Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-12-2021 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, April 12, 2021 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 March 29, 2021 2. City Council Meeting Minutes of March 8, 2021 – Amended 3. Claims/Bills 4. Notice of Termination of Fire Contracts with Long Lake 5. Appointment of Maintenance Worker 6. Appointment of 2021 Seasonal Employees V4 7. Approval of Public Works Superintendent Position and Recruitment 8. Amendments Related to Building Code Administration 9. Dock License for Dock Site B 10. LA21-000018 – Glenn &Nancy Solie, 3500 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution 11. LA21-000019 – Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution 12. LA21-000020 – Jacob Brown, 4085 Watertown Rd, Variances - Resolution 13. LA21-000022 – Alliance Builders o/b/o Efim Shukalovich, 15 Stubbs Bay Road, PID 3211823340006, Variances – Resolution 14. LA21-000021 – John Newell o/b/o Stephen and John Newell, 1485 6th Avenue N, Preliminary Plat – Resolution Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home address at the podium before speaking. Presentation 15. Senator Osmek Update Planning Department Report (Planning Commission Representative – Mark McCutcheon) 16. LA21-000016 – Schimmel Construction o/b/o David & Kathryn Wiemer, 1405 Rest Point Road, Variances 17. LA21-000017 – Joeseph & Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, Permit for Dock City on ROW (Bay Place) 18. LA20-000053 – Dale Richardson o/b/o CBS MN Properties, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Blvd W, Sketch Plan Mayor/Council Report Agenda Council Meeting Monday, April 12, 2021 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 City Administrator Report City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2021 04-19-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) 04-26-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 04-26-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-10-21 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-10-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 05-10-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-17-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Aaron Printup) 05-24-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 05-24-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-31-21 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 29, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 4 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. Council Members Richard Crosby, III, and Victoria Seals were absent. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson, and Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Printup asked to add items 16 and 17 to the Consent Agenda. 1. MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2021 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF MARCH 8, 2021 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPOINTMENT OF CITY ADMINISTRATOR 5. CITY CLERK POSITION EVALUATION 6. APPROVAL OF LAWFUL GAMBLING PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 7180 7. APPROVAL OF MASSAGE LICENSE RENEWAL – MK NAILS 8. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSE 9. LIFT STATION 15 BACK UP GENERATOR 10. 2021 SEWER TELEVISING 11. APPOINTMENT OF SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 12. RANDY O’BRIEN RETIREMENT – RESOLUTION NO. 7181 13. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING ASSISTANT 14. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, CONFIRM PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR, VICE CHAIR RESOLUTION NO. 7182 15. AMENDMENTS RELATED TO BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION ORDINANCE NO. 255, THIRD SERIES 16. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY ARCHITECTURAL/ENGINEERING RFP 17. HENNEPIN COUNTY YOUTH SPORTS GRANT APPLICATIONS RESOLUTION NO. 7183 Printup moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 29, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Mayor Walsh noted earlier in the week a brush fire was started and all the fire stations were called out. He said someone went into their house, did not pay attention to the fire and it spread quite a ways; apparently this was admitted. He asked under circumstances like that, does the City have the ability to charge the cost of services to go out versus the residents having to pay for it in a case like this when someone did not pay attention to their fire. Attorney Mattick replied in some communities the statute allows them to adopt an ordinance. He said in the past when communities would respond to a fire or a medical, they would charge a flat rate ($300 or $500, for example) and the statute was clear they could set up an ordinance to establish that kind of rate. Orono does not have that, in part because the fire department is through Long Lake. If they were to pursue costs associated with this, they would have to be costs related to Orono, so one avenue is that Long Lake could conceivably pursue the costs involved in what they had to spend to respond to the fire. Attorney Mattick does not necessarily think the City could respond for the personnel involved in Long Lake because it is not a direct expense to Orono. His understanding is that some other things were impacted - perhaps some road, curb, or gutters. Attorney Mattick said, granted, Long Lake’s fire department is the one that did that but it was in response to a call; if the City wanted to pursue that he thinks they could involve the resident for that but the question becomes if the resident does not pay, what does the City do? The City does not have the right to assess it to their property but depending on the amount they could bring a conciliation court action. He noted the damage to the City’s infrastructure would be a legitimate thing to pursue. Mayor Walsh said it is not just “there was some damage, should we go get it,” but it is more of a philosophical issue. In the future if something like this happened, where someone is causing issues and public works, fire, or police have to respond, and whatever damage is done because of the negligence of the homeowner – does the City want to be able to solve that by being able to chase them for the money. He said putting an ordinance in place that says the City will do this so other residents don’t come in and say someone did all this and then they just walk away and now the residents are paying for other people’s negligence. Printup asked what infrastructure was damaged and how great it was. Edwards would have to run more detailed calculations but basically the overweight tanker trucks that responded to the fire on Fox Street caused a pretty decent section of the roadway shoulder to slough and slide. The City has done patching for it but they would still have to work up the cost for a professional patch which may be in the $10,000 range. Johnson noted at the Police Commission meeting this week, that was a topic and he was surprised to find out there was not a penalty to the property owner. He could see the fire from his house, and it looked like it was about to get to another neighbor’s house – he called the neighbor who was in Arizona so they had their caretaker drive over to see what was happening. Johnson noted the City received a thank you note from a parent whose daughter went off into the ditch on Fox which was because of the section of the road MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 29, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 4 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT – Continued that collapsed away because people were swerving around that. He noted this has a lot of other ramifications other than just that direct police/fire response. Johnson does think they should have the capacity to be able to enforce it. Printup said then if they ever need it - wonderful. Mayor Walsh said it sounds like they could have a cause of action for this, but it may be good on top of it to put something in the ordinance they can point people to, versus the City Council just making a one-off decision here and there. Johnson asked if they know for a fact that it was an unattended fire. Attorney Mattick has not done any investigation into it. He has heard that the residents basically said they lit the fire, did not pay attention, went in to the house for a bit, and it got away from them. Johnson thinks there should be some sort of fine associated with that type of behavior. It does not make them a bad person but it was a poor choice that affected a lot of people. Attorney Mattick said every once in a while the DNR will have a story about a fire that got away and then it tears through a wetland or a forested area and DNR has to mobilize the choppers and buckets. His understanding is that they are pretty vigorous about going after the expenses associated with that; they do exercise some judgment on whether it was carelessness or if it was a different situation. In this case, it was the Long Lake Fire Department that did the damage, but it was in response to the fire. He noted they would have to walk people through that, show causation, and prove it up if they were to pursue it. Mayor Walsh thinks it would be worth a letter from the City Attorney and the City Administrator outlining the dollar amounts and that they would like to have a discussion about it and hopefully avoid any court issues. He asked Attorney Mattick if there is some model language they can put in the code to point people to. INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR/FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Olson noted this would be his last time giving a report and he would gladly relinquish the City Administrator title to Mr. Edwards (who was appointed as City Administrator in the Consent Agenda). He noted at the last meeting it was said that the Planning Director should give a report at each meeting, so Jeremy Barnhart is present to share. Barnhart thanked the Council for hiring Katie Fitzsimmons as the Planning Assistant as they are now back to full staff and can get going on some other projects. They will be sending out septic pumping reminder letters in the next couple of weeks so people send in their pumping reports to keep records updated. He noted last year was the first year for the City docks on Crystal Bay Road where four private properties used City land to put a dock up. Two of those have paid for this year so far and Barnhart has asked them to pay before they put the docks in. Barnhart said MNSPECT has indicated a desire to review the fee schedule so they will incorporate that as part of their normal review in the fall. Walsh asked how it is going so far with MNSPECT. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 29, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 4 INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR/FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT – Continued Barnhart replied it is going pretty well and he is impressed with the amount of resources they have, such as a master plumber, septic people, erosion control, and etcetera. CITY ENGINEER REPORT Edwards said they have been focused on the transition to spring as far as public works – getting culverts unplugged and finding storm water issues, tree trimming throughout the City and the spring asphalt patching. On the engineering side, he has been focused on putting the RFP together, working some grants, and getting the new Parks Superintendent on board and up to speed. He is projecting Friday for the golf course to open up as things are drying out. He noted when they have a good April, they have a good year. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Printup said a special thank you to Anna Carlson as City Clerk; he also thanked Ron Olson for stepping up and filling in as interim City Administrator. Johnson thanked everyone and said he is excited about getting the City’s personnel in place. He noted the Police Commission meeting occurred and thanked the police who are out there every single day. Mayor Walsh thanked Anna Carlson, Ron Olson, and Adam Edwards for their good work. He is glad the kids are back to school five days a week. ADJOURNMENT Johnson moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 6:28 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 24 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards and City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson, City Engineer Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart. Also present: Planning Commissioner Dennis Libby. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA Crosby would like to pull item 10 so they can introduce the new golf course superintendent to the community. He would also like to add items 24 and 28 to the Consent Agenda. Walsh noted they will keep on the Consent Agenda 1-9 and 11-20. 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2021 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 2021 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF HENNEPIN COUNTY 2021 SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT – LONG LAKE ROWING CREW 5. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 6. APPROVAL OF LAWFUL GAMBLING LG214 PREMISES PERMIT FOR THE ROTARY CLUB OF LAKE MINNETONKA – EXCELSIOR – RESOLUTION NO. 7167 7. TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES WITH MINNETONKA BEACH – RESOLUTION NO. 7168 8. APPROVAL OF LOCAL 12 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 9. