sides and roof, see Exhibits C and E. The proposed garage will be approximately 5 feet further from the lake than existing although still almost entirely within the average lakeshore setback. There is a rooftop deck proposed above the garage. Much of the change will be over existing hardcover or existing structure, however the hardcover will increase in the 75-foot setback areas by 607 square feet due to the larger garage, the size of the addition. The total hardcover of the site will still conform at 21%. Street/Rear Setback and Side Yard Setback Variances (Code Section 78-350) The garage will be set back 5.2’ where an existing 5.6’ setback currently exists. The change in the shape of the garage pulls it back slightly from the street (4 feet further) for a setback of 5.7’ from the road. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the FILE # LA19-000082 21 Oct 19 Page 3 of 5 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. The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The small lot includes difficulties in its double lake frontage, small size, and width. The additions were designed to protect lake views for the neighbors and meant to be within existing improved areas. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to improve this nonconforming lot 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 the additions to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the dual frontage lakeshore, Fagerness Point Road, and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The hardcover level, and encroachments proposed within the average lake setback, side yard, street yard, and lake yard appear to be reasonable. 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. The proposed hardcover level and setbacks are unique to the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of additions to the home which are 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. FILE # LA19-000082 21 Oct 19 Page 4 of 5 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a residence and garage are allowed uses 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 orientation with respect to the lakeshore, 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, dual lakeshore frontage, topography, Fagerness Point Road, and adjacent properties 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 the requested variances are 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 variances 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 variances do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The variances are necessary as the property has considerable practical difficulties affecting development. 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 a number of the property characteristics are practical difficulties making development and improvement challenging. The topography of the lot, the dual lakeshore frontage, which applies lake and average lakeshore setbacks on both sides of the property, the narrowness of the lot, and the proximity to the road are all difficulties that support the requested variances. 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 FILE # LA19-000082 21 Oct 19 Page 5 of 5 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. 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. Staff Annotated Plans Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Photos Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J Barnhart Approved By DJR 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, front, and rear setback variances. 2. Background. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new single family home on 315 Crestview Ave, the new home will be at a similar front setback as neighboring properties. The home will be 2 stories with a full basement. There is an existing 2 car detached garage on the property that the applicant is proposing to keep. The property is nonconforming to size at 0.34 acres in the LR-1A, 2 Acre district. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on October 2, 2019. This 60-day review period expires December 2, 2019. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and unanimously recommended to approve the application. 5. Public Comment. No public comment has been received to date. 6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Department Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve or amend the included resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Proposed Survey and Setback Map D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Property Owners List and Map G. Ariel Images Item No.: 19 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000083 – Jim Cleary Everlast Enterprises Inc., 315 Crestview Ave, Variances - 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 78-305, 78-72 FILE NO. LA19 -000083 WHEREAS, on October 2, 2019, Jim Cleary Everlast Enterprises Inc (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 315 Crestview Ave and legally described as: Lots 1 and 2, Block 5, BAYSIDE ADDITION TO LAKE MINNETONKA, and the south half of vacated Hill Street which lies between the northerly extensions of the east and west lines of said Lot 1, according to the recorded plot thereof, Hennepin County. Minnesota. (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section78-305 allow a front setback of 30.2 feet and a rear setback of 46.3 feet where 50 foot setback is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section78-72 for lot area and lot width to construct a new home on a substandard lot; and WHEREAS, on October 21, 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 21, 2019 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on November 12, 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: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000083. 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 Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.34 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 120 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 3 and hardcover is limited to 35 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Front Yard Setback b. Rear Yard Setback c. Lot Area d. Lot Width 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 applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The variances for a front and rear yard setbacks request are reasonable considering buildable area of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone 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 applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence 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 single family 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 size of the lot with in the LR-1A zoning district is unique for the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The Commission should discuss whether the front and rear yard setback is necessary to support property rights. 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 of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application has stated the shallow lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-305 and 78-72 to allow a new home to be constructed, 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 10/2/2019 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 (November 12, 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 A 1 I S S U E S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 S H E E T # 315 Crestviedw Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 2 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestviedw Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 3 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 4 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 5 S H E E T # I S S U E 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 1 I S S U E S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 S H E E T # 315 Crestviedw Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 2 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestviedw Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 3 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 4 I S S U E S H E E T # S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 A 5 S H E E T # I S S U E 315 Crestview Ave., Orono, MN JIM CLEARY 612-868-0748 jim@everlastdesignbuild.com S c h e m a t i c 9 - 1 - 1 9 P r i c i n g 9 - 2 4 - 1 9 R e v i s e d 9 - 2 7 - 1 9 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 5. LA19-000083 EVERLAST ENTERPRISES, INC., 315 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES, 8:12 P.M. 8:20 P.M. Jim Cleary, Everlast Enterprises, was present Oakden stated the applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, front, and rear setback variances. They are proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new single-family home. The new home is proposed at a similar front setback as the neighboring properties and will be centered on the lot. The lot abuts a vacant lot to the north. The proposed home will be a two-story home with a full basement. There is an existing two-car detached garage on the property that the applicant is proposing to keep. The property is nonconforming to size at 0.34 acres in the LR-1A, two-acre district. The applicant is requesting a 46.3-foot rear yard setback for the deck where 50 feet is required and a 30.2- foot front yard setback where 50 feet is required. Many of the homes in the neighborhood sit roughly 25 feet from the front yard setback. There is a front yard exception rule in this neighborhood, but due to the lot to the north being vacant, there is no average, and based on how the code is written, they require a variance from the 50-foot setback. Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the small lot on the LR-1A two-acre zone. The applicant has made an effort to meet the district standards for a new home and is requesting the front and rear yard setback, lot area and lot width variances. The Commission should discuss whether the front and rear yard setbacks encourages development out of character with the neighborhood. To date no public comments have been received. Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. Gettman asked where the existing home is. Oakden pointed out the location of the existing home, noting that it is approximately 18 feet from the front yard setback. The applicants are proposing to now be 30 feet from the front yard setback. Gettman asked if the overall hardcover is increasing. Oakden indicated they are within Tier 3 and they are within their hardcover limits. Jim Cleary, Everlast Enterprises, noted they have constructed two other homes in this neighborhood and that they were very well received in the neighborhood. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. There were no public comments regarding this application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:17 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Libby commented the design seems to bring some linearity to the lot and the new placement makes sense so he would be in favor of the proposal. McCutcheon indicated he is in agreement with Commissioner Libby. Erickson stated he is leaning towards approval. Thiesse commented this is a neat little neighborhood that is in transition and that he realizes there are some challenges to the lot. Thiesse indicated he would be in favor of the application. Ressler stated the condition is improving and not outside the scope of the neighborhood. Libby moved, Gettman seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA19-000083, Everlast Enterprises, Inc., 315 Crestview Avenue, variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 09.18.2019 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10.02.2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: 12.02.2019 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: October 21, 2019 Subject: LA19-000083, Jim Cleary Everlast Enterprises Inc., 315 Crestview Ave, Variances, Public Hearing Background The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home and build a new single family home on 315 Crestview Ave. The applicant is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties. The home will be centered on the lot. The lot abuts a vacant lot to the north. The applicant is proposing a 2 story home with a full basement. There is an existing 2 car detached garage on the property that the applicant is proposing to keep. The property is nonconforming to size at 0.34 acres in the LR-1A, 2 Acre district. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1A Required Proposed Front 50’ 30.2 Rear 50’ 46.3 Side (North) 12’ 32.1 Side (South) 12’ 32.1 Section78-305 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200’ Actual 15, 048 s.f. (0.34 acre) 120’ Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15, 048 s.f. (0.34 acre) Allowed: 3,009.6 sq.ft (20%) Proposed 2,636 s.f. (17.5%) Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, front, and rear setback variances Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Tier 3 15, 048 s.f 5,266 s.f. (35%) 4,015 s.f. (26.7 %) 4,861 s.f. (32.3%) Applicable Regulations: Front and Rear Setback (78-305) The applicant is proposing to construct a new home and are requesting a 46.3 foot rear yard setback for the deck where 50 feet is required in the LR-1A Zoning District. The front yard has a 50 foot setback and the applicant is proposing 30.2 feet. Many of the homes in the neighborhood sit roughly 25 foot front yard. This property abuts a vacant lot to the north and the home to the south sits 33.8 feet. A 50 foot setback is required in the LR-1A district. The front yard setback exception 78-305 b.(3) which allows for the front yard setback to be averaged using the two abutting neighbors, cannot be applied due to the neighboring lot being vacant. Lot Area and Width (78-72) Lot Area and Width Variance (Section 78-305) 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. Not 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 35 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. Not Met. The applicant’s need for a setback variance result in the property’s inability to conform to #1 and #4 above. Therefore, a lot width and area variance is also required in order to develop the property. 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. LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 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 applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The variances for a front and rear yard setbacks request are reasonable considering buildable area of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone 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 applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence 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 single family 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 size of the lot with in the LR-1A zoning district is unique for the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The Commission should discuss whether the front and rear yard setback is necessary to support property rights. 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 of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application has stated the shallow LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds is inherent practical difficulties with the small lot on the LR-1A, 2 acre zone. The applicant has made an effort to meet the district standards for a new home and is requesting the front and rear yard setback, lot area and lot width variances. The Commission should discuss whether the front and rear yard setbacks encourages development out of character with the neighborhood. Engineer Comments A full review will be done at the time of building permit application. 1. The applicant will need to ensure that none of the hardcover runoff is directed toward the neighboring lots. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey and Setback Map Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit G. Ariel Images AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a request to vacate a portion of Smith Avenue and nearby unimproved rights of way. Direct Staff to draft a resolution. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on August 28, 2019 and considered to be complete that same day. The 60-Day review period has been extended and will expire on December 26, 2019. 3. Background. The applicant represents the property owners of 40 and 45 Smith, at the northern end of Smith Avenue. The applicant originally proposed the vacation of the rights of way adjacent to these lots, which consists of Smith Avenue, Almo Place and Lane. The original proposal is shown on the attached Exhibit D. In its’ analysis for the Planning Commission, staff had raised a number of concerns: 1. Smith Avenue Right of Way in the subject area is improved with Smith Avenue and sanitary sewer*. 2. Vacation as proposed would restrict access to the Luce Line. 3. Vacation would remove the frontage for 40 Smith, creating a non-conforming lot. Items 1 and 2 are public benefits and require a staff recommendation of denial. It is also known that Smith Avenue ends in a dead end, and travelers must turn around in the drive way of either 40 or 45 Smith. Further, area residents appear to have worn a path through private property to obtain access to the Luce Line. Location of this path has not been verified on a survey. *Received after the Planning Commission meeting, Center Point Energy and Excel energy both note that they have utilities within the area. A portion of these utility improvements are located on private property. Staff identified solutions to these concerns: 1. Provide necessary right of way (or easement) for a cul de sac at the end of Smith. A cul de sac will require additional right of way, due to its width. The cul de sac will cover the existing sanitary sewer infrastructure. The applicant has provided a plan that shows the required right of way width. 