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE BODY, SQUAD AND WEAPON MOUNTED CAMERAS AND SUPPORTING EQUIPMENT AND SOFTWARE 10. APPOINTMENT OF PARKS AND GOLF COURSE SUPERINTENDENT This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 11. TONKAWA PHASE II FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT AWARD 12. SEASONAL EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENTS 13. LA20-000074 – EDWARD & MARY CALDWELL, 746 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7169 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 24 CONSENT AGENDA – Continued 14. LA20-000075 – BRIAN & ANNE HUISMAN, 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VACATION OF RIGHT OF WA – RESOLUTION NO. 7170 15. LA21-000004 – STONEWOOD LLC O/B/O DAVID WOHLWEND, 1150 PINE VIEW DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 7171 16. LA21-000007 – PILLAR HOMES, 3220 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7172 17. LA21-000008 – BRAD BARINSKY, 1825 LAKESIDE TRAIL, VARIANCE FOR AVERAGE LAKE SHORE SETBACK – RESOLUTION NO. 7173 18. LA21-000011 – JASON FISCHER AND KARA HONEBRINK, 3420 (3416) SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT / EXPAND LULU’S PIZZARIA – RESOLUTION NO. 7174 19. LA21-000012 – CLAIRMONT DESIGN BUILD, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7175 20. LA21-000013 – BOB JOHNSTON, 2190 WAYZATA BLVD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – RESOLUTION NO. 7176 24. LA21-000006 – CITY OF ORONO, 365 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) EXPANSION – RESOLUTION NO. 7179 28. COMMITMENT OF FUNDS BIG ISLAND, AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRAILS Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 10. APPOINTMENT OF PARKS AND GOLF SUPERINTENDENT JOEY BRETTINGEN Edwards noted they lost the last Parks Superintendent to bigger and better things and went through the process to find a replacement. They had a panel that met, reviewed applications, went through a two-part interview process, and ultimately settled on Mr. Brettingen to join the team as the new Parks and Golf Course Superintendent. Joey is currently the assistant superintendent at Hazeltine National Golf Course, holds a Bachelor’s Degree in Horticulture with an emphasis in turf grass management from the University of Minnesota, and has 8 years of experience with his last 4 in leadership at golf courses and parks. The Councilmembers welcomed Mr. Brettingen. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 24 10. APPOINTMENT OF PARKS AND GOLF SUPERINTENDENT JOEY BRETTINGEN – Continued Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the appointment of Joey Brettingen as the Park and Golf Course Superintendent. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Johnson said a special thanks to the Planning Commission when the Council can put 20 items on the Consent Agenda. Walsh agreed the Planning Commission did a good job. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT a. FOURTH QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT Maggie Ung presented the Fourth Quarter 2020 budget report. These numbers should be considered preliminary numbers and may change with the preparation for the 2020 audit. Looking at the overall revenue, the City collected 101.1% of the budgeted revenue compared to 107.8% in 2019. Tax revenue, which makes up 50% of the revenue budget, is at 99.1%. The next line item is License and Permits; the last few years this line item has exceeded budget and this year due to less development, COVID-19 pandemic, and the State-mandated shutdowns, it is only at 93.78% compared to 141.5% in 2019. The other two sources under budget are Charges for Service (98%) and Fines (54.3%). Charges for Service fell under budget as a result of decrease in police special service due to the COVID-19 social distancing and gathering guidelines, along with a decrease in Plan Check and Site Exam fee revenue. Fines is under budget due to not collecting as many court fines as anticipated; this correlates to a decrease in speeding and impaired driving due to COVID-19. The two line items that have done well in 2020 are Other Governmental and Golf Course revenue. Other Governmental revenue ended the year at 131.4%; the main variance is the CARES Act Funding offset with a reduction in the Toward Zero Deaths grant that the City is not administering in 2020. The Golf Course revenue is at 203.06% compared to 102.7% in 2019. COVID-19 played a large role in this revenue item as many indoor social gatherings were advised against and therefore there was an uptick in individuals taking to outdoor activities such as golfing. Building Permit revenue in 2020, the City only made 84.5% of the budget compared to 135% in 2019. On the Planned Check and Site Exam, it only made 84.6% of budget in 2020 compared to 172.8% in 2019. Ms. Ung gave an overview of 2020 revenue and moved on to expenditures. The biggest item over budget was the Special Projects Department, which is at 1,145% and was due to the City buying land for future projects that was not budgeted. Central Service and Public Works is also slightly over budget due to trying to keep the common area clean and maintaining social distancing due to COVID-19. The increase in expenditure in these line items is offset by the CARES Act grant. The golf course is also over budget due to course maintenance and more bank fees that offset with the revenue intake. COVID-19 has played a significant impact overall on the 2020 budget; fourth quarter is looking good with revenue exceeding budget and expenditures falling slightly under budget. This projects a positive variance of $224,000 for the General Fund. The top 5 vendors for Quarter 4 make up 36.8% of the vendors paid in Quarter 4 of 2020. The top 5 vendors for the year of 2020 make up 31% of the vendors paid for the whole year. She concluded her presentation and asked if there are any questions. Walsh wants to point out a couple of things. Overall, the City’s revenues were above what they were hoping by $170,000 and expenses were less than what they thought by $54,000 which gave a positive net of $224,000 over and above revenues which would be good for going towards next year for roads – which MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 24 a. FOURTH QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT – Continued he knows is near and dear to Edwards’ heart. Also, regarding the top vendors, there was a $240,000 balance but that included paying for the land of $340,000 so really it is at $580,000. He noted they paid for the land out of the revenues of this year, as well. That was a huge positive and leads the City very well going into budget this summer. Even though their permanent revenue was down just a bit, they have kept stepping that up over the years as they have had such a divergent variance of what was happening versus what was getting done. To have it that close in a COVID year is a testament to the strength of the housing market and building, as long as the interest rates stay reasonable. Walsh said they budgeted well and should have some extra room this year to hopefully increase the roads a bit, bring their parks where they want them, continue funding their building fund, and all the other things technology-wise they are doing in the City. Johnson asked about the piece in the budget that Walsh does not like to count. Seals said the chip sealing. Walsh said it is the chip/crack sealing. Johnson noted they have $224,000 to put towards it now. Walsh said if they notice in looking through the budget, Edwards has a discretionary fund of $100,000- $200,000. It is a roads non-dedicated fund for fixing things. Crosby thinks the roads are a little more stressed this year so they will need it. Olson said if the Council remembers back in July when they received their first half tax settlement, he was pretty worried as he did not know what would happen with sales and property taxes. To finish the year during COVID at 99.1% which is really pretty much where the City ends up, is a very good indication on how property taxes will go forward this year, which eases his mind. Walsh said that even gives flex on what was collected this year. PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 22. 2021 ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT AWARD Edwards said tonight they have the 2021 Roads Project Award before the Council. He pointed out this particular project, unlike past years, is actually a conglomerate of several projects the City wanted to undertake. They are asking not only to award the streets project as it was originally envisioned, but also combined three other projects with the bid package that was sent out: the Casco storm water project, the Fagerness Point storm water project, and the Navarre parking lot project. The nature of all of those projects was such that the same contractor would be bidding on those. By putting them all together, the idea was to get a better price for bulk. Edwards said they solicited bids and had 7 bidders, the low bid was from the Omann Brothers for $1,389,000 and would bring a project total with both the work by Omann Brothers and the work by Bolton and Menk on the engineering design and oversight to $1,600,000. That fits within the projected numbers when combining all those projects together and there is a bit of movement in what the projections were for individual funds. They are a little lower than what MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 24 22. 2021 ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT AWARD – Continued they thought they would be putting towards the pavement fund and are a bit higher in what they thought they would put towards the storm water fund and the community investment fund. Overall, it comes just under what they were projecting for that group of projects. He said there is a lot of focus on roads in the Navarre area and Casco Point Circle. The biggest challenge on the road project side will be the Park Lane project which is basically a full reconstruct to include utilities and will be very challenging based on the physical constraints of that neighborhood and that road. Seals asked if that is the really narrow one. Edwards said it is very tight with about 16 feet of asphalt. Walsh said it is in need of help. Edwards noted the other major undertaking is down on the Casco Circle where they are combining some road reconstructions, overlaying, and pretty significant storm water improvements to that area. The rest of things are pretty normal road works and pavement replacements. Seals asked when the projects would start and if they are phased or all at once. Edwards said that will be up to the contractor so once awarded, the next step is for the contractor to come back to the City with their plan to execute and phase these. They will communicate that to the impacted residents. In the contract there are limitations for how long a particular roadway may be disturbed and not repaved. It does pretty much give the contractor the entire construction season to get everything done. Walsh said the good news is they budgeted $1,123,000 back in June for this and they are at $824,000 so they are essentially $300,000 less which will help carry into the next year. They still have the road budget at $750,000, the cell tower of $120,000, and any additional reserves over 50% and all that. This is just another big chunk of change that is under budget that will help them get more roads done. It is all good news. Printup asked when these road projects are going on and whenever they get done, are residents able to contact City Hall and see if they can get driveways done because the bulk of it is there. Edwards answered what they normally do is provide residents the contact information for the contractor directly so the City is not in the middle of a private/public transaction. Often contractors will do that. Something else they have done in the past are private roads looking to be redone, then those home owners’ associations may try to get a better deal from a contractor who is already in the area. Edwards invited Dave Martini to the meeting today because this is the biggest project Orono does with Bolton and Menk. His team puts all the technical work together to create the design for the City. They will usually have a full-time young engineer as the construction manager to do all the interaction with the residents and contractor. Crosby asked if all of this is full replacement. Edwards said it is a mixture. For example, Park Lane will be a complete reconstruction as they need to get in to some utilities underneath it. Some of the roads in Navarre will just be a milling and overlaying, removing the top layer of asphalt and putting new asphalt on top. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 24 22. 2021 ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT AWARD – Continued Walsh clarified the contractor knew that ahead of time for bidding because they had done all the engineering work to know what condition the roads were in. Seals said that sounds good and is what they heard when they knocked on doors many years ago: Roads, roads, and roads. Walsh said the public should know when doing these road constructions if there is a concern in someone’s yard – for example, off of Wilders there were a lot of water issues and the residents brought it up during construction. The City brought in more curb and gutter than originally planned. It cost more money, but got all the water flowing correctly so it was not going into people’s yards. If there are issues like that, speak up so the City can at least look at it and understand if there are any changes on the fly that need to be made as they want to be sure they do it right the first time. Seals moved, Printup seconded, to approve the 2021 Road Maintenance Project Award. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 23. PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY APPROVAL OF UTILITY ENGINEERING AND DESIGN Edwards said this is something they may normally see on Consent Agenda. This item is to conduct the design and engineering for connecting water and sewer lines from the existing sewer and water system down underneath Highway 12, the railroad track, and then back up into the new parcel the City procured early this year for a future potential public works facility. Normally they would go with their already established engineering firm Bolton and Menk, and in this case they solicited proposals from two firms: Bolton and Menk and WSB. The two proposals came in pretty close, WSB at $28,736 and Bolton and Menk at $29,000. He is requesting authorization to move forward. His initial staff recommendation would be to go with WSB as they have the lower number; however, the Council may want to consider keeping it with the existing engineering firm due to the low difference and ease of someone they already have on projects. Walsh noted that essentially the bids are the same. He would suggest going with Bolton and Menk as they are the City Engineering firm and they have a good working relationship. If WSB came in at $8,000 less or something dramatic, but for a couple hundred bucks, if they can match that sounds reasonable. Crosby stated if they will match it, yes. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to accept the bid from Bolton and Menk for the Public Works Facility Approval of Utility Engineering and Design. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Dave Martini from Bolton and Menk thanked the Council and said they really appreciate the partnership they have had for a lot of years. They enjoy working on fun projects like this and he thinks they have put together a good team to manage this as well as the City’s Staff. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 24 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 25. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE VARIANCE Staff presented a summary packet of information. Tonight, the Council will consider a variance application for a rear-yard setback encroachment and will provide Staff with direction for a resolution. The Applicants are looking to add a screened in porch to the rear of their home, which sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side and Wayzata Country Club to the north of the property on the rear property line. Staff, through their practical difficulty analysis, found that the practical difficulties were not met. The proposed addition would have minimal impact to the neighbors and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot currently for a single-family home and there are other locations for a conforming addition. The proposed addition acts as a convenience to the property and not a necessity to the use of the lot. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2021 with no verbal comments. The Commission reviewed Staff’s analysis and the Applicant’s narrative; after discussion with the property owners and reviewing the 12 letters of support from the neighborhood, the Commissioners found that due to the existing location of the current home being so far setback from the front lot line, a substandard lot size, and the topography of the lot there were practical difficulties to support the variance. The Commission voted 6 to 1 in favor of granting the variance. The neighborhood letters of support are included in the packet, as well as the minutes. The Council should review the application and determine if practical difficulties are met for a variance and should direct Staff on how to draft a resolution. The Applicant is present tonight if there are any questions. Oakden has additional pictures if needed. Crosby would like to see those pictures. Oakden pulled them up on screen. Johnson said this is about having a practical difficulty and being able to meet the standard, and that is what he is not sure about. Walsh said it is one of those deals where there is a house that someone bought and whoever built this house built a big circle driveway and decided to put the house on the back part. He is struggling with that as well. Seals said Staff put it out there that it can be built in another location and she understands perhaps that is not where the Applicant wants it but it can be built elsewhere. Crosby asked where the other spot it can be built is. Johnson stated on the east side. Walsh said either on the east side or right in the middle. Johnson said it gets in to the conversation that it is not their job to design. Other people have come with this and the Council has not allowed it because there was not a practical difficulty, although he can see why they would want it. Crosby noted if there are other options it reduces the argument for practical difficulty. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 24 25. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE VARIANCE – Continued Walsh asked if the Applicant would like to speak. Paul Cameron from Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes approached the podium and gave a technical perspective. He is developing Crystal Bay Estates; he has 2 acre lots and 30-foot setbacks in the backyard. This is a 1/2-acre lot, and has 30 feet setbacks. It is way over-allocated from a setback; that is the ordinance and he appreciates that, but when looking at the ordinance and intent for commonality or consistency, there are 12 neighbors that say this is fine. If the purpose of the ordinance and the statement of consistency in making a harmonious neighborhood, the Council has heard from the voters what that is. Walsh stated the voters and the neighbors don’t make variances or make the rules. Whether they like it or do not like it is not what comes in to play. It has to meet the standard. Mr. Cameron asked if this is considered a non-conforming lot. By the lots and measures it is, so the home owner is being “penalized” or adversely affected. Walsh thinks every neighbor is on non-conforming lots, as well. Paul said that is correct. He looks at it from a perspective of, if it is non-conforming and the neighborhood is agreeing to it…there are other options but there are mitigating circumstances the home owner can personally speak to. Michael and Katelyn Nelson, 102 Chevy Chase Drive, clarified they currently live at 102 which is 8 houses down from 133 Chevy Chase Drive. They purchased 133 the past fall with the intentions of doing a remodel and making a forever home in Orono. They absolutely love it here and noted the other proposed option on the east side would be basically sitting on top of the neighbor’s driveway, and he knows she would not be in support of that. The other proposed location right in the middle is where the kitchen currently sits and the fridge and stove top are there; there is literally no way to enter the house right there. Mr. Nelson said they are in the design phases of a remodel and do not have unlimited funds to move everything around but have some ideas of what they would like to do. The main reason they keep coming back to this location is for the safety of their two young children. They would love to be able to sit back there and watch the kids in the backyard as they play. Their youngest daughter has a skin condition that does not allow her to be in the sun and they want her to be in an outdoor environment while her sister and hopefully future children play in the backyard. The Nelsons would love for her to be involved in that as well. Ms. Nelson said the biggest issue in putting it in the middle is that it divides the backyard which in effect creates a lot of insecurity and lack of safety because they cannot watch the entire yard from each way. She noted there was a lot of really good discussion at the Planning Commission meeting. The other piece about putting it there is it backs up in to a pretty steep hill where there is no visibility from the Country Club, which they also learned has encroached on setbacks over time. She noted it is really hidden if it were built as proposed, it goes into the back lot and provides safety so they can monitor the usage in the backyard. All of the neighbors have supported this knowing what the Nelsons are trying to do and build a forever home. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 24 25. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE VARIANCE – Continued Mr. Nelson said from those pictures the Council can see there is about 70 feet of woods between their house and the Country Club and would not be visible from the golf path, and there is also a hill. He noted again on the east side it would be almost on top of the neighbor’s property and he probably would not even build it there as they would not get any utility out of it by not being in the backyard and watching their children play. Printup stated this is one of those tough ones that looks, views, seems reasonable, but then the 12 neighbors that love the idea are going to be doing the same thing and asking for variances for building and the Council does not usually step into that. Walsh thinks people must know what they are buying, what the rules are, and if there are things they can do and can put in other places. He thinks Staff has come to the conclusion that it has not met the practical difficulty standard which is what the Council must follow. He appreciates all the neighbors wanting it, everyone wants things to be better in the community and they always want to see people upgrading their houses. Crosby asked what the Planning Commission’s vote was. Oakden replied it was 6 to 1 in favor of the variance. Crosby is pulled both ways on this. He understands the mom’s concerns about the division of the property in viewing the children and that would concern him as it makes sense to be able to look outside and view the entire back yard. He is also torn because Printup’s point is correct, if they grant the variance, everyone else wants to go farther back into the setback and they have established a bad precedent. Walsh remembers an application from Crystal Bay Road where a woman wanted to add a little bump out in the back because she needed her washer and dryer inside but could not see her kids. Again, it is not the Council’s job to design what is safe or not safe…they cannot even distinguish what that is. Seals is also torn. She goes back to when someone buys a house, they buy it as is. She looks at her own lot and wonders why did they build the house where they did – if they had shifted it a certain way, she would have so much more freedom. She must stick to the rules that come with the land. Crosby said tell him about it – he lost his horseshoe driveway. Seals said not all lots in Orono are built the same, it is unfortunate, but it is what it is. She thinks of some lots really have practical difficulties but unfortunately this one does not meet that muster. Johnson is not really torn on it, because they see these and when people go out, the Council says no. It is a good plan, it is a compelling argument the Applicant is making, but those are not relevant to the decision as far as he sees it. They must meet the practical difficulty standard, which they do not. Therefore, the Council cannot approve it, not because they do not think it is a good idea or plan. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to deny LA 21-10, 133 Chevy Chase Variance. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 Barnhart noted there are a number of requests in front of the Council tonight. This project is proposed for an RPUD zoning (Residential Planned Unit Development) so this will be a zone change. There will be a Comprehensive Plan Amendment required because they are reducing the density allocated for this property, and are asking for a concept Master Plan approval and also the preliminary plat. This is a 37- unit townhome development in 9 separate buildings at the northwest corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard, north of the project is Kelley Parkway, and there is a large regional pond to the west. All the access will be located off Kelley Parkway, there will be no accesses off Wayzata Boulevard or Willow Drive and it is consistent with the original development plan for the Stone Bay Development. All of the buildings will be shared by municipal water and sewer; storm water management plans have been developed and will be managed on site, and will ultimately feed to the regional pond to the west. There will be a number of rain gardens along Kelley Parkway and another rain garden at the southwest corner of the site and eventually all the storm water will go into the pond. The City Engineer has provided some comment on the storm water and the utility plans. The expectation with all developments is that the City Engineer must be satisfied with the utility plans at the time of final plat so these are working plans and documents and further refinement from a utility standpoint will be coming. The Applicant proposes each unit to have a front door sidewalk to provide a pedestrian route through the community. Ultimately those sidewalks will connect to the Kelley Parkway public sidewalk and also a proposed sidewalk along Willow Drive. Staff has provided a suggestion that the sidewalks also connect to the future trail along Wayzata Boulevard and the County has concurred with that. Barnhart said the Comp Plan amendment will be required; currently this property is guided for a high density residential of 20-25 units/acre. When a project to that level of density came forward, the Council suggested that it is a bit too dense for this area and they wanted to see something a little more consistent with the Stone Bay Development. Based on that feedback the project came back with a townhome development at 10-20 units/acre. From a Met Council standpoint, they look at densities based on the lowest number of the range, so they only care about the 10 units/acre. This project is 10 units/acre so it meets the minimum requirements for that density guidance. During the sketch plan review Barnhart commented that it seemed like they had enough capacity from a density calculation standpoint, which they do, this project will reduce the density of the City from about 4.16 units/acre to 3.79 units/acre. They may recall the minimum is 3 so they are well above that. He reported earlier that the 2021-2030 growth periods, the City must provide opportunity for growth in its sewered area to meet the expectation of demand. Earlier he had reported that they had capacity there and in his revision of the calculation he noticed they were short 4 units. In speaking with Met Council, the staff person he spoke with seemed to think that 4 units is within the acceptable limits, however he has not received confirmation from that person’s superiors at this point. If the Council is uncomfortable in moving forward, they can certainly table until they get the feedback. In terms of affordable housing units, they do meet the minimum requirements there and the Council may recall the Met Council looks at affordable housing as any unit or area guided for density of 8 units/acre or more. The City is required to have 15.4 acres guided at that density, and keeping this project at 10 units/acre it does not impact that at all. Barnhart said this project was developed as RPUD zoned. As most of the City’s high-density projects come through as an RPUD, Barnhart likes to identify all the areas where waivers may be requested, and the RPUD district allows the Council the opportunity to grant waivers in order to satisfy other City goals, density being one of those. They do not have a zoning district that allows this level of density by itself, all of the higher density projects come through as an RPUD zoning district. Generally, the project conforms to the standards established by the RPUD district and MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued there are a couple waivers he wants to alert the Council to. There are external setback requirements off of Kelley, Wayzata, and Willow. Setbacks required off of Kelley are 35 feet, off of Willow and Wayzata are 50 feet, and there is a drive line setback of 20 feet from the property line. The drive line off Wayzata Boulevard is 10 feet (waiver is requested), and the Applicant proposes a row of arborvitae or screening along that edge to provide some buffer. The buildings are 35 feet off of Kelley and meet those requirements; most buildings are 50 feet from Willow Drive though lot 4 is 36 feet back (waiver of 14 feet requested). Blocks 6-8 are 50+ feet from Wayzata Boulevard and are okay. The external setbacks were an issue during the sketch plan review and at the time the setbacks were quite a bit tighter. During the development of that project, they came to learn that they really cannot drop below 10 units/acre – if they start dropping below 10 units/acre or 37 units they start running afoul of those other things mentioned, such as the affordable housing calculations and the overall growth numbers. They go from a deficit of 4 to a deficit of more than 4. The Applicant really tried to stay to the minimum 35 feet and has conformed to the setbacks with the exception of that issue. Staff does support that change. Barnhart said one concern Staff has, and identified with the Planning Commission, if they look at the overhead map there is a potential concern is the front of the buildings front onto sidewalk. Owners would enter the garage space from the rear of the structure and it is this area (noted on screen) that the rear of the structure faces Willow and faces Wayzata which are two highly-visible streets in town. He wants to make sure the Council is aware that is the face that will be seen as one is sitting at the intersection – they will be seeing the rear of those buildings and the garage doors. The screening proposed is fairly robust based on the landscaping plan, but from a planning perspective they generally try to avoid a situation where screening or landscaping fixes the problem, rather they try to find situations where berming or street orientation or other features help address a design issue. From a Planning Staff perspective, they identified a potential concern as to how those buildings are oriented. In solution, Staff suggested perhaps flipping the buildings so the front would face out, then they would have the “public face” of those buildings. To do that they would route the road interior to basically circle Outlot C there. The Planning Commission was not supportive of that suggestion; they did not think it was necessary and to flip those buildings they would have to reduce the setbacks a bit further and the Planning Commission was not willing to go that far. Barnhart throws that out there and looks for feedback on whether the Council would like that. The Applicant did react to the Council’s comments from the original sketch plan process. Crosby asked if there is any room for berming. Barnhart replied no there is not, it is a 10-foot setback. Even with 20 feet it would not be enough for berming. From an RPUD standpoint the project shows the 10% private recreation area and since this project will be a subdivision there will be a park dedication fee required. Seals said if they mimic what Stone Bay has, they do not have any garages facing exterior. Walsh noted they would have the fronts on Kelley. But the problem is this project has three roads on three sides. Crosby noted there are no garages sides showing on Stone Bay. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued Barnhart said off of Willow the setback is quite a bit greater as there is a wetland and vegetation there. The buildings on Kelley have their front there but there is also an elevation change; they do meet the 30- foot setback. Walsh said part of what they must remember is the back will be facing Highway 12, so it is not like people are walking their dog down the street. Originally what was nice about this is that they obviously zoned this way too dense and the Applicants came in, took the advice the Council gave the previous developer, brought it down to 37 units, and he appreciates their flexibility. Now it is just the fine-tuning. Along the Highway if they have the backs and some arborvitaes to brunt that a bit; the same with Willow, the only thing across from there is Harvest Moon and Otten Brothers with trucks coming in and out all the time. Crosby said they could add some type of fencing. Barnhart noted the Applicant proposes an ornamental style fence along Willow, Wayzata, and the west side, but that won’t be intended to screen. Crosby stated they will see the recreation area in the middle where it is safer for families and kids. Johnson said the Applicant made a lot of changes since the Planning Commission and that is not one of the changes they made and there is probably a reason. Walsh noted the Applicant is here and invited them up to talk. Aziz Saddiqui with David Weekley Homes, 12000 White Water Drive, Minnetonka, thanked the Council for all the feedback from the previous year. There were three big points they took away from Council and Planning Commission: setbacks, the unit count, and to find a place for the open space area play structure inside the community - originally it was along Kelley Parkway and Planning Commission felt it was not safe there. This particular plan and the way it navigates the streets, the way the homes are designed, and the walkway system has a safe access to a majority of the units to walk to the park from the front door rather than crossing the road and going into it. They tried to flip this one building and presented that option to the Planning Commission and Commissioner Libby who is present tonight supported that. Mr. Saddiqui’s team feels with the flow of the streets this works better, when they flipped the units facing Wayzata and Willow, the first question that came up was if someone is living there would they want to wake up every morning and look at Wayzata Boulevard or Willow Drive. From that perspective, they looked at what they could do to make it work, and they thought of flipping it so they have a parallel street next to Willow and Wayzata which gives the setbacks they need and the street system. Then they asked what else can they do to secure it a little bit more, so they brought in the ornamental fence and the arborvitaes. Some concerns the Planning Commission had is the survival of the arborvitae and the Applicant is open to the idea if the City wants to recommend a certain plant. David Weekley Homes’ landscape architect feels the kind of plantings they are proposing will serve well and sustain as the distance is quite far from the snow and salt and it would work out well. As they all know, it is 100% HOA maintained for all the utilities, streets, streetlights, parks, etcetera. The way they have finalized it – MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued and they are open even at this point in time, if the Council decides to flip the building – he thinks the street will be an issue the way the stubs will come out, and they circulated that plan, it did not look that great, so they went back and revised it. The Planning Commission thought the same thing as David Weekley Homes and more importantly, as a home owner, what would they want to see if they are living there. That is what is really comes down to. Walsh likes the sidewalks, safe walking, the streets are wide enough, and they want it to be livable. He thinks it makes a lot of sense to have things, not unlike across the street when looking at all of their public areas, they are all in the middle rather than the outsides. Mr. Saddiqui said one comment from the Stone Bay neighborhood meeting was that a play structure does not serve well in their community. If the Council is open to any other structure such as a pavilion, he is open to that idea. For now, they just left it with the play structure to perhaps target single parents, young couples, or retirees. If the play structure does not work out, they are open to changing that. Crosby believes at Stone Bay they have some type of gazebo. Johnson asked the price point on these homes. Mr. Saddiqui answered currently they are shooting between $440,000-$470,000 and are still about $40- $50,000 below Stone Bay but they feel very good about where they are at. Initially they thought of around $390,000-$410,000 but in the last 7 months the prices have skyrocketed. Crosby likes the things the Applicant has done and thinks they are being about as accommodating as one can. They have reduced the density and he likes that the center is the attraction. Johnson thinks that Staff was saying if this gets built and people complain about seeing garages, they warned the Council. Crosby said he is not as concerned with people driving by but the people that are living there. Walsh said if one is at the Orono Orchard stoplight, they see everyone’s garage all the way down the road. Crosby is thinking more safety of the neighborhood and he thinks it is well done. Barnhart noted all the roads will be privately maintained, the utilities will be constructed by the developer but the City will be maintaining those, and the fees are outlined for the trunk and other connection fees. Staff put together a resolution for approval and are looking for feedback on some of those issues in terms of the density and the design of the project. Johnson thinks it is a good idea to connect that trail. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued Walsh asked if that was in the comments. Barnhart replied he did suggest connecting to the trail along Wayzata Boulevard. The County also provided some comment and asked for some additional right-of-way at the corner for an American Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible ramps; the Applicant suggested that would be feasible. The fire department suggested some changes as to where the hydrant would be located and that is incorporated in the memo. The Applicant has not raised any issues in which they are not willing to work with the City on. Staff recommends approval of the 4 actions before the Council. Barnhart noted right before the Planning Commission meeting there was a private meeting and Staff received a number of comments after that which he has shared with the Council. Primarily the main issue that has not been addressed is the location of this drive. The neighborhood across the street has some concerns that this driveway will impact properties across the street from a headlight standpoint. Johnson looked at that and did not see it. Barnhart said the concern is that headlights from cars exiting the site will shine on the front spaces of the buildings. Crosby said aren’t the other buildings more elevated across the street. Barnhart noted there is some elevation change and the engineer has done some searching on the issue and can comment on that. Mr. Saddiqui clarified the proposed site is about 3.5 feet below and they went back to the traffic engineer internally and looked at it. Where the drive is coming out is the highest point on Kelley Parkway which is an ideal location and it happens that it is right across from the other cul-de-sac and is not really shooting directly in. Walsh said having the streets straight across from each other is about as good as they can get. Seals asked to zoom in and said it is quite a ways. She suggested arborvitaes on the other side. Johnson said they are lined up and it makes sense to him. He noted they could get some headlights over there but this is a high-density area. Walsh said likewise the people there will be up higher and shining lights into this property. Barnhart pointed out that arborvitaes on that side of the street are not an option because this is the emergency fire area and they cannot put additional screening in that location. Walsh said it is about as good as they can get. Johnson agreed right into the cul-de-sac. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued Attorney Mattick noted they can approve all four actions with one motion. Johnson asked whether they want to wait for the clarification from the Met Council that they are still within the range and it will not trigger different density. Barnhart noted that is an option. The Staff portion suggested that the four-unit difference over the next 20 years is within the acceptable limits, and it seems reasonable to Barnhart. However, if the Council wants to hold off until that answer comes back. Johnson asked if they can make it subject to that. Barnhart clarified when the Council approves the Comp Plan amendment, they are directing him to initiate the application to the Met Council and they will find out then. Johnson asked if it is subject to getting that approval. Barnhart said it would be subject to their approval. All of the other approvals, the preliminary plat, the Master Plan, the zone change, are all predicated on the approval of the Comp Plan amendment. Johnson stated that is pretty relevant that Met Council accepts that as reasonable. Walsh asked how long it would take to get that from the Met Council. Barnhart was hoping for it to come in today but he has learned if they say one week…add two. He would hope to hear by the end of this month. Crosby said they are talking the difference of four units. Barnhart said yes. Walsh said it would probably make sense to say, if they like all the things they are seeing, to make a motion to direct Barnhart contingent upon those four conditions, just like the conversation he has already had. Johnson stated they could just make a motion to draft. Attorney Mattick noted they have already drafted the resolution. Crosby said they make the motion with the four items in there and that is how they go. Johnson asked if Mr. Saddiqui was going to give an opinion on it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 24 26. LA21-000014 – MARK RAUSCH AND AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS AND DAVID WEEKLY HOMES, NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD., COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE CHANGE, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL – RESOLUTION NO. 7177 – Continued Mr. Saddiqui suggested they go on with the application, vote on it, and then obviously everything is contingent upon the Met Council approving the amendment change. Then they do not waste time, they continue to work, and continue on. Walsh agreed that makes total sense. Johnson wants to do that but thought Barnhart had an issue with that. Barnhart said no, they are fine, he just wanted to be up front with the Council as he noticed a discrepancy that he had not identified earlier and wants to be sure they were aware of it. Attorney Mattick again said they can do all four of those items in a single motion with the caveat that it is subject to the Met Council’s review of this as proposed. Johnson asked if there are five items. Barnhart said there are four. The actions include Comprehensive Plan Amendment, zone change, preliminary plat and Master Development. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve Resolution No. 7177 - LA21-000014 –Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Preliminary Plat, and Development Plan subject to the Met Council’s review as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Seals asked Staff if they made any progress, as she believes they talked about changing those ranges so they are smaller for density so it’s not such a wide swath. Walsh said so they could adjust it to whatever they wanted to basically. Johnson asked them to repeat that. Walsh said instead of making it a 10-20, they make it 11-20, and instead of 5-10, make it 5-11. Seals said yes, to shrink that ratio. Barnhart apologized and said if that was direction given to him, he does not have a solution for the Council in terms of an actual action. The Council is talking about introducing new land uses, which they certainly can do, and create their own range for those. That is probably a pretty robust change just because they now have to have zoning that ties to that – which again is not impossible, cities do it all the time – but it is a pretty active, intense type of development. He noted this is relatively small as they are talking about 37 units, and the Council is talking about a change that impacts the whole City. They certainly can do that and schedule a work session to talk about what the goals would be for that. Seals thinks that would be good, she noted it came up that they wanted to shrink that down. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 24 Walsh said they were debating what it takes, and that is why they needed that extra unit so they could get to 10 units versus 9.7. He clarified if they were at 9.7 all the City got was 5 units, but if there was 10.1 the City got 10 units. That was the whole basis of that conversation. Seals would like to at least have a plan to address it and talk about what that would look like. She understands it would take a lot of work and does not expect it tomorrow. Johnson said next week will do fine. He asked what relationship the City has between what the school district can handle and this density need. When do those conversations start to collide? Printup thinks those conversations happen pretty frequently. Walsh stated they need to have those conversations with Medina, because they are building 300-400 homes at a crack. Johnson said Independence, too. Seals asked if they go to Mound Westonka or Orono. She thought it was Mound Westonka. Johnson said on the south side of Maple Plain there, Independence has that and it is all slated for high density residential in Orono schools. Crosby asked what is the sign – when the teachers pull their hair out, then they’ve gone too far? Seals would say the new Superintendent might pull her hair out sooner. Walsh asked if they would go from a different class of school which means a different class of sports, which means they compete against all of the super big schools versus the same size. Crosby said then there would be another referendum. Walsh stated that is when they would need another school, or a bigger high school, or all of that stuff. That is why Orono is trying to keep it down as much as possible. He said it might be a good time when they have a half hour for a work session and have nothing to talk about, they can address that. He knows it would give Attorney Mattick lots of work if they had to add districts all over the City. Johnson said Attorney Mattick is trying to get into that top 5 vendor. Attorney Mattick stated he’s got some work to do. Printup stated that is why they have that vendor list. 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Barnhart said this is a sketch plan, it is not a public hearing, and they are looking for feedback on a proposed development on the property north of the Fire Station on Willow Drive. This is also north of MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 24 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – Continued the City property where the community garden is held. Typically, he already has some feedback from the Council on what they expect from the project based on previous applications. This is the first one he has been aware of for 5-6 years on this property and the previous one had come and gone well before Barnhart’s time and involved quite a bit more property. He is looking for feedback and frankly, does not have a lot of advice to give the Applicant so he is looking for feedback from the Council. During the development of this project, Staff identified 4-5 foundational issues, one of those being the access. This area, when the Fire Station was developed, anticipated access to these properties via Redinger Drive, the public road south of the Fire Station, which would require an easement or some sort of access through the City property. The Planning Commission was not supportive of that and suggested that an access off Willow Drive would be appropriate; initially Staff had some concerns from a sight visibility issue and a safety perspective. The Applicant and the City Engineer have reviewed the proposed location of the drive and can support the location as it is shown. Right now, there are 6 buildings, each have 2 units, for a total of 12 units with a private drive or road off Willow Drive. Staff looks for confirmation on the access location for that. Another issue was the storm water design and storm water management for the property. At the sketch plan level, they do not usually get a lot of engineering in terms of how the utilities and storm water will work and they do not expect that. The Applicant has suggested that some of the storm water management would occur off site and would like the Council and the Planning Commission to keep an open mind in terms of the best solution for the storm water management over the course of the development process. The Planning Commission was reluctant to support storm water management that occurred off site, especially if all of the development is occurring on this property. They did agree to “keep an open mind.” Barnhart noted this project is likely to be developed as a RPUD zoning district and the Council may recall the RPUD requires a 5-unit minimum acre for a lot size, unless adjacent to another RPUD zoning district; then they can kind of piggy-back off of that one. The Orono crossing project the Council just saw is kind of attached to the Stone Bay project so that is how they get by with the 3.7-acre project. This one is 1.71 acres and is quite a bit smaller than the 5 acres, so immediately they are looking at some sort of waiver from that requirement. The other option is to create its own zoning district for this project – that raises its own unique challenges – but it certainly can be done. The Planning Commission was not open to creating its own zoning district and seemed to support the RPUD waivers from a zoning perspective. He wants Council to confirm the use of the property. The twin home or duplex-style development here is consistent from a density guidance standpoint for the Comprehensive Plan, it is right in the range of 3-7 units/acre so they are good from that perspective. The Commission did not add any new design standards. Basically, Barnhart is looking for Council comment on zoning, access, storm water management, use of the project (twin home concept), and the design standards if there are any specific goals in mind for this property. Johnson asked if it is in RR1B zoning district. Barnhart believes so. Seals asked if it is the 3-10 units/acre. Barnhart said the land use guidance is 3-10 units/acre. Seals asked how m any acres are there. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 24 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – Continued Barnhart replied 1.71 acres. Johnson asked what can be done in RR1B. Barnhart answered RR1B is basically single-family homes; there are other uses but they certainly cannot go to this level of density. That is why they are looking to change the zoning district. Printup is not very comfortable changing zoning right now in that area – it is a pretty tight area and they have had things come before the Council trying to make things work over there. Johnson said on this lot, too. He asked what the other deal was that Barnhart spent a lot of time on. Seals remembered they wanted the Council to sell the back lot so they could combine the two. Printup said it is always tied to the back lot. Johnson noted regarding this application, the Fire Department is on one side and the Highway on the other side. He does not know why they need to do anything special for it, but it is not a special piece of real estate. Printup stated thinking of the future, that area might look different and rather than puzzling pieces together and weird zoning for just a one-acre spot, that could turn into more. They do not know what will happen with the building. Seals just sees problems, knowing the activity of the Fire Department, it is not a good idea. Johnson noted they really cannot concern themselves with that. Seals said no, but they owe it to themselves to have those conversations. Think about the complaints from Stone Bay about public works trucks backing up. Do they not think screeching out of there at 12:30 a.m. all sirens blazing is not going to evoke a few lights in the fronts of their buildings? If they are talking about headlights, that is a headlight. Walsh said they also do not know what they are doing with the Community Garden, what they are doing with the Fire Department, and do not know what that could become in the future if it is not a fire building. Crosby asked right now, how many units it is zoned for. Seals said 3-10 units/acre. Barnhart said to keep in mind there is a difference between zoning and the land use guidance. The zoning RR1B allows one unit per two acres. So, one house could go on this. However, it is guided for 3-10 which does require the City to have zoning that matches that. Seals asked which one trumps the other. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 24 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – Continued Barnhart replied the Comprehensive Plan trumps, which is the guidance. Walsh said right now this is guided at 10 units and the Applicant is at 6 units/acre; he clarified that the City only gets credit for 3 units. Crosby said there are 12 units here, what is he talking about. Walsh replied in terms of density and providing as many units as the City is supposed to provide for 20 years, if it guides from 3-10 and they only get 3 towards their number. Even if they put 6 at density, the City only gets credit for 3. He does not know if changing and making a whole new zoning district makes a whole lot of sense right now. Johnson asked if the City Council’s guidance to the Applicant is to do whatever they want within what it is guided for. Printup noted there are still water issues. Johnson replied the Applicant still has to meet all those, the Council does not have to grant any cooperation or variances. Walsh said this is part of the whole conversation with water access through Long Lake and they will not let anyone get water through there at this point. He thinks Long Lake is obligated to on this site, as there is an agreement; that would be a lawyer fight. Crosby clarified they would be getting the water from Long Lake? Seals replied yes and she does not think they will give Orono the water. Walsh said even though they are obligated to, that would just be a fight…although it is a fight they could have. Printup noted that is a good point and years ago Long Lake said they did not have the capacity. Olson stated that is the wording on the contract: “if” they have capacity. Crosby said the negative side is Orono is not trying to push for more density, they have already said the density will go along Highway 12, so they want to minimize density. Walsh said if they are going to see it, he would rather see it more on the low end on the 3 where that is all they get credit for in the guidance. There is no reason to double it. If the Applicant came back with 3 versus 6, he would probably be more apt to look at it, but the fight on even getting access to water would be an issue. Johnson clarified it is each building so that is 6 units. Walsh said there are 10 in there right now but it is 1.7 acres so that is 6 per acre. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 24 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – Continued Crosby said Walsh is talking about 3 buildings. Walsh replied if they have it guided for 3, there would be 5 units instead of 10. He thinks the guidance from the Council would be if the Applicant came back with 3 units which is the low end of the guidance, he thinks the Council would be more willing to work with that. Then obviously, they have to figure out the storm water and all that, but from a density standpoint that would be it. They should also know there will be a fight on the water issue. Barnhart confirmed storm water management must be on site. The Applicant, Bill Stoddard of 440 3rd Street Excelsior, approached the podium. He was an Orono resident for 20 years, lives in the same zip code, and was on the Planning Commission in the mid 1990’s. Barnhart made him promise not to keep the Council up until 1:00 a.m. like they did on a few of the Spring Hill Golf Club items they reviewed. Mr. Stoddard is a pretty low-key developer, he did the 10 brick row houses by the Excelsior Brewery, the 18 twin villas a block away on the same bike trail, and down Highway 55 the 172-unit apartment building in Golden Valley. He does a number of things, and since the Planning Commission meeting, they made a few changes to the site plan which the Council sees today. They had a little access to the park on the east side, changed the entrance area and had a traffic engineer provide an opinion letter regarding the sight line. There is an emergency vehicle kick-out to the south in case the Fire Department wants to come a few feet to put out one of those fires. This is also a non- ornamental fence project, finally the storm water management was just a thought, and he is getting some feedback about density. This project would probably not work at all to put in all the necessary utilities from the sanitary sewer and water; one is south of the Fire Department on Willow Drive and the infrastructure costs would all be the same. To share those over five units really would not work. He said they came up with a density that they thought was smack in the middle of the City’s guided density. In terms of storm water, they have not done any borings to date and to keep it open after they design it, if they are going to lose a bunch of units, would the Council want the storm water on the City-owned land. That would be if they designed it and built it large enough to accommodate the south access road that could eventually go to serve the Community Garden area. The Council pointed out it is a unique site and is not the most preferred lot in Orono. Mr. Stoddard is here to brainstorm their thoughts and concepts. It is guided for residential and he asked if this is something the Council would rather see a commercial use on; then perhaps they wouldn’t care so much about the sound from the Fire Department. He is available for questions and thanked the Council. Seals said she feels for the Applicant in having to figure this out as it is a really tough, narrow lot. She spoke with some of the Firemen and Planning Commissioners. She received feedback that this was not something they were super excited about because of the density, the Fire Station being right next to it, and she knows the water will also be a big struggle and that is perhaps the Achilles’ Heel of the project. She thinks 3 makes sense to the Council but the Applicant needs a bigger number to make it work and they are just not there yet. Crosby thinks this Council is pretty much committed to the lowest density possible, if it is open space and never gets developed, they could care less and that would be great. As Seals said they could probably go with 3 units/acre and go from there. He does not see as much of an issue from a Fire Department standpoint, even though Seals has received some feedback, because typically when they are exercising, their water is going to the rear of the building. He could see the water as being a major issue and that MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 24 27. LA21-000015 – WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23-32- 0002 – SKETCH PLAN REVIEW – Continued could be a nightmare if the Applicant cannot take care of that situation. He thinks a lot of builders are under the misconception that Orono wants building here – and they really do not. The City has basically designed it for density to be along Highway 12. Walsh said even there, on that last development they brought it to the lowest common denominator they could bring it to. Crosby noted people move to Orono because they do not want the density. Mr. Stoddard asked did it just change from high density to the medium density in the last Comprehensive Plan. Walsh said yes, and the Council is willing to stick with that, but at the lowest common denominator of the 3-10 guidance, so they are basically at the 3 guidance. Mr. Stoddard replied that does not work at all for residential use. He asked if the Council would consider commercial use or a different use. Walsh said they would be willing to listen to whatever the Applicant has. Printup thinks a lot of the neighbors are okay with how it is now. Walsh stated they are always open to suggestions. For now, they have given guidance. The iteration previous was the second developer and that was the third time coming back, getting it down to the right spot. Does that mean that this may not ever work? That could be the case, he does not know. Crosby does not have a problem with the design aspect it is more the density aspect. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Printup said Tanager Bridge construction started and is diverting a lot of speeding traffic from people who are not used to 30 mph and are flying right along Brown Road. The police are aware of it and are making a presence. Johnson said the Police Chief has four cars patrolling that road. Then he clarified maybe it was that they have made four stops. Edwards said that is correct, they made four overweight stops today. Printup did the polar plunge on Saturday, it was a beautiful day to do it, it is a good cause, and good energy. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 24 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT – Continued Seals also did the polar plunge. She is pumped that the middle schoolers are back and today was their first day. It is very exciting. She hopes soon they can get outside and do more activities – she said their parks need to be open soon. Johnson received a thank you note on the trail and he thanked Edwards and his crew for keeping that going. It was a good pilot program and perhaps they will receive some follow up from Olson on Three Rivers when they were here. It makes a huge difference and the comment was that the ice is already off of it by and large because the City was plowing it. It was used a lot and he is glad they did that. Tanager is closed and it is good on his end over there, it is so peaceful on Shoreline Drive. He is receiving a lot of questions on how long it will be closed and he noted they are taking down the hill there. He took a picture of a truck on top of the hill taking trees down and said it must be 50 feet high. Crosby asked if that hill was checked for burial ground. Edwards replied yes it was. Johnson said it was from when they cut the channel through there. Edwards clarified it was mostly dredging materials. Printup said don’t they have rules about taking down trees around the lake. Walsh said it is the State – they do not apply to that. Crosby said happy upcoming St. Patrick’s Day to everyone. He noted the trails over the weekend were fantastic. The one thing he will say to the bikers as people are out walking: slow down, you are not Lance Armstrong, be careful of pedestrians because they always have the right of way. Walsh is also very happy the kids are back in school, although his kids are not that happy to get up so early. He was at Disneyworld for the last 10 days, and if anyone wants to know what the mask police look like, just go to Disney. One must wear their mask all the time anywhere you go unless you are actively eating and you have to be standing while eating or drinking. He said there are patrols out there looking for people not wearing their mask correctly. He said it was fun but it got old wearing a mask from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. when it was 80 degrees outside. He noted spring break is coming up so the Council meeting is moved from two weeks to three weeks. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Olson updated the Council. They contacted the bridge that Printup had mentioned where there was graffiti – it is a Hennepin County bridge and supposedly they are moving it up their ladder. Tomorrow evening Edwards and Olson will attend a special meeting of the Spring Park City Council to discuss providing public works services. He gave a heads up that there is a dock issue working through the process now, it is going to the next Planning Commission and there is some unrest on the residents of Big Island about someone wanting to put a dock on City right-of-way, which is allowed. If the Council receives a phone call on that, they are aware of it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 24 CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT – Continued Seals asked, wasn’t there already a topic that came up on that. Walsh said that was because they let the lady build or get an easement with her buddy to build a dock. Crosby asked where they are with the flag pole outside. Edwards noted they are all on order. Barnhart mentioned the dock issue and said starting Monday, March 15, the City will have a new Building Inspector. On Friday they sent out 654 emails to property owners or Applicants that had filed for a building permit in the last 14 months; only about 10% of those were bad emails. They are doing their best to notify people of the change and inspections will be scheduled starting Monday through MNSpect. Walsh thinks it would be good to hear an update every Council meeting as that is a whole new thing. He suggested a Barnhart report at the end of the meeting. Barnhart suggested at the beginning of the meeting. Johnson said he wants that because he’s not always there at the end of the meeting. Walsh joked and said Attorney Mattick wants his report at the beginning, too. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:46 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 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 116152 to 116248, totaling $625,595.10. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #116198 Dodge of Burnsville $55,140.00 Payment for the purchase of 2 new squad cars. #116216 Metro West Inspection $17,172.50 Final payment for inspection service provided by Metro West Inspection. #116220 Modern Power Solutions $28,700.00 Purchase of a new generator for power outages at City Hall and Police Station. #116230 Quality Flow Systems $79,544.40 Payment for the rehab of lift stations #16 and #17. 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: April 12, 2021 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: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Orono Youth Lacrosse Association 04/02/2021 112560 090519 101-34783 Refund Park Reservation Overpayment 15.00- Total 112560:15.00- MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 04/08/2021 116117 0574642CP 101-43000-226 PPE REPLACEMENT APPAREL Public Works Department 230.35- MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 04/08/2021 116117 0575076cp 101-43000-226 PPE JACKET Public Works Department 84.08- Total 116117:314.43- City of Wayzata\DMV 03/31/2021 116152 032621 101-42110-441 SQUAD #261 REGISTRATION Police Department 19.25 Total 116152:19.25 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/31/2021 116153 033121 601-49400-322 3/21 UTILITY BILLS Water 513.52 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/31/2021 116153 033121 602-49450-322 3/21 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 513.52 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/31/2021 116153 033121 651-49910-322 3/21 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 513.51 Total 116153:1,540.55 Bridgewater Bank 04/02/2021 116154 040221 101-10305 GC CHANGE FUND 200.00 Total 116154:200.00 BUILDERS BY DESIGN INC 04/02/2021 116155 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS20-000050 3135 JAMEST 1,000.00 Total 116155:1,000.00 JASPER, CURTIS 04/02/2021 116156 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND GLA20-000006 1045 NORTH 1,000.00 Total 116156:1,000.00 JUDSON DAYTON 04/02/2021 116157 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000054 825 OLD CRYST 2,500.00 JUDSON DAYTON 04/02/2021 116157 040121 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000054 825 OLD CRYST 75.00- Total 116157:2,425.00 NAFSTAD, ERIK 04/02/2021 116158 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND GLA19-000010 1370 CHERRY 1,000.00 Total 116158:1,000.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount NELSON, MIKE & KATELYN 04/02/2021 116159 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA21-000010 133 CHEVY CH 700.00 Total 116159:700.00 STREETER & ASSOCIATES 04/02/2021 116160 040121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000024 1385 ORONO L 700.00 STREETER & ASSOCIATES 04/02/2021 116160 040121 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000024 1385 ORONO L 21.00- Total 116160:679.00 Orono Youth Lacrosse Association 04/02/2021 116161 090519 101-34783 Refund Park Reservation Overpayment 15.00 Total 116161:15.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 04/08/2021 116162 04082021 101-21705 457 - 04/08/2021 1,691.00 Total 116162:1,691.00 MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-04/08/2021 116163 04082021 101-21718 PEHSCP - 4/08/2021 2,501.41 Total 116163:2,501.41 MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 04/08/2021 116164 0575076cp 101-43000-226 PPE JACKET Public Works Department 84.08 Total 116164:84.08 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 04/08/2021 116165 04082021OB 101-21705 OBRA - 4/8/2021 204.75 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 04/08/2021 116165 04082021RO 101-21705 ROTH - 04/08/2021 200.00 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 04/08/2021 116165 04082021US 101-21705 457 - 04/08/2021 845.00 Total 116165:1,249.75 ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 04/08/2021 116166 04082021 101-21705 457 - 04/08/2021 1,770.00 Total 116166:1,770.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 04/08/2021 116167 04082021 101-21704 PERA 03/22/21-04/04/21 37,498.44 Total 116167:37,498.44 Advance Auto Parts 04/12/2021 116168 032621 101-39610 CREDIT ON ACCOUNT 9.85- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Advance Auto Parts 04/12/2021 116168 6974-405746 602-49450-212 LS #26 ANTIFREEZE Sewer 15.85 Total 116168:6.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 04/12/2021 116169 439566761 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 03/20/21-04/20/21 121.76 Total 116169:121.76 AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LL 04/12/2021 116170 441749 101-41500-301 FINANCE ASSISTANCE Finance Department 2,286.25 Total 116170:2,286.25 AEM WORKFORCE SOLUTIONS 04/12/2021 116171 442311 101-43290-800 PAYROLL PROCESS ANALYSIS Special Projects-Contingencies 4,140.00 Total 116171:4,140.00 ALLEN'S SERVICE INC 04/12/2021 116172 10105 101-42110-402 SQUAD #249 TOWING Police Department 153.00 Total 116172:153.00 ALLSTREAM 04/12/2021 116173 17408830 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 3/23/21-4/22/21 Golf Course 53.88 ALLSTREAM 04/12/2021 116173 17408830 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 3/23/21-4/22/21 Police Department 323.34 ALLSTREAM 04/12/2021 116173 17408830 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 3/23/21-4/22/21 Central Services 452.67 ALLSTREAM 04/12/2021 116173 17408830 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 3/23/21-4/22/21 Water 75.45 ALLSTREAM 04/12/2021 116173 17408830 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 3/23/21-4/22/21 Sewer 172.45 Total 116173:1,077.79 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURN 04/12/2021 116174 64541 101-43290-800 CONFERENCE ROOM CHAIRS Special Projects-Contingencies 4,916.12 ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURN 04/12/2021 116174 64559 101-42110-570 OFFICE FURNITURE Police Department 376.74 Total 116174:5,292.86 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 04/12/2021 116175 10227680 701-49800-221 SPRING FOR UNDERBODY HOIST 247.38 Total 116175:247.38 AWWA 04/12/2021 116176 7001892334 601-49400-433 AWWA MEMBERSHIP Water 221.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116176:221.00 Batteries + Bulbs 04/12/2021 116177 P38292385 602-49450-406 LS 21 BATTERY Sewer 25.19 Total 116177:25.19 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266630 651-49910-304 MS4 PERMITT REAUTHORIZATION Storm Water 394.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266631 435-48973-304 2020 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 20-001 2020 Street Improvements 204.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266632 602-16500 21-014 2021 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 7,483.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266633 101-43280-304 LA18-000072 PENCE LANE Special Services 252.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266634 101-43280-304 LA21-000022 LONG BRIDGE Special Services 1,207.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266635 601-16500 21-021 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT 16,519.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266636 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 995.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266636 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 375.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266636 651-49910-305 GIS MAINTENANCE STORM SEWER Storm Water 125.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266636 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE GENERAL Engineering 1,760.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266637 101-43170-304 MISC ENGINEERING Engineering 60.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266639 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 223.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266640 710-49970-401 CITIZEN PROBLEM REPORTER 830.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266641 602-16500 21-019 LS15 GERENATOR SURVEY 126.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266642 601-16500 WALTERS POINT MAIN REPLACEMENT 21-022 574.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/12/2021 116178 0266644 601-49400-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING SUPPORT Water 761.00 Total 116178:31,888.00 BUREAU OF CRIM. APPREHEN 04/12/2021 116179 0000064957 101-42110-311 CJDN ACCESS Police Department 510.00 Total 116179:510.00 Capital One Trade Credit 04/12/2021 116180 3282078210 101-45220-223 BRUSH SITE SHED REPAIRS Brush Site 107.10 Total 116180:107.10 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 04/12/2021 116181 2530056 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 822.90 Total 116181:822.90 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 021421 101-42110-580 WORKOUT EQUIPMENT Police Department 367.93 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 021621-5 101-42110-580 WORKOUT EQUIPMENT Police Department 243.26 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 032421 101-42110-439 ITEMS FOR POLICE COMMISSION MEETING Police Department 9.71 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 032421-1 101-42110-439 SANDWICHES - EXTENDED POWER OUTAGE Police Department 94.70 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 032521 101-42110-228 RANGE TARGETS Police Department 358.64 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 032921 101-42110-439 EMBEDDED SOCIAL WORKER MEETING EXPEN Police Department 11.14 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 040121 710-49970-221 LAPTOP FANS 27.50 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/12/2021 116182 040121-1 101-42110-439 GTO MEETING EXPENSES Police Department 8.48 Total 116182:1,121.36 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 033021 601-49400-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20/21-3/22/21 Water 753.17 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 033021 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20/21-3/22/21 Sewer 653.61 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 033021 101-41900-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20/21-3/22/21 Central Services 966.21 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 033021 101-42110-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20/21-3/22/21 Police Department 291.63 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 033021 101-45210-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20/21-3/22/21 Golf Course 179.45 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 04/12/2021 116183 11130023-2 602-49450-381 1302 SHORELINE - GAS 2/19/21 -3/22/21 Sewer 19.81 Total 116183:2,863.88 Century Link 04/12/2021 116184 031921 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 3/19/2021-4/18/2021 Golf Course 229.35 Total 116184:229.35 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 04/12/2021 116185 0017013 101-42110-402 #249 SERVICE Police Department 43.30 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 04/12/2021 116185 0017018 101-42110-402 #260 SERVICE Police Department 599.17 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 04/12/2021 116185 0017027 101-42110-402 #264 SERVICE Police Department 48.35 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 04/12/2021 116185 0017030 101-42110-402 #258 SERVICE Police Department 124.91 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 04/12/2021 116185 0017036 101-42110-402 #251 SERVICE Police Department 86.95 Total 116185:902.68 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 04/12/2021 116186 2100061 601-49400-489 BACTERIAL WATER TESTING Water 31.50 Total 116186:31.50 CITY OF LONG LAKE 04/12/2021 116187 00201511 101-42260-318 2ND QTR 2021 FIRE SERVICE Fire Protection Services 106,772.75 Total 116187:106,772.75 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 04/12/2021 116188 040221 602-49450-387 SEWER SERVICE - 1ST QTR 2021 Sewer 164.