2. Provide an easement to the Luce Line to protect access for the neighborhood. The applicants plan includes an easement, along the south side of 45 Smith to Orono Orchard Road, where users can walk along Orono Orchard Road right of way then up the hill within the DNR right of way to access the trail. 3. Provide an easement for utilities including telephone, electricity, and gas. (Identified as a response to comments received from Xcel and Centerpoint Energy) 4. Analysis. The proposed cul de sac is consistent with city standards, though the paved width is 2 feet narrower than the city standard. Regarding the trail, the proposal to have a formal trail along the south side of 45 Smith to Orono Orchard Road requires users to traverse well out of their way Item No.: 20 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000074 – William Griffith/ o/b/o Theodore Bonnett, 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, Request for street vacation Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR and over extreme elevation changes to access the trail. The owner’s comment that access through the property will continue offers no protection against changing wishes of the property owner, or a future property owner. Staff does not support this part of the proposal. The amount of private land necessary for the cul de sac is approximately 2600 sq ft, and the amount of land to be vacated is approximately 28,750 sq ft, exclusive of trail easement. The private utilities have highlighted the need for an easement to protect their infrastructure. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On October 21st, the Planning Commission reviewed the application. Planning Commission draft minutes are attached as Exhibit D. The Planning Commission, in a 6-1 vote (Erickson) recommended denial of the application because the solution to the issues (cul de sac, trail easement, etc.) were not shown on a plan. Erickson voted no on the motion to deny because he preferred to recommend approval subject to those conditions. 6. Public Comment. A number of written comments for and against the vacation have been received, and are attached as Exhibit E. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends that public interest can be maintained with the following: a. Provision of land for construction of a cul de sac as shown on the attached Exhibit C. b. Provision of a trail easement more directly connecting Smith Avenue and the Luce Line through the property. c. Provision of an easement to protect existing utilities. Regardless of the response on the vacation question, Staff recommends establishment of a formal trail connection between Smith and the Luce Line, removing the trail connection that encroaches on private property. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval or denial. Exhibits A. Planning Commission Staff report B. PC Minutes (Draft) C. Applicants Plan D. Original annotated exhibit E. Public comment received References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 10-21-19 Date Application Received: August 28, 2019 Date Application Considered as Complete: August 28, 2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: Extended to December 26, 2019 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 21, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000074, William Griffith/ o/b/o Theodore Bonnett, Request for street vacation and variance. Public Hearing Background William Griffith represents the property owner who owns 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, two properties on opposing sides at the northern end of Smith Avenue. The desire is to vacate the rights of way adjacent to these lots, which consists of Smith Avenue, Almo Place and Lane. The applicant has discussed possible future subdivision of the area, but no plans have been submitted. The parcels and right of way were originally platted as Orono Orchards, in 1924. The rights of way proposed are highlighted in green in the attached Exhibit B. Smith Avenue is improved as shown on the Exhibit B, Almo Place and Lane are not improved. Smith Avenue has been identified as a street to be repaved in 2020. The owner has expressed a desire to understand the plan for Smith Avenue in advance of that project. If Smith Avenue is vacated as proposed, 40 Smith will not have the requisite lot width, a variance will be required. The applicant is deferring the variance application until the Council decides on the vacation request. Applicable Regulations: Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the city vacate a portion of improved Smith Avenue and additional unnamed, unimproved rights of way adjacent 40 and 45 Smith and to the Luce Line State Trail. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff does not support the vacation without certain improvements and easements that support the current public use of the Right of Way. FILE # LA19-000074 October 21, 2019 Page 2 of 3 electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. State Statute: 412.851 VACATION OF STREETS. The council may by resolution vacate any street, alley, public grounds, public way, or any part thereof, on its own motion or on petition of a majority of the owners of land abutting on the street, alley, public grounds, public way, or part thereof to be vacated. When there has been no petition, the resolution may be adopted only by a vote of four-fifths of all members of the council. No vacation shall be made unless it appears in the interest of the public to do so after a hearing preceded by two weeks' published and posted notice. Analysis Smith Avenue currently serves a public need. Sanitary sewer can be found in the right of way, and area residents have noted their use of Smith to get to the Luce Line, a public trail. Staff has been informed that occasionally this path to the Luce Line goes outside of the platted right of way, onto private property. Smith Avenue is currently a dead end street with no cul de sac, the only opportunity for drivers to turn around is via a private residential driveway. With a vacation request, there is an opportunity to improve these conditions and continue the public need. The public need can be served with the creation of a cul de sac (requiring a portion of either 40 or 45 Smith) and the establishment of trail/ trail easement connecting lower Smith and balance of the neighborhood. If the Council finds that vacating Smith is appropriate without these conditions, it will create a non-conforming lot in 40 Smith, as the necessary lot width cannot be provided. Additionally, easements for access and utilities may be required. Staff may adjust its recommendation with the applicant’s development of a plan showing intended lots, frontage, and access; currently, the vacation request is speculative. Engineer Comments. Sanitary sewer currently existing within the portion of Smith Avenue proposed to be vacated. The City engineer recommends that if Smith is to be vacated, the vacation incorporate the 20 feet north of the existing manhole cover within Smith. Public Comments To date, staff has received a number of comments, attached as Exhibit F, and has fielded a number of questions related to the request. The comments do not support the application. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission support the vacation request as proposed? 2. Does the Planning Commission find the conditions proposed by Staff appropriate? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation FILE # LA19-000074 October 21, 2019 Page 3 of 3 If the Council finds that the unimproved Almo Place and Lane serve no purpose, the Council should vacate. Without plans for the provision of a cul de sac, an approved method to accommodate the lot width issue, and a plan to accommodate existing public use/ improvements within the right of way, Staff does not support the vacation of Smith. Staff could support to vacate portions of Smith as part of a larger development plan, with the following: 1. Provision of a cul de sac city standard turn-around for users of Smith. 2. Inclusion of sanitary sewer improvements within retained right of way. 3. Inclusion of a trail easement from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Annotated map Exhibit C. Narrative Exhibit D. Staff Comments Exhibit E. Original Plat Exhibit F. Public Comment Exhibit G. Mailing Information MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 8 1. LA19-000074 WILLIAM GRIFFITH ON BEHALF OF TJ BONNETT, 40 AND 45 SMITH AVENUE, RIGHT-OF-WAY VACATION AND VARIANCE, 6:33 P.M. – 7:44 P.M. William Griffith, Attorney-at-Law, and TJ Bonnett, Property Owner, were present. Barnhart stated the property owner is requesting the City vacate a portion of Smith Avenue and additional, unimproved rights-of-way adjacent 40 to 40 and 45 Smith and to the Luce Line State Trail. The property owner owns 40 Smith Avenue as well as 45 Smith Avenue located across the street. The desire is to vacate the rights-of-way adjacent to these lots, which consists of Smith Avenue, Almo Place, and Almo Lane. The ultimate desire is to subsequently subdivide or rearrange the lot lines. Part of the challenge that Staff has in these types of applications is that the Council must find that there is no public interest in the right-of-way. Staff does not support the vacation at this time primarily due to the utilities that are located in the rights-of-way. If Smith Avenue is vacated as proposed, 40 Smith will not have the requisite lot width and a variance would be required. The applicant is deferring the variance application until the Council decides on the vacation request. If the Planning Commission finds that the unimproved Almo Place and Lane serve no purpose, the Planning Commission should recommend it be vacated. Without plans for the provision of a cul-de-sac, an approved method to accommodate the lot width issue and a plan to accommodate existing public use/improvements within the right-of-way, Staff does not support the vacation of Smith. Staff could support to vacate portions of Smith as part of a larger development plan, subject to the following: 1. Provision of a cul-de-sac city standard turn-around for users of Smith. 2. Inclusion of sanitary sewer improvements within retained right-of-way. 3. Inclusion of a trail easement from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. The City has received a number of written comments from the residents in the neighborhood, both in support of the request as well as against. The City must find that Smith serves no public purpose in order to vacate it. Ressler asked if Staff would still support the vacation if only one of the three items are completed. Barnhart indicated it would need to be all three before Staff would change their recommendation. Ressler stated also part of the consideration is the fact that there are municipal services that are located in the area proposed to be vacated. Barnhart illustrated the location of the manhole that the City would like to be protected for future maintenance. William Griffith, Attorney-at-Law, stated he is here tonight representing the property owners, and that he would like to point out that they agree with Staff’s three conditions, which would then support the vacation request. This request is not about eliminating access to the Luce Line. Currently someone has to go over private property to access the Luce Line, and the property owner is offering to dedicate a public MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 easement over private property, which would then provide permanent access to the Luce Line. There is presently no development plan for the property. Interest in vacating Smith Avenue came about because the City has plans to improve Smith Avenue in 2020. In looking at that project, Mr. Bonnett met with Staff on a couple of occasions and asked how the situation can be improved. The end of the road is not used unless someone gets lost on their way to 6 Smith Restaurant. Most of the pavement is in bad shape. If the vacation and cul-de-sac does not occur, the City is obligated to pave to the end of the road, and they would be putting asphalt where green space could exist. In discussing this with city officials, Staff’s best recommendation was to submit the request for a vacation. Staff’s recommendation could be, in fact, conditions for approval. Griffith reiterated that access to the Luce Line would not be lost. With the conditions of approval that are being offered by Staff, the public interest would be maintained and access to the storm sewer would also be maintained. Ressler asked if they are proposing an alternative to what is mentioned in Staff’s report as it relates to the trail easement. Griffith stated the offer is to provide an alternative public easement and Mr. Bonnett can address that. Ressler asked if he is talking about including an easement to cover the utility. Griffith stated his understanding is if a cul-de-sac were built there, it would become part and parcel of the cul-de-sac, and the manhole would be covered by an easement. Ressler asked if the biggest issue is allowing alternative access to the Luce Line. Barnhart stated the biggest issue Staff has is that those three items be illustrated on a plan. TJ Bonnett, 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, noted there have been some emails circulating in the neighborhood that might have conveyed the wrong impression of what is being proposed and that he is not here to block anyone’s access to the Luce Line. There are five access points along Smith and Lyman to the Luce Line currently. If this vacation happens, there will still be five access points, and that he wants it clear where the permanent easement will be. Bonnett indicated he is not sure where the future lot lines would be, which is why it is not depicted on the plan. When people use their GPS to find the restaurant, it unfortunately shows it located at the end of Smith Avenue. As a result, a number of cars will come down the road every weekend, which creates an unsafe condition for any children in the area. Bonnett stated he has attempted to address it with City officials at other times, and with the improvements to the road, the City would save a lot of money by not paving that area of the road. Mr. Griffith is here to help navigate what happens with the street and to do the necessary paperwork. They do not view this as some type of contested issue and in their view it would be a good solution for the neighborhood and provide some safety. The last thing they want to see is an accident happen. Bonnett indicated he has no plans to build on the vacated property except for perhaps a garage, which will MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 not occur for at least five years, and that he hopes this is a good solution and a good time to address this road. Ressler asked if there is any reason why he would not be agreeable to providing an easement as proposed versus the alternative. Bonnett stated they are agreeable to that but the property line might move. Barnhart stated Staff’s issue is not with where the easement is as long as access is protected, but the bigger issue is the creation of a cul-de-sac. The location of an easement for trails has some potential to not match, which is why Staff would like to see it on a plan so it is clearly defined. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:50 p.m. Stacy Quinn, 125 Smith Avenue, noted they did write a letter in opposition of this vacation. Quinn indicated she is a Libertarian and she believes in the four-way test. The four-way test is: Is it is the truth, is it fair to all concerned, will it build goodwill and better friendships, and will it be beneficial to all concerned. Being one of the first two homes on Smith Avenue, she has seen maybe two people who have been lost looking for 6 Smith. Quinn stated they purchased on Smith because they have access to the Luce Line off of Smith, which is a safe way to access the Luce Line. There is no formal plan in place, and she has not been approached by Mr. Bonnett until yesterday when she received an e-mail from him. Gettman asked whether a cul-de-sac would be an improvement in her mind. Quinn indicated she would like to see the plans and know what it looks like. Based on what is being said tonight, it is still up in the air as to what it is going to look like as well as the access to the Luce Line. Have heard of lot of maybe’s but nothing in concrete. Ressler asked if she is fundamentally okay with the cul-de-sac but opposed to relocation of the access point. Quinn indicated that is correct. Lisa Benson, 1220 Lyman, stated she and her husband agree this is a wonderful neighborhood and that they also have a concern about the safety of the Bonnett children, their own two children, and all of the children living in the neighborhood. Like the Bonnetts, they agree that public access to the Luce Line at the end of Smith Avenue should be preserved. While she can appreciate TJ’s comments, she does not see evidence that thought was given to other children in the neighborhood and that it is not clear to her how the plan improves the safety of other children. Benson stated she is not convinced that the idea of collective community safety has been considered here and that it can be hard to appreciate how safe our community is. The real fear is distrust and discord between neighbors. The reason there is distrust at the moment is because the residents heard about the proposed changes from a letter. Benson stated they have a strong desire to maintain relationships with our neighbors. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 Benson stated when they used to walk the trail, they were unaware that they were accessing it over private property. TJ Bonnett kindly told her family that they were welcome to use the trail and that she agreed he should not feel pressured to allow the public to use his private land to access the trail. In speaking with Rachel Henzen from the DNR, she indicated the DNR would be willing to enter into an agreement with the City to make an official connection from Smith to the Luce Line. Benson indicated she is in agreement with Staff’s recommendation and that she does not support the proposed vacation because she does not see evidence that it will help ensure the safety of anyone. Like the Bonnetts, she supports the preservation of access from Smith, and she would encourage Staff to research the options and allow everyone in the neighborhood to continue to enjoy the shared public spaces. Howard McMillan, 1275 Lyman Avenue, stated in light of the incomplete plan, the Planning Commission should consider tabling a decision tonight until further plans can be developed and put before the public. Having been a resident on Lyman Avenue for a little over 30 years, access to the trail has never been truly well defined and it is a pathway that seems to follow the path of least resistance down to the Luce Line. McMillan stated at some point he has no doubt that he crossed TJ’s property but that he has no idea where that would be. McMillan stated he does not believe there are five access points to the Luce Line and instead there are only two, and one is the horse trail. Three parcels are owned by the DNR. If they went straight off the pavement, it looks like you would run into DNR land that could be used as an access point. McMillan stated he would not want the liability of citizens falling or injuring themselves on his private property and that they may want to consider having the access off of DNR land. In addition, TJ’s two properties sit on either side of the flat spot of Smith Avenue. That large flat area is narrow and Smith and Lyman might be substandard roads. The flat area also allows fire trucks to use it as a staging area since the narrow street creates extra challenges for the fire department in addition to the lack of fire hydrants. The Smith Avenue access provides many benefits in that it is a quiet road with little to no traffic. Removing the public benefit would be detrimental to the property values and enjoyment of the area. McMillan noted Orono has recently adopted its 2040 Community Management Plan and Parks and Open Space and Trail goals, which identifies that the plan is based upon the following goals and policies: One, to provide passive open space and active recreational opportunities to serve the needs and desires of all residents; two, protect, preserve, restore, and provide access to ecologically significant areas, natural resource areas, wildlife habitats and open space; and three, to provide city-wide bike and walking trails that provide connections between area parks, open space, and when possible, function as transportation corridors. While there might be a solution in vacating some of the land, he does not want to see the City vacate the asphalt portion of Smith Avenue. Instead, this is an opportunity for the City to develop and make a much clearer access and path for people to use the Luce Line Trail and avoid having to use Orono Orchard Road. Ash Day, 1171 Lyman, stated perhaps posting a no turn-around sign would be helpful. Cars have turned around in his driveway from time to time. Day questioned how a cul-de-sac would fit within that space and that he would like to see it on a plan. One question the City should consider is whether they want to give away the second potential egress from the neighborhood, because if they shut that off, that egress would be gone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 8 Shawn Benson, 1220 Lyman, stated they learned about this seven days ago from an anonymous letter, and that he is wondering what the process is for how this is supposed to unfold and how the neighbors learn about it. Ressler stated the Planning Commission’s responsibility is to provide feedback to the City Council and that they have the option of either voting for, against, or tabling the application. Barnhart stated Staff sent out a postcard to properties located within 500 feet of the two subject parcels. That notice has to be sent out between 10 and 20 days before the meeting. Staff did field a number of calls and questions right away, which demonstrates that people received it. If the Planning Commission elects to table the application, direction will be provided to the applicant on how they should proceed, and then it will be heard at the City Council meeting on November 12th. Benson stated it would be nice to notify everyone on Lyman and Smith because they are all impacted by it and that they might not be dealing with completely accurate information. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:13 p.m. Ressler stated what is proposed is unclear, which is the difficulty a number of people are having today. Providing equitable access to the trail and addressing safety concerns would be agreeable to the neighbors but that he is not sure how they get there. It is not clear whether that can be done with an alternative access point. McCutcheon stated he would be in favor of tabling the application. McCutcheon indicated he drove down there this weekend and the road is tight. The neighborhood needs a cul-de-sac. If there is a plan that depicts the cul-de-sac and the trail access, that would be very helpful. Due to the City’s pavement project, the timeline is tight and requires decisions to be made rather quickly. McCutcheon recommended they show the sanitary sewer solution as well on the plan. Thiesse asked when the road project will be reviewed by the City Engineer. Barnhart indicated it will be this winter. Thiesse asked if the cul-de-sac will fit on the right-of-way. Barnhart indicated it will not and that the City would like to make it as standard as possible for emergency vehicle access. Thiesse stated the three concerns he heard related to access, safety, traffic, and turnaround. Thiesse stated he usually is not in favor of vacations, but that a turnaround will be provided with a cul-de-sac. While the owner is going to benefit greatly by this, he will also be giving back so the City will not be losing anything. If a formal plan that meets all the requirements is submitted, he would likely be in support of it. Gettman stated a decision at this point would be premature and that he would be in favor of tabling it at this point. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 Bollis indicated he agrees with Staff. Bollis asked if anyone sees a benefit going away for the City to be able to continue that access down to Orono Orchard Road. Thiesse noted there is a fairly steep embankment and a number of trees. Barnhart stated engineering staff has not looked into that as a serious turnaround at this point, but that Staff could come back with some preliminary information from the city engineer about any issues that he observes. Libby asked where the access is currently to the trail. Barnhart pointed out the informal path on the overhead, noting that it comes off of Orono Orchard Road South and then cuts into an open area. Libby stated it is essentially an open access for anyone that could walk in. Barnhart stated he believes there might be a number of informal access points and there are some opportunities to make a better access. Ressler asked if the access is out of kindness right now rather than obligation. Barnhart stated it historically has been the access point and that the property owners recognize the City’s goals in terms of access, and they would like to maintain that. Libby stated the willingness of the applicant to agree with Staff’s proposed conditions, which all seem pretty reasonable, leads him to agree with the need for those but that he needs to look at it on a plan. Libby stated he is aware of the fact that in Orono there was a cul-de-sac that existed for 50 years on a plan and the City actually had a right-of-way to extend the cul-de-sac for additional development. The safety issues that were brought up tonight, a lot of those were dramatically reduced with the cul-de-sac. Erickson commented Staff has done an excellent job of outlining the issues and proposing the necessary items to help meet the City’s requirements to create a larger development that specifically shows a cul-de- sac and a trail easement needs to be done. The cul-de-sac will be a long-term benefit to the neighborhood and would eliminate people backing up into people’s driveways. Erickson stated his question would be, if the City concurs that a more specific plan is its goal, could the Planning Commission give conceptual blessing to the process and move it on to the City Council. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission can either approve it with the conditions recommended by Staff, deny it, or table the application to allow the applicant time to illustrate those items on a formal plan for further review by the Planning Commission. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission could deny it and the applicant could add it to a plan prior to the City Council meeting. Ressler asked if there is direct access to the trail without crossing Mr. Bonnett’s property currently. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 Barnhart noted there is City-to-DNR right-of-way currently but that it has morphed onto Mr. Bonnett’s property over the years. Ressler stated tabling it would delay any action on this. If this were passed or denied with some requirements or contingencies, that would save about 30 days so it does not have to come back before the Planning Commission again. William Griffith stated a fourth condition could be to require a plan be provided to the City Council and that they are in agreement with the three conditions as well as providing a formal plan. That plan could also be made available to anyone who is interested in seeing it. Ressler noted recommending denial does not stop them from being heard by the City Council. Griffith indicated he would rather have a recommendation of approval. Thiesse commented he would like a plan that the residents could look at prior to the City Council meeting and that they need some time to do that. Thiesse asked whether a public hearing could be held at the City Council meeting. Barnhart stated the Planning Commission could recommend a public hearing be held at the City Council meeting. While a formal public hearing is not required, the Council typically receives public comment at the meeting. Thiesse noted there is no formal notice sent out to the neighbors and that people interested in this application would need to know when it would be before the City Council. Barnhart stated the next City Council meeting would be November 12. Barnhart stated the applicant has two options. They could either provide a plan or they could proceed forward with what they have. The applicant has already agreed to address the issues that Staff has raised, and the idea would be to provide a plan depicting those. If they would like to receive the feedback from the Planning Commission on that plan, they should ask for it to be tabled. Erickson stated he would support it with the four conditions and moving it on to the City Council. Thiesse stated because they are acting on a request for a vacation, in his mind they should deny it because it is lacking certain information. Gettman noted the applicant would get a chance to rectify those omissions before the City Council meeting, and that approving it would essentially mean the Planning Commission is really not necessary. Ressler indicated he is against tabling it and that the Planning Commission has enough information to make a recommendation one way or another. Denying it would give the applicant an opportunity to supplement their application. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to recommend denial of Application No. LA19-000074, William Griffith on behalf of TJ Bonnett, 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, right-of-way vacation and variance, with the understanding that the applicant has time to submit a formal plan. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 TJ Bonnett noted they have agreed to all four conditions and that they are here basically because Staff recommended they pursue a vacation to clean up this situation. Access to the Luce Line is not going to be denied. Bonnett indicated he does not want to come back six or eight times. Ressler stated what it comes down to is avoiding coming back multiple times, which is what tabling would do. The Planning Commission does not have a formal plan at this time so they do not know what exactly they would be approving. Thiesse stated those four items raised by Staff will come up in the denial. If the Planning Commission just recommends denial with no requests, they will not know what the Planning Commission is looking for. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to amend the motion and to recommend denial of Application No. LA19-000074, William Griffith on behalf of TJ Bonnett, 40 and 45 Smith Avenue, right-of-way vacation and variance, with the understanding that the applicant has time to submit a formal plan incorporating the three conditions outlined in Staff report. Libby stated as an advisory body, he would encourage the applicant to come up with something graphical. Bonnett stated they would have done that for this meeting had they known they needed that. Erickson stated in his view all the points they mentioned could be placed in a motion recommending approval and that he will vote against the motion to deny. Barnhart noted this item would be heard at the November 12 City Council meeting. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1, Erickson Opposed. 28.0 60.0 R50.0 78.0 PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC ROW 8 FT. PROPOSED TRAIL EASEMENT 45 SMITH AVENUE 40 SMITH AVENUE S M I T H A V E N U E O R O N O O R C H A R D S R O A D S O U T H R39.0 R15.0 EXISTING BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT EXISTING HOME EXISTING HOME EXISTING DRIVEWAY PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC PAVEMENT 8.0 8.0 8.0 EXISTING TRAIL CONNECTION FROM ORONO ORCHARD ROAD SOUTH EXISTING POWER LINE EXISTING POWER POLES C ADD f iles pr epar ed by t he Cons ult ant for this p roject ar e instruments of the Consultant professional services for use solely with respect to this project. These CADD files shall not be used on other projects, for additions to this project, or for completion of t his p r ojec t by ot her s w it hou t wr i t te n ap pr ov al b y t he C onsultant . With t he Cons ultant's appr oval, ot hers may be per mit t ed t o ob t ain cop ies of t he C AD D dr aw ing files f or information and reference only. All intentional or unintentional revisions, additions, or deletions to these CADD files shall be made at the full risk of that party making such revisions, additions or deletions and that party shall hold harmless and indemnify the Consultant from any & all responsibilities, claims, and liabilities. PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinc.com Pl o t t e d : 10 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 9 1 1 : 2 A M W: \ 2 0 1 9 \ 1 9 8 3 3 \ C A D D D A T A \ C I V I L \ _ d w g S h e e t F i l e s \ X 1 - 1 S C H E M A T I C S I T E P L A N OUCKSL CADD QUALIFICATION QUALITY CONTROL PROFESSIONAL SIGNATURE SUBMITTAL/REVISIONS 40 & 45 SMITH AVENUE 40 & 45 SMITH AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA 55391 T.J. BONNETT 40 & 45 SMITH AVENUE ORONO, MINNESOTA 55391 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN X1.1 11.04.2019 CITY COUNCIL MEETING . Review Date SHEET INDEX License No. Date I hereby certify that this plan, specification or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Jeffrey A. Shopek - PE 19624 Project Lead Drawn By Checked By Loucks Project No.19833.00 CEF CEF JAS 10.04.2019 10.04.2019 NOTES: ·SURVEY INFORMATION FROM ADVANCED SURVEYING AND ENGINEERING. ·TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION FROM MNTOPO. N SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 Smith Avenue To: Orono Mayor and City Council Date: Nov 7, 2019 Re: Smith Ave Vacation-Revised Plan There is no demonstrable narrative identifying the public benefit for the vacating the present Smith Avenue access, as proposed and submitted by the Bonnetts. The following are my concerns with the Smith Ave Vacation Schematic Site Plan (dated 10/04/2019). 1. As proposed, the trail easement extending westward to Orono Orchard Rd. is unworkable and not pragmatic. This proposed trail easement is not in public right-of-way and would directly impact a neighboring property that is not involved nor would have any benefit from the Smith Avenue vacation. 2. The present “Smith Ave access” is a significant community asset: Smith Ave is a quiet, dead end road with little to no traffic. It provides safe, direct access to the Luce Line without requiring travel on a circuitous route along a significant unshouldered stretch of Orono Orchard Rd. This access is essentially level city land directly and safely abutting, the Luce Line Trail. The proposed trail would be relocated down a steep slope, dumping out onto an unimproved shoulder on Orono Orchard Rd, which a busy collector street with poor sight lines. The trail walker or cyclist would then have to traverse back up the same hill to enter the Luce Line. 3. This plan purposely eliminates a present common sense public access from Smith Ave. to the Luce Line. This would not qualify as a public benefit in order to make a case for vacation of public land. Public access to recreation parks and trails are important to the fabric of the Orono community. Removing the public benefit that presently exists with city land abutting a major trail would be detrimental to the property values of citizens in the neighborhood who, as citizens of Orono, also have ownership in this property. Historically, and for the 3+ decades I have lived at 1275 Lyman Avenue, the residents of Smith, Lyman and Orono Orchard have used the existing pathway to access the Luce Line. It would be desirable if the pathway could be properly established in the existing right-of-way to eliminate further confusion while continuing to remain a public benefit for all Orono citizens. This proposed vacation is diametrically oppositional to Orono’s recently adopted 2040 Community Management Plan and to the City’s long-held municipal priorities, goals and policies. PARK, OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL GOALS AND POLICIES Orono's Park, Open Space and Trail Plan is based upon the following goals and Policies, which in turn are consistent with the other elements of Orono's Community Management Plans: Goals 1. To provide passive open space and active recreational opportunities to serve the needs and desires all residents. 2. To protect, preserve, restore and provide access to ecologically significant natural resource areas, wildlife habitats and open space. 3. To provide citywide bike and walking trails that provide connections between area parks, trails and open space and when possible function as a transportation corridors. Howard McMillan 1275 Lyman Avenue From:David Klema To:Jeremy Barnhart; Julia Klema Subject:Smith Ave Luce Line access Date:Thursday, November 7, 2019 11:42:19 AM Mr Barnhart, Our family lives across the Luce Line from this access point. We are friends with the Bonnetts and use the current path to visit them and other friends in that neighborhood. Although public property (Smith Ave) touches public property (DNR/Luce Line), the access path crosses the corner of private property (Bonnetts). This fact is being leveraged to try to eliminate public access to the Luce Line for the rest of the neighborhood. We are opposed to any plan that does not include direct public access from Smith Ave to the Luce Line. We are a proponent of the city and DNR working to improve an access point that doesn’t cross private land. To be clear, we are not opposed to the vacation and cul de sac, as long as it includes a direct access easement from Smith Ave to the Luce Line. Thanks, David and Julia Klema From:Matt Nicoll To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Access Date:Thursday, November 7, 2019 11:20:35 AM This solution to access is totally unacceptable. Access needs to be provided from cul-de-sac to Luce Line. Matthew N. Nicoll 120 Broadway Ave South, Suite 100 Wayzata, MN 55391 612-747-1259 matt.nicoll46@gmail.com Orono City Council, We are writing to state our opposition to the plan entitled “Schematic Site Plan X1.1” recently submitted by the Bonnetts for the vacation of land on Smith Avenue. We have the following concerns: 1. In their report to the Planning Commission on October 21st, the Planning Staff stated that they could not support the proposal unless, among other requests, there is an "Inclusion of a trail easement from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line.". The most recent plan from the Bonnetts appears to provide trail access from Smith Avenue to Orono Orchard Road, not from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. Currently, we and our children can access the trail from Smith Ave without walking or biking on Orono Orchard Road, where the speed limit is 30 mph. Forcing the use of Orono Orchard Road lengthens the route and makes it necessary to walk along a busier road. 2. In a recent email, Mr. Bonnett stated the following: "Fact: We have no intention of cutting off the luce line access, which we stated 4 times in the [Planning Commission] meeting, and have gone so far as to provide a permanent easement for all to travel where none exists today on any path in our neighborhood." In another recent email, Mr. Bonnett stated the following: “...we will maintain the path that is currently available to all neighbors as invitees (with only one exception) this hopefully should not affect anyone too much. The permanent easement cannot be run directly through our property at this point in time as the property line will change if the vacation is granted.” So, the plan appears to allow no direct access from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. However, Mr. Bonnett is indicating that neighbors can use the current trail, but at his discretion. To us, this is not an appropriate solution. For example, what if the Bonnetts move and the future owner decides not to allow trail access? Also, what if an Orono resident doesn’t live in the neighborhood, but wants to access the Luce Line from Smith Avenue? We believe that it is better for the City Council to make an explicit decision about allowing community-wide access from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. 3. We question the fundamental equity of this plan. In speaking with Jeremy Barnhart, it sounds like the city would give up approximately .66 acres of land with the vacation and the Bonnetts would give up .06 acres of land for the cul-de-sac. When you net this out, the Bonnetts will stand to receive .6 acres of land for no cost. We do not think it is a benefit to our community for the Bonnetts, or any Orono resident, to receive city land at no cost to them. If we may, we would like to propose an alternative plan whereby the city would move the cul-de-sac north to the end of Smith Avenue. That way, the cul-de-sac would lead directly to the DNR-owned trail that leads to the Luce Line. This trail is currently overgrown, but could be cleared and graded. In return for the cul-de-sac, the city could allow the Bonnetts to receive a similarly-sized piece of land (.06 acres). With this approach, the city would not need an easement from the Bonnetts to access the Luce Line, the Bonnetts would not have to contend with people walking on their property, there would be direct access to the Luce Line for the community, a cul-de-sac would be built to allow turnarounds and support for emergency vehicles, the Bonnetts would receive a fair amount of land and the community would have safe, direct access to the Luce Line. We ask you to consider this alternative approach. Respectfully Submitted, Sean and Alisa Benson 1220 Lyman Avenue November 7, 2019 City of Orono Jeremy Barnhart 2750 Kelley Pkwy. Orono, MN Jeremy, My husband and I are homeowners at 95 Smith Avenue and we are opposed to the request from T.J. and Allison Bonnett to vacate the section road between 40 & 45 Smith Avenue in Orono. During the planning meeting on October 21st, 2019, there were four items you requested to be submitted for the planning commission to consider the vacation of Smith Avenue. 1.Illustration of the location of the cul de sac with dimensions. 2.Equitable access to the Luce Line Trail 3.Cul de sac to include access to the manhole cover for service. 4.Access for municipal use. According to the revised plan the Bonnett’s submitted, the access to the Luce Line trail from Smith Ave. would no longer run directly to the trail. Instead they have indicated it would run along the SE lot line of 45 Smith and 60 Orono Orchard Rd. I feel as a resident in this neighborhood it is very important to keep the direct access to the trail through the end of Smith Avenue. Orono Orchard Road is not an acceptable alternative to access the Luce Line trail. If the plan is revised with access through an easement on the Bonnett’s property how do we know that it will remain a permanent easement and wouldn’t be changed at a later date? One of the main reasons we purchased in this location was the access to the Luce Line trail and its proximity to our home. As a resident of Orono, we do not feel the vacation of Smith Avenue benefits anyone except the Bonnett’s. The letter submitted by the Bonnett’s lawyer stated vacating Smith Avenue would be advantageous for the future use and development of the property. I feel as a neighborhood we should be informed as to what this redevelopment consists of before allowing the vacation of the road. City of Orono’s Vision Statement: “To be the residential community of choice and remain widely recognized for its preservation of natural rural beauty, quality of life, and recreational assets.” The Luce Line Trail is one of our key recreational assets and continued access to the trail is part of the character, beauty and quality of life that we enjoy living in our neighborhood. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Angie and Matt Hopping 95 Smith Ave. Orono November 7, 2019 Jeremy Barnhart Community Development Director City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 To Whom it May Concern: We (Charles “Merritt” and Kenzie Jackley) are the homeowners of 80 Smith Avenue and are strongly opposed to the vacation of Smith Avenue between 40 and 45 Smith Avenue as currently proposed by Theodore and Allison Bonnett. Upon knowledge of the proposal, one of the main concerns we and the greater neighborhood have expressed has been the Bonnett’s plan and its impact on our access to the Luce Line from Smith Ave. We recently moved into the neighborhood (April 2019) and having the ability to access the Luce Line in safe manner was incredibly important in our decision to move to our current location. The Orono Planning Commission and staff also recognized the importance of this trail to our neighborhood by denying the original proposal and recommended the Bonnett’s address (among other items) the lack of clarity on go- forward access and trail easement from Smith Avenue to the Luce Line. As you can imagine, we were extremely disappointed to learn that the Bonnett’s new plan not only eliminates the existing access but also eradicates public access entirely from Smith Ave by redirecting the trail to Orono Orchard Road. Withholding the fact that this “new” trail would be down a steep hill and does not exist at the current moment, we believe this plan as proposed is not practical nor safe for ourselves, our hopefully growing family, our neighbors, and the drivers on Orono Orchard Road. We agree the cul-de-sac would be beneficial but not at the expense of the neighborhood’s access to the Luce Line Trail. We believe a simple solution to creating a cul-de-sac, maintaining public access to the Luce Line from Smith Ave, and keeping our neighborhood safe would be to move the proposed cul-de- sac to the end of Smith Ave directly next to the current public access to the Luce Line. This could also allow the Bonnett’s to obtain the vacation land on each side of the public access route to the Luce Line from Smith Ave. We both grew up in Orono. We love this community, we love our neighborhoods, and we love our public access to the trails. We hope the Orono City Council does not take away our and the neighborhood’s current public access to a beautiful trail for the benefit of one homeowner. As such, we recommend the Orono City Council to deny the Bonnett’s proposal. Sincere Regards, Merritt & Kenzie Jackley Owners of 80 Smith Ave From:Robert Miller To:Nick Bolin; ash.stoesz@gmail.com; billegan16@yahoo.com; palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com; scq0323@gmail.com; das.houston@yahoo.com; sunoak1@centurylink.net; jwmpalm@gmail.com; ktlouiseegan@gmail.com; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com); lkg624@mchsi.com; marciahanson02@centurylink.net; rgibson@mmblawfirm.com; steve@melberg.com; dworskyhome@gmail.com; Angela Hopping; Matt Hopping; Merritt Jackley; Kenzie Jackley; pamelacariveau@gmail.com; Janie Delaney; Claudia Whiteley; Doug Whiteley; Jeremy Barnhart; Juliampalmer@gmail.com; benson.sean@gmail.com; tbonnett123@gmail.com; bonnett.allison@gmail.com Subject:Re: Orono Path Date:Thursday, November 7, 2019 10:34:17 AM Hello All, My apologies for clogging your inbox with another communication on this topic, however it thought is appropriate to provide a short response to Mr. Bonnett's email below. First of all, it is truly unfortunate that we do not share a productive relationship with the Bonnetts. Secondly, what is being considered by the City Council next Tuesday is not the dynamic of the relationship between the Millers and the Bonnetts, it is whether the revised proposed plan meets the requirements defined by the Orono Planning Commission/City staff and the desires of the community. If you have a strong opinion one way or the other, please attend the City Council meeting on Tuesday at 6:00PM. Finally, I would welcome having a personal conversation with anyone who would like to discuss the below issues raised by Mr. Bonnett (point of reference: my communications have been specific to the requested vacation of Smith Ave, not personal smears as Mr. Bonnett has accused and has taken upon himself to issue). It would be great to meet more of you in the neighborhood and allow you to directly evaluate my personal character. I encourage you to also do the same with Mr. Bonnett. I look forward to seeing many of you on Tuesday. Sincere regards, Rob Miller 60 Smith Ave 952-473-0052 From: Nick Bolin <nbolin@limpro.com> Sent: Thursday, November 7, 2019 9:00 AM To: ash.stoesz@gmail.com <ash.stoesz@gmail.com>; billegan16@yahoo.com <billegan16@yahoo.com>; palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com <palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com>; scq0323@gmail.com <scq0323@gmail.com>; das.houston@yahoo.com <das.houston@yahoo.com>; sunoak1@centurylink.net <sunoak1@centurylink.net>; jwmpalm@gmail.com <jwmpalm@gmail.com>; ktlouiseegan@gmail.com <ktlouiseegan@gmail.com>; lilim@mac.com <lilim@mac.com>; lkg624@mchsi.com <lkg624@mchsi.com>; marciahanson02@centurylink.net <marciahanson02@centurylink.net>; From:Nick Bolin To:To: "benson.sean@gmail.com; ash.stoesz@gmail.com; billegan16@yahoo.com; palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com; scq0323@gmail.com; das.houston@yahoo.com; sunoak1@centurylink.net; jwmpalm@gmail.com; ktlouiseegan@gmail.com; Lili McMillan (lilim@mac.com); lkg624@mchsi.com; marciahanson02@centurylink.net; rgibson@mmblawfirm.com; steve@melberg.com; dworskyhome@gmail.com; Angela Hopping; Matt Hopping; Merritt Jackley; Kenzie Jackley; pamelacariveau@gmail.com; Janie Delaney; Claudia Whiteley; Doug Whiteley; Jeremy Barnhart; Robert Miller; Juliampalmer@gmail.com Subject:Orono Path Date:Thursday, November 7, 2019 8:49:15 AM Thank you neighbors for the forwards of these emails! Mr Cariview and Ms Miller sure are little activists! Unlike them, we are unwilling to outright lie and trample on people to get our way. I will illustrate: -They lied on their application about having a growing family to obtain variances (I have a copy of their permit) -They lied about window height not moving up from original height on original structure (Rob Cariview is on camera at his meeting saying this if you want the exact moment captured on video). Of course the window height went up about 6 feet after that statement -They stole Blackwell land at 80 smith to run their driveway across his property -They littered debris in our yard during their project and wouldn’t clean it up when asked politely -They destroyed property (for which we obtained judgement against them and their builder) at 40 and 45 Smith (none of which they admitted, for which the judge admonished them and builder furiously). Until confronted with video evidence from Lizzy Johnson they took the word of a truck driver that he had done no damage to a driveway which he ripped up with tires -When asked to not have trucks idiling at 5:30 due to a new baby with hand foot mouth disease who was not falling asleep until 3am and was being awaken by heavy trucks idling in front of our house, they kept coming for the rest of the week (this was probably the last straw) -They have had tree crews cutting down trees on my property and when I come surprisingly at lunch home they scurry and run quickly back to the property at 60 smith -They have videotaped me in my driveway in a very uncomfortable fashion with my children present -They have removed and stolen a fence installed from Otten brothers, which Otten installed to protect new screening bushes which Allison and I planted at great cost, as the landscaping plan from the miller Pam plan included only one pinky size tree which now stands dead in their yard and would not be suitable screening with their new massive white vanillla sided house 16 feet from the mutual property line -He has even threatened my little tiny dog who happened to pee on their lawn once or twice (he just kinda does his own thing!) These are all just facts. But if these people sound like ideal neighbors, you are welcome to swap with us anytime, but in the meantime I would say most relatively intelligent people in our neighborhood will see through their “well intended campaign to protect a footpath” ...for what it is....just a smear campaign. (Thank you neighbors for telling me they came to your houses, then you for forwarding these emails from them to you. It’s a shame they got all the facts wrong in the anonymous letter!!!) We share one opinion with Rob Cariview and Pam Miller...we encourage you to come and see and participate in the formation of a new cul de sac. Or the death of the plan! Either is fine with Allison and myself at this point. Thank you neighbors we have very much appreciated your support and words of kindness to our actual growing family (we wouldn’t lie about that) through the nightmarish situations at the end of smith ave. Regarding the plan, it represents a little needed progress at our quiet Street end, and since we will maintain the path that is currently available to all neighbors as invitees (with only one exception) this hopefully should not affect anyone too much. The permanent easement cannot be run directly through our property at this point in time as the property line will change if the vacation is granted. We are unwilling to lie to you, show it on the plan and move it last minute without public comment as has been done before. It is up to the council now and we will respect their decision. I wish we could say the same for our neighbors at 60 Smith. They have just ruined this street for us unfortunately, and continue to ruin it for us with the incessant pestering. It is quite intolerable. Best regards and respectfully; Tj Bonnett Orono City Council November 6, 2019 RE: Smith Ave Land Vacation and access to Luce Line Trail You CANNOT grant this vacation to the owners of 40 & 45 Smith, TJ & Allison Bonnett. We are homeowners on Smith for over 12 years and I’m outraged that this request is even being considered. How did we even get here? This is not for the good of the neighborhood. This is ONLY for the good of ONE homeowners on my street. Mr. Bonnett did not come to his neighbors and consult with us on how this would affect our access to enjoy our neighborhood or the Luce Line. He brings his attorney to the planning meeting and speaks about how many times the Mayor has come out to his home and infers that this was suggested by our Mayor. As if that is the stamp of approval?? After our meeting with the Planning Commission last month he was asked to stay after and talk with his neighbors. He did not. He left immediately. Is it the Truth? He has NOT spoken honestly about the concerns of our neighborhood. Mr. Bonnett spoke about our short, busy street last month and now he wants to make a short street shorter and a busy street busier. He stated numerous times that he doesn’t intend to remove our access to the Luce line. How clever, make an easement that takes his neighbors down to Orono Orchard for our access?!? This is not good for all concerned. I say NO. We live on Smith and we have a safe walk down our street to gain access to one of the most beautiful trails in Orono. You CANNOT grant this vacation. He doesn’t care about the safety of his neighbors in his plan. This vacation does NOT build goodwill or better neighbors. Additionally it has a negative effect our property value and how we enjoy our neighborhood. If a Cul de sac is needed put it at the END of the street with clear access to the Luce Line from Smith for the whole neighborhood not just ONE homeowner. Respectfully, Stacey & David Quinn 125 Smith Ave., Orono MN 55391 1 Jeremy Barnhart From:Ash Stoesz <ash.stoesz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, October 24, 2019 3:44 PM To:Denny Walsh Cc:Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson; Jeremy Barnhart; Ash Stoesz Subject:Fwd: Smith Avenue Truth from the Source Attachments:Theodore Bonnett, Request for street vacation and variance.pdf Mayor Walsh, I am concerned by the below email and associated request from Mr. Bonnett for the City of Orono to vacate land. Would you please review the below email and let me know your thoughts regarding my comments below? ‐ I am concerned that the City is “encouraging” (per the email below) vacating public property as a solution. Making a practice of vacating currently unused property (~0.5 acre) for the benefit of one individual appears to be a dangerous precedent to set. ‐ Vacating this property would eliminate the ability to provide multiple exits from the Smith and Lyman Ave properties, the completion of the road should be explored prior to any decision for the following reasons. o Incremental emergency neighborhood access; when natural disasters may result in trees blocking roads afflicted individuals and property may not be served and more access may help. o Completion of the road would not only eliminate the concern of turn arounds occurring in individuals driveways it would reduce the burden on the other houses on Smith Ave by not forcing lost traffic back the direction it came from. The completion of the road makes sense for the above reasons, I also appreciate your and the council’s prudent fiscal management recognize that budget may be a concern in doing so. If the budget limits current options I would propose the below which would preserve the option for future improvements for the benefit of the neighborhood and the City. ‐ Place a turnaround at the end of Smith avenue utilizing the ~66’ width currently owned by the City ‐ Cut a path through the brush on public property adjoining the Luce Line Trail for resident access that doesn’t burden Mr. Bonnett Thank you, Ash Stoesz 612.751.7960 1170 Lyman Ave ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: TJ Bonnett <tbonnett123@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 5:58 PM Subject: Smith Avenue Truth from the Source To: <ash.stoesz@gmail.com>, <billegan16@yahoo.com>, <palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com>, <scq0323@gmail.com>, <das.houston@yahoo.com>, <sunoak1@centurylink.net>, <jwmpalm@gmail.com>, <ktlouiseegan@gmail.com>, <lilim@mac.com>, <lkg624@mchsi.com>, <marciahanson02@centurylink.net>, 2 <RGibson@mmblawfirm.com>, <steve@melberg.com>, <worskyhome@gmail.com> Cc: Claudia Whiteley <claudiawhiteley@aol.com>, Janie Delaney <janie@janieinc.com>, Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Dear Neighbors; Thank you for your attendance at the meeting the other night. It was nice to see all of the neighborhood come together and rally around a point of concern. We welcome and listened to the feedback from our neighbors. However we do feel as though the below letter mailed off anonymously was factually incorrect in many respects, and served to stir up emotions and opinions. Hopefully we all learned something in the meeting…among other things, this project is not about cutting off luce line access!!! (which the letter clearly states below). I learned something and would like to share. Detailing some points from the letter: Point one: Letter states “access to luce line trail via Smith Ave is in jeopardy of being closed off” Fact: We have no intention of cutting off the luce line access, which we stated 4 times in the meeting, and have gone so far as to provide a permanent easement for all to travel where none exists today on any path in our neighborhood. Point two: Letter States “they are asking the city to give up city owned property between our property and the luce line trail. Fact: This is only partially correct. Yes we are asking, but we were encouraged to do so by the city as a fix to the unsafe turn around situation. Those of you who have lived in the neighborhood are around long enough to remember the chains across the driveway at 45 Smith Ave from the owners prior to David and Ellen Phelps. In the middle of the chains on both sides of the turnaround chains a sign stated ‘NO TURN AROUND PLEASE BACK OUT”. It was hardly a welcoming scene at the end of our street, and I am glad that David and Ellen chose to remove them immediately after purchase of the home. Point being, this has been an issue for a LONG time. Long before me. The traffic HAS increased, one need not glasses to notice it. It is not imagined. But can you imagine putting up chains across your driveway every time you backed in and out. This is the lengths the former owners went to to protect their children, not my cup of tea, but its been an issue down here for a LOOOONG time. Point 3: Letter States “Homeowners have stated that this would be advantageous for redevelopment of the properties”, again at the bottom of the letter “advantageous personal use” 3 Fact: We have zero plans to redevelop the properties at this point in time, nor for the next 60 months at a minimum. The only thing that is driving this NOW, is the re-paving of the road, and a quid pro quo with the city. Land for land, save taxpayer money on repaving. Simple as that. However it is inevitable that the lot at 45 Smith will be redeveloped sometime in the future. None will be more glad than I. We have discussed with the Whitleys (Claudia and I have had talks), and she wished the property would shift 20 or so feet away from hew lot line. This is the reason for the vacation request of the parcel in between 45 Smith and the luce line. The vacation request on the side of 40 Smith was literally a “road to no where” which would not ever be redeveloped and it stops at the end of 40 smith, it does not continue on, and is about 6 feet wide. Nothing will ever go there, it will not be built on, and frankly we don’t need it, however it provides for squaring off the lots and avoiding confusion in the future. The city just tossed it in. Any redevelopment of the properties would not hinge on any vacation request regardless. There is not enough room for 3 parcels in these locations, with or without the vacation in its entirety. This point is moot unless Pam Miller and Robbie Cariview want to give me some land, which I would say the probability is 0.0% of that happening. (Harlan and Marcia have no interest either). Point 4: If the city gives up this land you will never have access to the luce line. Fact: We will say it again, we do not want to cut off access to the luce line, we are fine with a permanent easement (again requested by the city) running through our property for access and have to figure out where lot lines will fall to make the best path forward for as direct of access as we are advised by the city and others creating the plan. Point 5: The DNR allows simple foot paths across their land for access to the luce line. Fact: GREAT! It does not say that you MUST allow access across private property. There is a subtle difference, but a meaningful one. We have a sign for no trespassing, as do others in our neighborhood. Our sign is to discourage the end of Smith being used as a parking lot for accessing the luce line, as this was not the intention. More people parking here are using dope than take a walk I am afraid to say, that is why I have a very bright flashlight. It scares them away. Point 6 not mentioned in the letter: We offered to provide several parking spaces on our property at 45 Smith Ave down on Orono Orchard Rd which the city could pave further back from the class 5 luce line bridge parking locations where people park to use the luce line. I do not know if they were interested in this, but it seemed like a good idea to address safety of people getting into cars with dogs and kids around that busy corner. From there, there would be a path off of orono orchard Rd directly to the luce line. No takers. Fine with us. I learned at the meeting that our neighbors value access to the luce line…so do we, and we use the Palmer path frequently, our path at least four times a week, and we welcome neighbors to use our path. 4 Creating a permanent easement is a big deal, where one does not exist today, nor at the other three locations in our neighborhood. Why even should we acquiesce to this when the Palmers, Bensons and others have not, nor have they offered an easement (yet they both offer ours up)? Not sure its tied direct to the vacation or should be, but are willing to do this, and the city was well aware of this prior to the meeting on the 21st. They also are aware of the cul de sac location would be (which may/must be over the manhole cover I was told). I am very sorry these items were not shown on the map. They easily could have been, and would have been if the city had requested it prior. It would have been prepared by us post haste. Regardless we hear you that this access is important. We hope public safety is to you also, for the benefit of all of us. We will prepare a map for the November council meeting outlining these items and will hopefully have it to you via electronic mail by November 4th, which is the city deadline for submittal. If this does not go through that meeting, frankly I am fatigued by the process already (can you tell?), having been excoriated by people with whom Ive been friendly with for years, and sincerely hope to continue being friendly with for years. I was saddened by the fact that 60% of our neighbors thought we were trying to be nefarious here, or believed and let their opinions be swayed by one nefarious anonymous letter. I am thankful that the other 40% picked up the phone before writing factually untrue letters, forwarded e-mails from neighbors to me, so that we would be prepared to address the issues at the meeting. I asked three people to call or set up a time to talk and still didn’t connect. I appreciate those who I did contact, and those 6 who supported this vacation request. Again I apologize if we have done anything to offend, but it was not our intention. I would have loved to have started a dialogue about this prior to this meeting, however the thinking was, access will be preserved to luce line, and no one cares about the 35 feet of roadway at the end of smith do they?... and why would anyone be so diabolically opposed to a cul de sac, and saving taxpayer monies, and increasing public safety for all of our children, when it benefits everyone really? We are not advocating we go to the british system of roundabouts replacing all four way stops in orono!! This will be less tarmac and more greenspace. Regarding the path location, the issue will remain that the property lines may shift after the vacation if this happens, and hopefully before the paving, thus changing the proposed direct path to the luce line. You will get an anonymous letter on this I am sure. Let me just say in advance, we have no plans to put in 20 condos, or an office park. Will mention that again at that meeting when or if it occurs. We do not want to be considered to do a bait and switch on path location…as we’ve seen that plenty in the home built next door to us (don’t get me started on the construction on Smith, oye vey). But telling the city and neighbors one thing on the path location and doing another when lines may shift in my opinion is very much the wrong thing to do unless you want to make enemies. So as an end, just so we are all aware, access to luce line is not in jeopardy…thank you again for your attendance and we look forward to addressing any concerns out from behind the curtain in full plain view with names attached. -Anonymous Just kidding… 5 -tj bonnett 40 & 45 smith ave 6 From: Allison Bonnett <bonnett.allison@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2019 4:27 PM To: TJ Bonnett <tbonnett123@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Smith Avenue Update Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: marciahanson02 <marciahanson02@centurylink.net> Date: October 19, 2019 at 10:58:34 AM CDT To: Allison & TJ Bonnett <bonnett.allison@gmail.com> Subject: Fwd: Smith Avenue Update FYI Bad information about Luce Line access? Marcia & Harlan Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Sean Benson <benson.sean@gmail.com> Date: 10/19/19 10:41 AM (GMT-06:00) To: Ash Stoesz <ash.stoesz@gmail.com>, Bill Egan <billegan16@yahoo.com>, Brian Palmer <palmer.brian@dorseyalumni.com>, Dave & Stacy Quinn <scq0323@gmail.com>, Deborah Houston 7 <das.houston@yahoo.com>, Harlan Hanson <sunoak1@centurylink.net>, Julie Palmer <jwmpalm@gmail.com>, Katie Egan <ktlouiseegan@gmail.com>, Lili MacMillan <lilim@mac.com>, Lisa Gibson <lkg624@mchsi.com>, Marcia Hanson <marciahanson02@centurylink.net>, Rick Gibson <RGibson@mmblawfirm.com>, Steve Melmberg <steve@melberg.com>, William Dworsky <dworskyhome@gmail.com> Subject: Smith Avenue Update Neighbors, I wanted to pass along some information that could affect the neighborhood. We recently learned that the owners of 40 and 45 Smith Av have requested that Smith Av be shortened and that the land and road between the two properties be given to them. If allowed, this would cut off access from Smith Av to the Luce Line Trail, which is pretty disconcerting to Alisa and me. I have attached a summary document from Orono's Community Development Director regarding the request. There is a Planning Commission meeting on Monday, October 21st at 6:30. We are planning to attend this session to voice our concerns and ask that you consider attending as well. I don't have many email addresses for our neighbors on Smith, but please pass this along if you have that information. Thanks, Sean and Alisa Benson From:TJ Bonnett To:Aaron H. Printup; Denny Walsh; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson Cc:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Orono Plan for 40 & 45 Smith Avenue Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:56:43 PM Attachments:DRAFT X1-1 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN-1.pdf Dear Orono City Council Members and Mayor; Thank you for your time and review. Attached as promised is a proposed plan/diagram of where a proposed cul-de-sac, as well as a proposed permanent easement for luce line access across our properties at 40 and 45 Smith Ave would be located. The original path where many neighbors cross currently would remain open to their crossing, however would not be the location of a permanent easement. All neighbors would be able to use the existing path as it is currently, into the future after any potential vacation if it is approved in any form or fashion, or not approved, as they use it today. It is open to them for access. We have no plans to develop ON any of the vacated property, however it may be used in addressing any setbacks for future development if it occurs. There are no plans in the works now, or will there be in at a minimum the next 60 months for any development to occur at either of these two properties. We have no plans to block Luce Line access Please do not hesitate to contact me at the below number at any time with any questions. Again thank you for your time to address this important public safety issue at the end of this road… -Tj Bonnett 40 & 45 Smith Ave 612-382-7900 c. From: Griffith, William C. <wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:14 AM To: 'Tj Bonnett' <tbonnett123@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Oronon Plan TJ, I am attaching the proposed plan with area calculations from Chad Feigum at Loucks. Let’s discuss this before I send it to Jeremy Barnhart for comment. Thanks, Bill From:Elizabeth Johnson To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:2020 street project, proposed recommendations regarding Smith & Lyman Avenue Date:Tuesday, October 29, 2019 9:17:49 PM Dear Jeremy, I am writing in regards to the October 28th Orono, city council meeting and the proposed, recommended 2020 street project, pertaining to Smith and Lyman Avenues. My family and I resided at 45 Smith Avenue, from June of 2015 through the fall of 2016. During our time there we enjoyed the beautiful area and wonderful neighbors. The only downside to our location on Smith Avenue, was the constant traffic driving through our circular driveway. As an outdoors person with two younger children, 2 shihtzus and 2 labs, we were always outside and cognizant of all human and vehicle traffic in front of our house. All day, every Fed Ex, UPS, lawn service truck with trailers or service truck in the neighborhood pulled through our driveway as the only option to turn around and exit Smith Avenue. Along with the enormous utility trucks, there were also the lookey loos and lost drivers searching for 6 Smith restaurant, that pulled through our driveway and often rang our doorbell for directions. The unnecessary traffic was not only annoying but destructive to our property and dangerous for our small pets and children. The large scale trucks and cars constantly using our driveway as a turn around created large potholes, ruts in the pavement, tore up the adjacent landscaping and put our small dogs and children at risk. Most of the residents on Smith avenue who rely on their daily deliveries, builders, landscapers, snowplows and utility workers would not have been inconvenienced or even notice the situation at the end of their street. This is because it is not their properties that are utilized as the only course of exit out of the neighborhood. The dead end situation at the end of Smith Avenue is an unfair burden put on one property to support the everyday needs of an entire neighborhood. With this in mind, I ask that you consider the proposed improvements for Smith and Lyman Avenue in the upcoming new year. Sincerely, Elizabeth Hoigaard Johnson Sent from my iPhone From:Parten, Mark To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Smith Avenue, Orono Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 8:03:55 AM Good morning Jeremy, I am emailing as a former resident of 45 Smith Avenue and at the request of TJ Bonnett of 40 Smith Avenue to provide some first-hand perspective on the traffic at the dead-end of Smith Avenue. As a former resident, I can attest that the dead-end turnaround and access to the Luce Line trail create an unsafe traffic situation whereby vehicles reach the end of the road with no turnaround options. This creates a multi-point u turn situation and inevitably leads to vehicles driving over private grass and creating damage as well as backing down the road, which is often occupied by the many children in the neighborhood. I understand that there are conversations about a potential cul-de-sac or other means of creating a viable turnaround. As a former resident of 45 Smith Avenue, the property at the very end of Smith Ave, I can personally attest to the fact that the current situation creates a situation where traffic is repeatedly damaging private property. I support a Cul-de-sac at this location. Thank you, Mark Parten 1015 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 From:TJ Bonnett To:Aaron H. Printup; Denny Walsh; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson Cc:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Orono Plan for 40 & 45 Smith Avenue Date:Wednesday, October 30, 2019 3:56:43 PM Attachments:DRAFT X1-1 SCHEMATIC SITE PLAN-1.pdf Dear Orono City Council Members and Mayor; Thank you for your time and review. Attached as promised is a proposed plan/diagram of where a proposed cul-de-sac, as well as a proposed permanent easement for luce line access across our properties at 40 and 45 Smith Ave would be located. The original path where many neighbors cross currently would remain open to their crossing, however would not be the location of a permanent easement. All neighbors would be able to use the existing path as it is currently, into the future after any potential vacation if it is approved in any form or fashion, or not approved, as they use it today. It is open to them for access. We have no plans to develop ON any of the vacated property, however it may be used in addressing any setbacks for future development if it occurs. There are no plans in the works now, or will there be in at a minimum the next 60 months for any development to occur at either of these two properties. We have no plans to block Luce Line access Please do not hesitate to contact me at the below number at any time with any questions. Again thank you for your time to address this important public safety issue at the end of this road… -Tj Bonnett 40 & 45 Smith Ave 612-382-7900 c. From: Griffith, William C. <wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2019 11:14 AM To: 'Tj Bonnett' <tbonnett123@gmail.com> Subject: FW: Oronon Plan TJ, I am attaching the proposed plan with area calculations from Chad Feigum at Loucks. Let’s discuss this before I send it to Jeremy Barnhart for comment. Thanks, Bill From:Robert Miller To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:Pam Cariveau Subject:40/45 Smith Ave Comments for Record Date:Wednesday, October 16, 2019 12:46:12 PM Hello Jeremy, Thank you for your response. Pam and I are not in support of the vacation of the end of Smith Ave or the right of way along the Luce Line Trail for the following reasons: - Trail Access: We want to maintain direct access to the Luce Line Trail. This was one of the key factors when deciding to purchase our home. Additionally, I work from home with a view of the street and see many neighbors utilizing the current access to the Trail. - Change of location to the end of Smith Ave. We did not purchase our home with the desire to have a turn around in front of our home. This would diminish the enjoyment and value of our property. - We are also not is support of the City “giving” or accepting a donation from a homeowner for almost an acre of land. Both Pam and I are traveling next Monday and unfortunately will not be able to attend the meeting. Should you have questions or require any additional information, please reach out to me. Sincere regards, Rob Miller/Pamela Cariveau 60 Smith Ave 952-473-0052 From:Ryan Blackwell To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:tbonnett123@gmail.com Subject:LA19-000074 | 40 and 45 Smith Avenue Date:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:59:11 AM Hi Jeremy, I am reaching out in support of the vacation of land at 40 and 45 Smith Avenue with intend to construct a cul-de-sac. As a former resident on Smith Avenue, I can speak from actual experiences to say that this road has a lot more traffic than one would think. Between mail deliveries, UPS/FedEx traffic, home maintenance vehicles and a number of lost drivers (there are a lot of lost driver because the location is confused with a Wayzata restaurant) – there seems to be traffic coming and going at all hours of the day. In addition, most of this traffic is moving well above the speed limit. With the current set-up of the road being a dead end (with no turnaround), this extra traffic utilizes resident’s driveways as turnarounds. This takes a toll on driveways and yards and becomes a safety issue for the small children in the area who are playing in the driveways. Having a cul-de-sac at the end of Smith Avenue would elevate the pressure on resident’s properties and make the street safer for all that live and play in the area. For these reasons, I wanted to offer my words of support for this project. I regretfully am unable to attend tonight’s meeting but hopeful you will be able to consider my statements via this email. Thank you, Ryan Blackwell From:Steve Gerber To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:TJ and Allison Bonnett request Date:Monday, October 21, 2019 11:08:55 AM Hi Jeremy, I’ve talked to TJ about his requests and I support his plan. These are the things that make sense to me: 1. Relocation of the Luce line access. Currently the access is unusable because it is overgrown with brush. A new access that is open for use makes complete sense. 2. Vacating the land so that their property is more usable: Since it is basically a formality to vacate the property and because of where the property is located, it really does not affect anyone. It may as well be used to help a resident. 3. Smith Ave does not have a place to turn around at the far west end by their property. I’ve been at TJ’s house and Ryan Blackwells house (Ryan has since moved), lots of cars go by and try to turn around in the street, often using someones driveway to turn around. Therefore, building a "turn around circle” would be a big improvement. 4. Saving the city money by not redoing the road all the way to the end is always appealing. Thanks for listening, I hope the city is in agreement, Steve From:Rick Gibson To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:Lisa Gibson (jpgerg@mchsi.com) Subject:Bonnet proposal Date:Sunday, November 10, 2019 12:29:38 PM To: Jeremy Barnhart From: Rick and Lisa Gibson, 1200 Lyman Ave, Orono Jeremy, on behalf of the Gibson’s, we offer this note in support of the Bonnet’s proposal for the end of Smith Ave. We have no objection to the city vacating certain parts of Smith Ave to the Bonnets along with a dedicated path to or near access to the Luce Line. The most recent proposal/drawing presented by the Bonnet’s seems to address that (with a path from Smith to Orono Orchard near the current Luce Line bridge over Orono Orchard). Thank you. Rick and Lisa Gibson Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email message, and any accompanying attachment, is confidential and privileged. It is intended only for the use of each recipient. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by telephone. From:Rick Gibson To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:Lisa Gibson (jpgerg@mchsi.com) Subject:Bonnet proposal Date:Sunday, November 10, 2019 12:29:38 PM To: Jeremy Barnhart From: Rick and Lisa Gibson, 1200 Lyman Ave, Orono Jeremy, on behalf of the Gibson’s, we offer this note in support of the Bonnet’s proposal for the end of Smith Ave. We have no objection to the city vacating certain parts of Smith Ave to the Bonnets along with a dedicated path to or near access to the Luce Line. The most recent proposal/drawing presented by the Bonnet’s seems to address that (with a path from Smith to Orono Orchard near the current Luce Line bridge over Orono Orchard). Thank you. Rick and Lisa Gibson Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this email message, and any accompanying attachment, is confidential and privileged. It is intended only for the use of each recipient. If you are not an intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver this message to an intended recipient, please notify us immediately by telephone. From:Steve Wendling To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Traffic on smith avenue Date:Saturday, November 9, 2019 4:57:27 PM Good evening, I’m writing a note to let you know about the high level of traffic on Smith Avenue in Orono. My family rented the house at 45 Smith Avenue while our new home was being built. We lived there approximately 9 months. During that time there was a high level of traffic from people who were looking for a different address or were lost. Our kids had to be closely watched because all the traffic ended up turning into the driveway at 45 smith since it was the last house on the street. For the safety of the kids and residents I highly encourage the city of Orono to do whatever possible to reduce traffic on Smith Ave. Thank you, Steve Wendling 2874 Wood Duck Trail Orono MN Regards, Steve From:Pamela Cariveau To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:40/45 Smith Comments for Nov 12th meeting Date:Friday, November 8, 2019 7:55:53 AM Attachments:image006.png image003.png image004.png image005.png Dear Jeremy, I am writing to you regarding the request from TJ and Allison Bonnett to vacate part of Smith Ave and the surrounding land. I have received a copy of the plan that was submitted and do not feel the plan submitted met the Planning Commissions Criteria on at least two items. I hope that you will be able to include my comments in the packets that go out to the city council. Lack of clarity on equitable access to the Luce Line Trail The newly proposed access to the Luce Line Trail which runs along property line between 45 Smith and 60 Orono Orchard Road is not equitable access to the Luce Line Trail. Routing the easement 20 feet from the side of the home structure on 60 Orono Orchard Road, down a steep embankment and onto Orono Orchard Road is not safe or equitable in comparison to a direct access path at the end of Smith Ave. Lack of illustration as to the location and dimensions of the cul de sacThe plan submitted by the Bonnett’s is not accurate. There are a number of errors in how theproperty lines are drawn. For example, the lot line between 60 and 80 Smith shows the houseon 80 Smith on 60 Smith land. Having an accurate plan seems like a very basic request inconsidering the Bonnett’s plan. After Review of the City Planning Meeting on Oct 21, 2019 I could not dismiss Mr. Bonnett’s comment that it was not his intention to block anyone from access to the trail. The Bonnett’s clearly intend to block access to the trail or they would not have blocked the original trail and they also would not have moved the trail so it cuts through their land and post PRIVATE PROPERTY signs. This does not send a message that the trail is open to all. The land at the end of Smith Ave is the nearest and only NON private property access to the trail in our neighborhood. The next nearest public point is on Orono Orchard Road which is certainly not the safest access point. There is much public interest retaining city owned land at the end of Smith Ave so we can all enjoy safe and unfettered access to the Luce Line trail via the city easement and the DNR owned Land for which we have permission to use either by way of a simple foot path or a more formal path should the city decide to coordinate with the DNR. The DNR is currently working to remove trails through private property and so our only access point will be through city and DNR maintained land in the future. Below is the communications with the DNR. Lastly, I would like to suggest that an equitable exchange of land to the Bonnett’s if a cul de sac must go in at the end of Smith Ave, might be to give them the city land that runs parallel to the Luce Line Trail while maintaining the original length of Smith Ave and the public land access to the trail. Thanks for your time and consideration. Pamela Cariveau Begin forwarded message: From: "Hintzman, Rachel (DNR)" <rachel.l.hintzman@state.mn.us> Subject: LUCE Line trail neighborhood access Date: July 17, 2018 at 10:26:14 AM CDT To: "pamela@cocoperry.com" <pamela@cocoperry.com> Pam, Thank you for your email about the Luce Line State Trail. Typically the only time a connection to the state trail is officially allowed is when the local unit of government builds a connection trail and enters into a cooperative agreement with the DNR. Having said that, we aren’t necessarily opposed to informal connection trails where streets end at our trail as these would be open to all the public. However we are not supportive of neighboring private landowners creating connection trails to the state property. As I’m sure you’ve seen along the trail there are a number of these and when time allows we’ll be working to have them removed. Since the connection trail on Smith Ave is informal (we don’t have an agreement with the city) you can use it but it isn’t official or will be maintained. However that doesn’t mean that a neighbor is allowed to dump brush on our property. We’ll take a look at the site and have a conversation with the neighbor if necessary. I know this is all a little confusing so feel free to contact me if you have any other questions. Sincerely, Rachel Hintzman Area Supervisor | Division of Parks and Trails Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St Paul, MN 55106 651-259-5875 Email: rachel.hintzman@state.mn.us mndnr.gov AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To provide sketch plan level comments on a proposed sketch plan for a 158 unit, three story attached family dwelling structure where Eisinger Meadows was originally approved. 2. Background. In July 2016, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows, a 27 unit residential subdivision (case #16-3822). The homes were arranged in a detached townhome style along a single private street. The Final Plat has not been filed, two extensions have been approved. In 2018, sketch plan support was offered for the development of an apartment building (case no. LA18-79) on adjacent land previously used as a landfill. In the development of the corresponding preliminary plat application, the applicant’s refined cost estimates exceeded previous expectations, and is currently exploring other options for development of the area, including the subject application. The primary purpose for this sketch plan review is to understand the Planning Commission and City Council’s appetite for adjusting the land use from urban medium residential to High density residential for the 6 acres on the north side of the property, site of the former Eisinger Meadows. 3. Analysis. The Planning Commission staff report includes the analysis of the project. The plan is consistent with the RPUD zoning regulations for setback, Floor Area Ratio, and parking. The proposed height of the building cannot be verified based on the information provided; the developer understands the height limitation of 30 feet. The current density in the MUSA area is 4.161 units per acre (above the minimum 3.0 units per acre) and the proposed housing growth meets expected demand (#1 below). The proposed increase of density would increase both calculations (#2). If the land uses were flipped, (#3) the density calculation remains adequate, though the projected growth calculations would fall below requirements. The developer is not proposing option 3, it is offered for discussion purposes. 1 No Change (891 units guided citywide)214.2 3 19.8 4.161 6 N/A Change 6.6 acres from MDR to HDR (proposal) +6.6 HDR 6.6 20 132 -6.6 MDR -6.6 3 -19.8 112.2 Adjusted Total units (891 + 112)1003 4.683 118 Change entire property (swap density) + 6.6 HDR 6.6 20 132 - 6.6 MDR -6.6 3 -20 + 10 acres MDR 10 3 30 - 10 acres HDR -10 20 -200 -58 Adjusted Total Units (891-58)833 3.889 (52.00) 2 3 2021-2030 Growth Difference (deficit) 2031-2040 Growth Difference (deficit) Calculated Density3265 Wayzata Blvd (Eisinger Meadows)Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted # of units on property Predicted Density, Based on Net Density Table 3B-4, 2040 CMP Item No.: 21 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: LA19-000078 – LakeWest Development, 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Review Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On October 21st, the Planning Commission reviewed the application. Planning Commission draft minutes are attached as Exhibit C. Commissioner comments primarily focused on traffic impacts and density city wide. In general, the Commission seemed supportive of the increasing the density along Wayzata Blvd. 5. Public Comment. To date, no public comments have been received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff requests feedback on the proposed shift in density, and other issues identified in the Planning Commission staff report: a. Building design (Staff suggests additional architecture design) b. Covered parking (The Council has required 1 required space per covered per unit) c. Private recreation (Staff recommends the private recreation component be features, rather than an afterthought) d. Landscape screening (staff seeks Council expectation of landscaping. The building cannot be screened given the 30 foot height.) COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval or denial. Exhibits A. Proposed Plan/ Elevations B. Planning Commission Staff report C. PC Minutes (Draft) References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 10-21-19 Eisinger Meadows Concept Sketch Plan Orono, MN8-23-2019 N 0‘50‘100‘150‘ * THIS GRAPHIC IS ARTIST’S RENDITION FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE * THESE GRAPHICS ARE ARTIST’S RENDITION FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OU T L O T A (5 0 ’ P u b l i c R / W ) PROPOSED BUILDING (158 Units) (145 Underground Stalls) 192 Surface Stalls Pond / Inlt. Basin Project Boundary Project Boundary Rec. Area (7,300 sf) Trail / Rec. Area (46,086 sf) Proposed Landscaping / Screening Wetland Buer (Proposed) Wetland Limits OUTLOT C OUTLOT C 32’ 35’ BLD SBK 35’ BLD SBK 50’ BLD SBK20’ PRK SBK 20’ PRK SBK 20’ PRK SBK Concept Sketch Plan PHASE I CONCEPT DATA Existing Zoning (previous approval): RPUD Gross Site Area: 30.5 ac Wayzata Blvd ROW: 1.6 ac Outlot A (MF Access): 0.4 ac Outlot C: 21.9 ac Net Developable Area: 6.6 ac Existing Wetlands (to remain): 1.0 ac Recreational Area Req. (10%): 0.6 ac Recreational Area (Provided): 1.0 ac Proposed Multi-Family: 158 units RPUD Standards FAR (HDR In excess of 6.0 units/ac): 1.00 FAR Maximum FAR Provided: 0.72 FAR Building Setbacks: 50’ (Wayzata Blvd) 35’ (local streets) Building Height: 30‘ max Parking Setback: 20’ (all exterior lot lines) Parking Requirements: 302 stalls (2:1 Ratio) Parking Provided: 145 underground 192 surface Total Parking Provided: 337 stalls Phase 1 Net Density: 23.94 un/ac 158 units / 6.6 ac Overall Gross Density: 5.18 un/ac 158 units / 30.5 ac PHASE II CONCEPT DATA Remaining Site Area (Outlot C): 21.9 ac Existing Wetlands (to remain): 12.3 ac Net Developable Area: 9.6 ac Recreational Area Req. (10%): 0.96 ac Proposed Multi-Family: 191 units RPUD Standards FAR Max. (HDR In excess of 6.0 units/ac): 1.00 FAR FAR Provided: 0.72 FAR Building Setbacks: 50’ (Wayzata Blvd) 35’ (local streets) Building Height: 30‘ max Parking Setback: 20’ (all exterior lot lines) Parking Requirements: 382 stalls (2:1 Ratio) Parking Provided: 182 underground 200 surface Total Parking Provided: 382 stalls Phase 2 Net Density: 19.90 un/ac 191 units / 9.6 ac Aerial photography from State of Minnesota Concept Amenity Ideas Outdoor Pool / Mid-Level Roof Amenity Seasonal Farmer’s Market (Parking Lot Conguration) Tot Lot Concept Indoor Pool Amenity Informational Signage / Wetland Observation Deck Garden Bridge / Trail Area Concept 12 118 5 2 3 10 1 4 54874461581172356 5126 6 4 10 7 122325610811456125441061187564106121 21274810115 6 1211102 1 8 23 12 1 6 5 104 7 EISINGER FLATS ORONO, MN MARCH.20.2019 3/20/2019 12:15:31 PM 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - WEST ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - EAST ELEVATION MATERIAL INDEX 1 ROCK FACE BLOCK (COLOR: TBD) 2 MODULAR FACE BRICK (COLOR: TBD) 3 CAST STONE SILL (COLOR: TBD) 4 FIBER CEMENT PANEL (PREFINISHED COLOR: TERRACOTTA - SMOOTH) 5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6" (PREFINISHED COLOR: LIGHT GREY- SMOOTH) 6 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6", 3" (PREFINISHED COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY- SMOOTH) 7 FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM (PREFINISHED COLOR: WHITE) 8 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY W/ MTL GUARDRAIL (PICKET,BLACK) TYP. 9 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM (COLOR: BLACK) 10 VINYL WINDOWS (COLOR: BLACK) 11 ALUMINUM FRAMED BALCONY SCREEN WITH INFILL PANEL 12 ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES (COLOR: CHARCOAL) 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - NORTH ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - SOUTH ELEVATION 2 2 1254 10 8 7105612107111562 9 2 54310749 4 9 5 2 5124210 73 12 5710 4 2 6 3 8 11102 1 5 2 6 12 4 3 7 10 95212710 1 EISINGER FLATS ORONO, MN MARCH.20.2019 3/20/2019 12:15:33 PM 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - EAST ELEVATION 2 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - NORTH ELEVATION 2 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - SOUTHWEST ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - WEST ELEVATION 2 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING W - SOUTH ELEVATION MATERIAL INDEX 1 ROCK FACE BLOCK (COLOR: TBD) 2 MODULAR FACE BRICK (COLOR: TBD) 3 CAST STONE SILL (COLOR: TBD) 4 FIBER CEMENT PANEL (PREFINISHED COLOR: TERRACOTTA - SMOOTH) 5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6" (PREFINISHED COLOR: LIGHT GREY- SMOOTH) 6 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6", 3" (PREFINISHED COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY- SMOOTH) 7 FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM (PREFINISHED COLOR: WHITE) 8 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY W/ MTL GUARDRAIL (PICKET,BLACK) TYP. 9 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM (COLOR: BLACK) 10 VINYL WINDOWS (COLOR: BLACK) 11 ALUMINUM FRAMED BALCONY SCREEN WITH INFILL PANEL 12 ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES (COLOR: CHARCOAL) 11256624103256711811064121256461210728115376 12 10 758564111081623 2 5341271026 4 12 5245101161127481041658115211076514821037 EISINGER FLATS ORONO, MN MARCH.20.2019 3/20/2019 12:15:36 PM 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING E - EAST ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING E - NORTH ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING E - SOUTH ELEVATION 3/64" = 1'-0" BUILDING E - WEST ELEVATION MATERIAL INDEX 1 ROCK FACE BLOCK (COLOR: TBD) 2 MODULAR FACE BRICK (COLOR: TBD) 3 CAST STONE SILL (COLOR: TBD) 4 FIBER CEMENT PANEL (PREFINISHED COLOR: TERRACOTTA - SMOOTH) 5 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6" (PREFINISHED COLOR: LIGHT GREY- SMOOTH) 6 FIBER CEMENT LAP SIDING 6", 3" (PREFINISHED COLOR: CHARCOAL GREY- SMOOTH) 7 FIBER CEMENT WINDOW TRIM (PREFINISHED COLOR: WHITE) 8 PREFINISHED ALUMINUM BALCONY W/ MTL GUARDRAIL (PICKET,BLACK) TYP. 9 ALUMINUM STOREFRONT SYSTEM (COLOR: BLACK) 10 VINYL WINDOWS (COLOR: BLACK) 11 ALUMINUM FRAMED BALCONY SCREEN WITH INFILL PANEL 12 ASPHALT ROOF SHINGLES (COLOR: CHARCOAL) EISINGER FLATS ORONO, MN MARCH.20.2019 3/20/2019 12:15:36 PM NE VIEW - COLOR OPTION 1 EISINGER FLATS ORONO, MN MARCH.20.2019 3/20/2019 12:15:37 PM SW VIEW - COLOR OPTION 1 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: October 21, 2019 Subject: #LA19-000078, LakeWest Development, 3245 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan review Background In July 2016, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows, a 27 unit residential subdivision (case no. 16-3822). The homes were arranged in a detached townhome style along a single private street. The Final Plan has not been filed, two extensions have been approved. The preliminary plat is still valid after being extended. In 2018, sketch plan support was offered for the development of an apartment building (case no. LA18-79) on the vacant land south of Eisinger Meadows, land previously used as a landfill. In the development of the corresponding preliminary plat application, the applicant’s refined cost estimates exceeded previous expectations, and is currently exploring other options for development of the area. The primary purpose for this sketch plan review is to understand the Planning Commission and City Council’s appetite for adjusting the land use from urban medium residential to High density residential. Sketch Plan Review Parameters The goal of this review is to provide the applicant with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The “Summary of Issues for Consideration” reveals a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding the proposal. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to which the applicant should pay special attention. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding but will be extremely helpful as the project moves forward. Application Summary: The applicant is seeking sketch plan level input on a proposed multi story, 158 unit attached family dwelling structure to be located at 3245 Wayzata Blvd. This project would replace previously approved Eisinger Meadows. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the Planning Commission’s discussion with the applicants outlining potential issues for discussion to be addressed prior to submission of a formal Preliminary Plat application. Planning Department Staff requests feedback on the following issues: Density, including the balance of the property Building Design Private Recreation area improvement Screening/ landscaping Covered Parking FILE #LA19-000078 October 21, 2019 Page 2 of 4 The proposal The project includes a 3 story multi-family residential building with 158 units. The plan indicates 145 underground parking stalls and 192 surface parking stalls, for a total of 337 stalls. The building’s underground parking area will be accessed via two entrances, one on the west side and one on the south side of the building. Access to the site will be via development of a new road within proposed right of way. This road is proposed to be public, and includes a cul de sac. This road will intersect with Wayzata Blvd W in the same location as was originally contemplated. The applicant has proposed elevation drawings of a building which show a three story building with balconies/ decks. The building is long and narrow with two shorter ends. The elevations provided (Exhibit C) appear to have been developed for the preliminary plat proposal, staff understands the elevations are offered to get a sense of materials and character. Final plans for the building will need to be developed for the preliminary plat. LOT ANALYSIS The subject property is currently RR-1B, and guided for urban medium density residential (3-10 units per acre. The site plan notes a zoning of RPUD. This official change will occur at the final platting of a project approved by the City Council. The plans are based on an eventual zoning of RPUD, as the other development plans have. The proposal would require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, due to the land use density guidance. The regulations related to RPUD development is found in Division 11 of the Orono Zoning Code, and include certain minimum standards in section 78-626. The full division is attached as Exhibit F: Multifamily developments RPUD District Minimum Standard Proposed Flexibility Required? Lot Standards Minimum site area 5 acres 6.6 acres No Sewer Availability Yes Yes No Floor Area Ratio 1.0 0.72 1 No Minimum front building setback (to internal streets): 35 feet 35 feet No Minimum rear or side setback to County Rd 112 50 feet 50 feet 2 No Minimum side yard setback: 35 Feet Approximately 60’ + No Wetland building setback: 25 feet 35' + No Building height: Maximum of 30 feet Undetermined 3 To be verified Private Recreational Area 10% (28,749.6 sq ft) 53,386 sq ft of open area and trails 4 To be verified Signage Master Plan Not Developed Landscaping Master Plan Not Developed FILE #LA19-000078 October 21, 2019 Page 3 of 4 1. The floor area ratio cannot be verified without floor plans. 2. The setback provided to don’t recognize decks or balconies on the north side of the building. 3. The building height cannot be determined within grading plans. The applicant has not requested variance from the 30’ defined height. 4. The notation suggests 1 acre of recreation area provided, though the plans suggests 53,000. Analysis Land Use Analysis. The project will require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, increasing the prescribed density for the subject 6.6 acres from 3-10 units per acre to 20-25 units per acre. The project as proposed is 23.9 units per acre. The Planning Commission and Council should provide feedback on this request, and what, if any, changes are desired for the balance of the property. The impact to the City’s net density calculation can be summarized here: Note that the Metropolitan Council requires sewered areas city wide to be an average of 3.0 units per acre and opportunity for housing to meet the predicted growth. This amendment, adding density increases those projections. Site Plan Analysis. Staff has noted the following areas where the project does not meet approvable standards or could be improved: It should be noted that the site plan includes the project known as Eisinger Flats drawn in white lines. The City expressly offers no comment on this proportion of the project until the developer formally requests such input. This includes the plans for parking adjacent to the Public right of way. Design. The building design, though not 100% refined, presents a rather plain facade. For a project of this scale and at this location, staff envisions some additional building architecture/ design, including façade breaks to reduce the effect of the long, tall elevation planes. The Planning Commission and Council should provide some feedback on the design of the building. Building Height. The building height will need to be verified, as this has historically been an important issue to the City. Staff does note that the developer is not proposing flexibility with this standard. Private Recreation Area. The recreational area, for a project of this scale, should include more than No Change 3 19.8 4.161 6 N/A With Amendment Adding 6.6 acres of HDR 20 132 Adjusted Addition (132 units - 19.8 units)112.2 4.68 118 N/A 2021-2030 Growth Difference (deficit) 2031-2040 Growth Difference (deficit) Predicted Density, Based on Net Density Table 3B-4, 2040 CMP Calculated Density 3265 Wayzata Blvd (Eisinger Meadows) Net Residential Acres (NRA) Lowest Guided Density Predicted # of units (C x D) FILE #LA19-000078 October 21, 2019 Page 4 of 4 trails. The site plan suggests other amenities are being contemplated, the Planning Commission and Council should provide some direction. Landscaping. The site plan shows minimal landscaping, primarily along the northern edge of the property. The RPUD standards express pretty clear landscaping requirements; landscaping plans should be developed based on these standards. The Planning Commission and City Council should provide comment on their screening goals for the project. Stormwater Management. The site plan shows stormwater improvements on Outlot C. This project will trigger watershed review of the stormwater management plan, which may alter the configuration of lot lines, easements, and the constructed stormwater system. Roads. The County has reviewed the proposed intersection, and offered comments, attached as Exhibit E. These comments are largely consistent with those offered for the original development. The cul de sac does not appear to meet the city standard for paved width, these details will be fleshed out in the formal design phase. Parking. The parking exceeds the requirement of two stalls per unit. However, historically, the Council has approved projects with 1 covered parking stall per unit, this proposal does not meet this standard. Signage. No development signage is proposed. Recent developments of this scale have desired some monument signage. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission support the increase of density for the subject area? 2. Does the Planning Commission have direction regarding the building design, private recreation improvement, covered parking requirment, and screening? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests feedback on the issues identified above. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibit C. Elevations Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Comments from Hennepin County Exhibit F. RPUD Regulations MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 5 6. LA19-000078 LAKEWEST DEVELOPMENT, 3245 WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST, SKETCH PLAN, 8:20 P.M. – 9:08 P.M. Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, was present. Barnhart stated the applicant is requesting feedback on a proposed development that was formally known as the Eisinger property. In 2016, the City Council approved the preliminary plat for Eisinger Meadows, which was a 27-unit residential subdivision. The homes were arranged in a detached townhome style along a single private street. In 2018, sketch plan support was offered for the development of an apartment building on the vacant land south of Eisinger Meadows. That area was previously used as a landfill. In the development of that preliminary plat, the developer found that the cost estimates to clean up that landfill exceeded their previous expectations and they are currently exploring other options for development of the area. One of those options is to develop the apartment building first. Barnhart noted Staff did not spend a lot of time reviewing the proposed layout and design of the apartment building at this stage. The primary purpose for this sketch plan review is to understand the Planning Commission’s and City Council’s support for adjusting the land use from urban medium residential to high-density residential. The property is currently zoned RR-1A, which is low density residential, and it is guided for urban medium density residential, which is 3-10 units per acre. The proposed development is 23.9 units per acre, which is high density. Staff has noted the following areas where the project does not meet approvable standards or could be improved: 1. The building design, although not 100 percent refined, presents a rather plain façade. For a project of this scale and at this location, Staff envisions some additional building architecture/design, including face breaks to reduce the effect of the long, tall elevation planes. 2. The building height will need to be verified, as this has historically been an important issue to the City. Staff does note that the developer is not proposing flexibility with this standard. 3. The recreational area, for a project of this scale, should include more than trails. 4. The site plan does show minimal landscaping, primarily along the northern edge of the property. The RPUD standards express pretty clear landscaping requirements and landscaping plans should be developed based on these standards. 5. The site plan shows stormwater improvements on Outlot C. This project will trigger watershed review of the stormwater management plan, which may alter the configuration of lot lines, easements, and the constructed stormwater systems. 6. Hennepin County has reviewed the proposed intersections and offered comments. These comments are largely consistent with those offered for the original development. The cul-de-sac does not appear to meet the city standard for paved width. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 5 7. The parking exceeds the requirement of two stalls per unit. However, historically the Council has approved projects with one covered parking stall per unit. This proposal does not meet that standard. 8. No development signage is proposed. At this time the applicant is not requesting any flexibility from the RPUD standards. Gettman noted the last time this property was discussed, he brought up the issue of the right-of-way. Staff has included in their comments that Hennepin County Transportation is in favor of this project, but that the letter from Mr. Godfrey expressed concerns with the right-of-way. Gettman stated he has the same concerns given the traffic from the school and the fact that those concerns are not being addressed. Barnhart noted the County has not changed their original comments at this point, but that concern could be added to the record. At this stage Staff does not have any traffic counts for that road. Bollis asked if this parcel is guided two different ways and why that is the case. Barnhart indicated one portion of the property is guided medium residential density, which is 3 to 10 units per acre, and the rest of the buildable area is guided for high-density, which was done in anticipation of the preliminary plat that was approved as Eisinger Meadows. Thiesse noted the letter from Hennepin County indicates that Phase 3 of Wayzata Boulevard reconstruction will happen in the future and that there is a trail on the north side of the road that only goes to the ballfield but does not go further west beyond that. Thiesse stated in his view the City might be a little shortsighted by not requiring or looking at the possibility of a trail up to the Lurton Dog Park. Thiesse questioned whether the parking could be flipped with the building to allow for additional setback from the road. Gettman asked what the City’s actual density target is with the Metropolitan Council. Barnhart indicated part of how the Metropolitan Council classifies Orono is as an emerging community, which requires 3.0 units per acre in sewered areas. Some sewered areas of the community are at much lower density and there are also some areas that are slated for sewer at some point in the future. When those come forward, the City’s density will drop. An attempt has been made to pad the City’s overall density number so those areas can be sewered. The Metropolitan Council has identified a certain amount of growth between now and 2040, and the City has identified locations for different types of density to accommodate that growth. The City does have some flexibility to move density around but that they need the overall density to be a minimum of 3.0 units. Gettman asked what the City’s density would be if the density for this project was not added. Barnhart stated if nothing is done, the proposed density would be 4.6 units, but that he has not calculated what it would be if this development was not done. Ressler commented there are a lot of hypotheticals that could impact that density number and a lot of it is being dictated by the Metropolitan Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 5 Thiesse asked if the cul-de-sac meets the City’s requirements. Barnhart stated at this stage it does not appear to, but at the sketch plan level those types of details are not typically provided. Libby asked if this development will also have city water. Barnhart indicated it will. Ressler asked what percentage of recreation is proposed. Barnhart stated the applicants are likely proposing more than 10 percent with the trails, but that Staff feels other amenities outside of trails would be appropriate. Staff is not sure if the farmers market type area would be appropriate for this type of development. Curt Fretham, Lakewest Development, stated he is here to answer questions and that he does not have a prepared presentation. At this point they have not defined the building design and a lot of the amenities because they are basically looking to see if the City supports this level of density. Thiesse asked if there would be a happy medium between 107 to 195 units and whether there is a possibility of having two more three-story buildings on the property. Fretham stated what they are learning from the environmental component of the project is that they require higher density due to the cleanup costs. Thiesse stated in his view Orono does not need the higher density, but if there is a place in Orono for higher density, this is the spot. Thiesse indicated he also has concerns about placing a 3-story building next to the road. Libby stated based on his experience, some of the suggested amenities are popular, such as the farmers market and observation deck. Ressler commented Commissioner Thiesse makes a good point and that the viability of this project has to do with the need to appease other entities for density, which can influence the City’s decision making. Cleanup of the property is an expensive endeavor and the Planning Commission is cognizant of that fact. Thiesse asked whether any aid is available for cleaning up the site. Fretham indicated they have made applications for cleanup aid and that there are certain things the agencies look for. It is difficult to meet that criteria with the proposed 27-unit residential and that the intention is to reapply with the higher density that has a lesser amount of cleanup. Fretham stated he is not sure whether they will receive the assistance or not but that in their view they have a better chance by approaching it this way. Erickson stated as it relates to density, even if there was no influence from other agencies, this is the one site in Orono that should have higher density given its proximity to County Road 6, Highway 12, and Highway 112. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 5 Erickson commented he likes the latest design of the building given the slight pitch of the roof. There is another site to the north that should not be put into the same category as this property since that property has lakeshore. Ressler stated he wonders whether the City’s position on the road would change if the higher density was already in place. Gettman noted Highway 12 was originally guided to have two lanes in both directions but that was reduced to one lane in each direction. Thiesse stated the City can ask Hennepin County but that he is pretty sure the design was based on the projected traffic numbers that included this development. Gettman stated his understanding is the Highway 12 bypass was scaled back due to feedback from the business owners and that both the bypass and Highway 112 are one lane in each direction, which may not be able to handle the higher density. Barnhart stated phase three for Highway 112 is under development and nothing definite has been developed at this stage. The project is slated to begin in 2022. Certain assumptions are made whenever Hennepin County reviews plans. One of the plans reviewed is the City’s Comprehensive Plan, and part of the issue is the applicant is proposing a change to the Comprehensive Plan. Part of that review process will be completed by Hennepin County, but that he does not believe Hennepin County is worried about a capacity standpoint. The City’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan was approved with anticipated high density residential in the one area. The other area is guided for 3-10 acres, which is medium density. Barnhart stated as part of any development, the City and the developer want to know whether there are significant impacts to the road system. The reviews in 2016 and 2018 with Eisinger Meadows looked at the same thing and no concerns or suggested changes were raised by Hennepin County. Gettman commented his understanding is that it would significantly impact Highway 112 and Highway 12. Thiesse asked whether there is any opportunity to increase the underground parking. Fretham indicated they are proposing 145 stalls underground and that he is not sure if they can fit in anymore. Additional surface stalls have been included and there might be an opportunity to increase that. Ressler suggested the applicant try and provide some aesthetic undulations on the building and potentially switching the parking lot and structure around to provide additional setback to 112. Thiesse noted the applicant has indicated that will not work because the grade drops down. Fretham commented it would also not be very environmentally friendly to switch it around. Ressler concurred that there are not a lot of places in Orono that are better suited for high density. Libby noted the Department of Transportation has plans available on their website that can be reviewed and that they plan the roads for years into the future. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday, October 21, 2019 6:30 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 5 Bollis commented it would be nice to see a uniquely designed building and one that is adequately screened. Ressler stated it will also be more difficult to get approval for three stories versus two stories. Thiesse noted they are allowed up to 30 feet. Barnhart stated building height is determined based off the grading plan and that not much detail has been provided at this stage. Libby commented the demand for rental housing is at an all-time high. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the 2020 Official Calendar. 2.Background. The City Council approves the Official Meetings Calendar for the following year. Staff would like to open discussion for changing or modifying the Official Meetings Calendar for 2020. The options are laid out below and open for discussion: (Option A) This Calendar style is based on what the City has typically used in the past. Council Meetings Council meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Generally there is only one Council meeting scheduled in December. The annual budget hearing will be held at the beginning of the December 7th Council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m. (Note: This is an early start time) Council Work Sessions Council work sessions are designated prior to the second meeting of the month beginning at 5:00 p.m. No work sessions are scheduled for December. Planning Commission Meetings Planning Commission meetings are scheduled for the third Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m. January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be held the following Tuesday. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled in December. Planning Commission Work Sessions Planning Commission work sessions will be scheduled on an as needed basis and are not reflected on the 2020 calendar. Park Commission Meetings Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 6:30 p.m. Meeting months are January, March, May, July, September, and November. (Note: The September meeting will be held on Tuesday because of a Monday Holiday.) Park Commission Work Sessions Park Commission work sessions scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 1 p.m. The months are February, April, June, August, and October. Holiday Schedule According to the City’s personnel policy, the City schedules twelve holidays throughout the year, which include regular holidays and one designated floating holiday to be set by the City Administrator. The regular holidays observed are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. Item No.: 22 Date: November 12, 2019 Item Description: Approval of Official 2020 Calendar Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda Section: City Administrator Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR (Option B) This Calendar Style would essentially modify some meeting times and add an additional Council Work Session each month. Meeting which would see no change have been noted as such. Council Meetings Council meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of the month and would meet at 6:00 p.m. There would only be one meeting in December, which would have a late start time of 6:30 p.m. The annual budget hearing will be held at the beginning of the December 7th Council meeting beginning at 6:00 p.m. Council Work Sessions Council work sessions are designated prior to the each meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m. No work sessions will be scheduled for December. Planning Commission Meetings Planning Commission meetings would be scheduled for the third Monday of the month at 6:00 p.m. January and February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be held the following Tuesday. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled in December. Planning Commission Work Sessions (No Change) Planning Commission work sessions will be scheduled on an as needed basis and are not reflected on the 2020 calendar. Park Commission Meetings Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 6:00 p.m. Meeting months are January, March, May, July, September, and November. (Note: The September meeting will be held on Tuesday because of a Monday Holiday.) Park Commission Work Sessions (No Change) Park Commission work sessions scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 1 p.m. The months are February, April, June, August, and October. Holiday Schedule (No Change) According to the City’s personnel policy, the City schedules twelve holidays throughout the year, which include regular holidays and one designated floating holiday to be set by the City Administrator. The regular holidays observed are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends Council discuss the options to change proposed meeting times and approve the most favorable option of their choice. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Consider a motion to approve: Option A – The Calendar style based on what the City has typically used in the past. Option B – The Calendar Style which modifies some meeting times and add an additional Council Work Session each month. Option C – Other as discussed Exhibit A. 2020 Official Calendar Draft (Option A) B. 2020 Official Calendar Draft (Option B) Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 *7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 * H E January February March April May June July August September October November December Official Holidays Election Dates Park Commission Work Session at 1 p.m. Council Meeting at 7:00 p.m.Council Work Session at 5 p.m. 2020 Official Calendar approved on 11-12-19 by Motion of the City Council. Council Meeting w/ Truth in Taxation at 6:30 p.m. Park Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting at 6:30 p.m. Planning Commission Work Sessions Scheduled and Posted as Needed 5:30p.m. CITY OF ORONO - 2020 OFFICIAL MEETINGS CALENDAR Draft Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 29 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 27 28 29 30 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 1 1 2 3 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 26 27 28 29 30 31 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 6 *7 8 9 10 11 12 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 29 30 27 28 29 30 31 * H E January February March April May June July August September October November December Official Holidays Election Dates Park Commission Work Session at 1 p.m. Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m.Council Work Session at 5 p.m. 2020 Official Calendar approved on 11-12-19 by Motion of the City Council. Council Meeting w/ Truth in Taxation at 6:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Work Sessions Scheduled and Posted as Needed 5:30 p.m. CITY OF ORONO - 2020 OFFICIAL MEETINGS CALENDAR Draft