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116188:164.00 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 CH P 101-41900-382 MARCH 2021 UB - CH Central Services 82.14 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 CH P 101-42110-382 MARCH 2021 UB - PD Police Department 82.14 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 GC 101-45210-382 Q1 2021 SEPTIC/STORMWATER - GC Golf Course 71.97 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 PO 101-41900-382 MARCH 2021 UB - PO Central Services 84.56 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 PW 101-41900-382 MARCH 2021 UB - PW Central Services 125.38 City of Orono Utilities 04/12/2021 116189 032421 WP 601-49400-382 MARCH 2021 UB - WATER PLANT Water 145.54 Total 116189:591.73 CITY OF WAYZATA 04/12/2021 116190 033121 602-49450-387 MARCH 2021 SEWER Sewer 3,721.40 CITY OF WAYZATA 04/12/2021 116190 033121 601-49400-387 MARCH 2021 WATER Water 1,857.75 Total 116190:5,579.15 City of Wayzata\DMV 04/12/2021 116191 040721 101-42110-550 SQUAD #267 REGISTRATION Police Department 27.00 City of Wayzata\DMV 04/12/2021 116191 040721 101-42110-550 SQUAD #268 REGISTRATION Police Department 27.00 Total 116191:54.00 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 04/12/2021 116192 107650593 601-49400-405 SOUTH WATER PLANT PLUMBING REPAIRS Water 487.76 Total 116192:487.76 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 04/12/2021 116193 0024790 101-41900-223 CLING & WASP AWAY Central Services 607.00 Total 116193:607.00 CORREY FARNIOK 04/12/2021 116194 032721 101-42110-226 REIMB CLOTHING Police Department 161.98 Total 116194:161.98 DALBEC, JOHN 04/12/2021 116195 040521 999-10015 UB REFUND 4-515650-00 1565 ORONO OAKS DR 218.76 Total 116195:218.76 DELTA DENTAL 04/12/2021 116196 RIS0003393 101-15998 484213 MARCH 2021 DENTAL 68.74 DELTA DENTAL 04/12/2021 116196 RIS0003393 101-21709 484213 MARCH 2021 DENTAL 2,911.15 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount DELTA DENTAL 04/12/2021 116196 RIS0003393 101-15998 484213 APRIL 2021 DENTAL 68.74 DELTA DENTAL 04/12/2021 116196 RIS0003393 101-21709 484213 APRIL 2021 DENTAL 2,751.21 Total 116196:5,799.84 DOCK & LIFT INC 04/12/2021 116197 510466 101-42110-550 SQUAD 266 SET-UP Police Department 126.00 DOCK & LIFT INC 04/12/2021 116197 510466 101-42110-550 SQUAD 267 SET-UP Police Department 126.00 DOCK & LIFT INC 04/12/2021 116197 510466 101-42110-550 SQUAD 268 SET-UP Police Department 126.00 Total 116197:378.00 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE 04/12/2021 116198 N53558 101-42110-550 NEW SQUAD #267 - 2021 DODGE CHARGER Police Department 27,570.00 DODGE OF BURNSVILLE 04/12/2021 116198 N53560 101-42110-550 NEW SQUAD #268 - 2021 DODGE CHARGER Police Department 27,570.00 Total 116198:55,140.00 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 04/12/2021 116199 0125911-IN 101-43000-224 SIGNS Public Works Department 115.30 Total 116199:115.30 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 04/12/2021 116200 828148 101-42400-340 APRIL PH Building & Zoning 47.68 Total 116200:47.68 FASTENAL 04/12/2021 116201 MNPLY1284 101-43000-226 EAR PLUGS Public Works Department 35.70 FASTENAL 04/12/2021 116201 MNPLY1286 101-43000-226 PPE SAFETY GLASSES Public Works Department 53.53 Total 116201:89.23 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/12/2021 116202 3270-494326 701-49800-221 FUSE 3.75 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/12/2021 116202 3270-495847 701-49800-212 ANTIFREEZE 12.99 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/12/2021 116202 3270-497705 701-49800-222 OIL FILTERS 130.61 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/12/2021 116202 3270-501780 701-49800-212 BRAKE CLEANER 4.98 Total 116202:152.33 GOPHER ACE 04/12/2021 116203 5548/1 601-49400-227 THREAD SEAL TAPE Water 4.17 GOPHER ACE 04/12/2021 116203 5611/1 101-42110-240 HARDWARE AND SPRAYPAINT Police Department 10.51 GOPHER ACE 04/12/2021 116203 5637/1 701-49800-240 CHAINSAW PPE 168.90 GOPHER ACE 04/12/2021 116203 5695/1 101-45220-223 KEYS FOR BRUSH SITE SHED Brush Site 14.94 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116203:198.52 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 04/12/2021 116204 1030653 601-49400-489 LOCATES Water 97.20 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 04/12/2021 116204 1030653 602-49450-489 LOCATES Sewer 97.20 Total 116204:194.40 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 04/12/2021 116205 1000164491 710-49970-401 NETWORK SUPPORT 4-2021 58.00 Total 116205:58.00 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 04/12/2021 116206 1000163836 101-41600-309 JAIL CHARGES-MAR/2021 Law/Legal Services 339.72 Total 116206:339.72 HOLTON ELECTRIC CONTRACT 04/12/2021 116207 3086 101-45210-404 CLUBHOUSE ELECTRICAL Golf Course 2,214.54 HOLTON ELECTRIC CONTRACT 04/12/2021 116207 3093 101-42110-580 WORK FOR BODY WORN CAMERAS Police Department 850.00 Total 116207:3,064.54 HOTSYMINNESOTA.COM 04/12/2021 116208 70668 701-49800-222 TRUCK WASH SOAP 291.57 Total 116208:291.57 JAMES M CLEARY ESTATE 04/12/2021 116209 040621 999-10015 UB REFUND 2-541090-00 4109 NORTHSHORE D 90.32 Total 116209:90.32 JUST SAW SUPPLY 04/12/2021 116210 00043633 101-43000-221 COLD SAW SHARPEN Public Works Department 39.51 Total 116210:39.51 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 04/12/2021 116211 040521 703-49960-361 2021 PROPERTY/CASUALTY INSURANCE 115,985.00 Total 116211:115,985.00 LEOWEBPROTECT.com 04/12/2021 116212 3032 101-42110-433 MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION 04/21 Police Department 143.06 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116212:143.06 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50173 710-49970-311 HOSTED SERVERS 04/21 2,199.00 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50173 101-42110-310 POLICE RECORDS 04/21 Police Department 7,520.00 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50173 710-49970-329 INTERNET 04/21 555.00 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50173 710-49970-311 HOSTED COMPLIANCE ARCHIVE 04/21 501.00 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50237 710-49970-401 NETWORK SUPPORT 2/18/21-3/20/21 2,112.50 LOGIS 04/12/2021 116213 50258 710-49970-416 MICROSOFT LICENSING 10,267.51 Total 116213:23,155.01 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/12/2021 116214 G00848 651-49910-437 TRAINING ON SWEEPER Storm Water 400.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/12/2021 116214 P33638 701-49800-221 DIRT SHOES (REARS)226.85 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/12/2021 116214 P33911 701-49800-222 VALVES - 713 VACTOR REPAIR 144.84 Total 116214:771.69 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/12/2021 116215 22277351 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 894.33 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/12/2021 116215 22277352 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 1,172.81 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/12/2021 116215 22277356 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 1,901.34 Total 116215:3,968.48 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 04/12/2021 116216 2772 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES FEBRUARY 2021 Building & Zoning 13,322.50 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 04/12/2021 116216 2807 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES MARCH 2021 Building & Zoning 3,850.00 Total 116216:17,172.50 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/12/2021 116217 00074323 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 38.04 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/12/2021 116217 00074324 101-42110-221 MEDICAL OXYGEN Police Department 63.40 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/12/2021 116217 00074325 101-42110-221 MEDICAL OXYGEN Police Department 9.58 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/12/2021 116217 20185288 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 106.38 Total 116217:217.40 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 04/12/2021 116218 R36979 701-49800-402 ROUGH MOWER REPAIRS 2,198.34 Total 116218:2,198.34 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 04/12/2021 116219 2021.GOMA 602-49450-437 WASTEWATER CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - D. G Sewer 23.00 Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 04/12/2021 116219 SD-7713517 602-49450-437 WASTEWATER CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - B. M Sewer 23.00 Minnesota Pollution Control Agen 04/12/2021 116219 SD-7714185 602-49450-437 WASTEWATER CERTIFICATION RENEWAL - B. C Sewer 23.00 Total 116219:69.00 Modern Power Solutions LLC 04/12/2021 116220 642 405-48500-580 CITY CAMPUS GENERATOR 33,100.00 Modern Power Solutions LLC 04/12/2021 116220 642 405-39680 TRADE IN - 400A TRANSFER 1,400.00- Modern Power Solutions LLC 04/12/2021 116220 642 405-39680 TRADE IN - 400A KOHLER GENERATOR 3,000.00- Total 116220:28,700.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 04/12/2021 116221 173967 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 38.47 MOUND TRUE VALUE 04/12/2021 116221 173980 101-42110-240 CORD & TARP COVER Police Department 76.98 Total 116221:115.45 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 04/12/2021 116222 1289977-00 101-45210-403 GOLF REEL SHARPENING Golf Course 5,084.68 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 04/12/2021 116222 1294864-00 101-45210-223 GOLF IRRIGATION SPRINKLER Golf Course 269.08 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 04/12/2021 116222 1294868-00 101-45210-223 GOLF IRRIGATION SPRINKLER Golf Course 30.55 Total 116222:5,384.31 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303249184 710-49970-221 DOCKING STATION 64.95 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303249495 710-49970-221 MONITOR - CA 547.99 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303249641 710-49970-221 MONITOR MOUNT 37.99 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303253763 710-49970-221 IPAD CABLES - CH 60.86 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303256693 710-49970-221 MONITOR CABLES 54.00 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303257061 710-49970-221 IPAD CHARGERS 53.96 Newegg Business Inc 04/12/2021 116223 1303257576 710-49970-221 WIRELESS MICE 60.41 Total 116223:880.16 OFFICE DEPOT 04/12/2021 116224 1615733420 101-41900-221 CABINET Central Services 354.98 OFFICE DEPOT 04/12/2021 116224 1638107450 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 29.22 OFFICE DEPOT 04/12/2021 116224 16381101700 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 17.07 Total 116224:401.27 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 04/12/2021 116225 667488 701-49800-222 SPINNER CHAIN FOR TRUCK WHEEL - UNIT #42 283.47 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116225:283.47 PAQUETTE, DAVID 04/12/2021 116226 040821 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS21-000024 1315 TONKAW 1,000.00 Total 116226:1,000.00 PROLAWNS 04/12/2021 116227 26245 101-45200-404 2021 PARKS/CITYHALL LAWN CARE Parks 9,067.02 PROLAWNS 04/12/2021 116227 26246 101-45210-223 2021 GC FERT/PESTICIDES Golf Course 4,653.00 PROLAWNS 04/12/2021 116227 26247 101-45210-404 2021 GC FERTILIZER/PESTICIDES Golf Course 4,653.00 Total 116227:18,373.02 QUADIENT INC 04/12/2021 116228 N8798998 101-41900-401 POSTAGE MACHINE LEASE 4/28/21-7/27/21 Central Services 878.94 Total 116228:878.94 QUADIENT INC 04/12/2021 116229 030221 101-41900-322 POSTAGE Central Services 1,000.00 Total 116229:1,000.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 04/12/2021 116230 031921 602-16500 LS#16 REMODEL 38,070.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 04/12/2021 116230 40602 602-16500 LS#17 REMODEL 34,510.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 04/12/2021 116230 40662 101-19999 CITY CAMPUS MISSION UNIT 3,747.40 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 04/12/2021 116230 40663 602-49450-406 GS 30 REPAIR Sewer 3,217.00 Total 116230:79,544.40 ROB HOWELLS 04/12/2021 116231 032921 614-49840-319 1ST QTR 2021 VIDEO STREAMING Cable Franchise 970.00 Total 116231:970.00 RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON INC 04/12/2021 116232 031821 701-49800-222 REPAIR PATCH TRUCK #429 134.29 Total 116232:134.29 SERVICE GRINDING & SHARPE 04/12/2021 116233 44111 701-49800-403 CHIPPER BLADE SHARPENING 72.00 Total 116233:72.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 04/12/2021 116234 25748-1-274 101-42110-226 COVID UNIFORMS Police Department 542.05 Total 116234:542.05 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 04/12/2021 116235 130010759 601-49400-319 ANNUAL FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION-WE Water 102.50 Total 116235:102.50 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 04/12/2021 116236 0421STD 101-21714 STD-APR/2021 880.70 Total 116236:880.70 The Davey Tree Expert Company 04/12/2021 116237 915409241 101-45220-404 BRUSH SITE GRINDING Brush Site 4,752.61 Total 116237:4,752.61 THE HOME DEPOT 04/12/2021 116238 0010772 101-45210-201 CLEANING SUPPLIES Golf Course 94.35 THE HOME DEPOT 04/12/2021 116238 4014965 101-43000-224 PW SUPPLIES Public Works Department 464.79 Total 116238:559.14 THOMSON WEST 04/12/2021 116239 844076677 101-42110-311 DATA PROCESSING Police Department 255.00 Total 116239:255.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 04/12/2021 116240 M26344 101-42400-319 PC MINUTES 3/15/21 Building & Zoning 636.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 04/12/2021 116240 M26344 101-41300-319 CC MEETING MINUTES 3/8/21 Administration 415.88 Total 116240:1,051.88 TRAUTMAN, BETH 04/12/2021 116241 040621 999-10015 UB REFUND 2-213100-02 1310 ELMWOOD AVE 5.38 Total 116241:5.38 U.S. AutoForce 04/12/2021 116242 033121 101-42110-402 LATE FEE - TIRES Police Department 16.32 U.S. AutoForce 04/12/2021 116242 5493921 101-42110-402 AUTO TIRES Police Department 1,707.92 Total 116242:1,724.24 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900614527 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 3/30/2021 - 4/12/2021 Apr 08, 2021 01:49PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900614527 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 95.07 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900615849 101-41900-223 RUGS CITY HALL/ CC Central Services 58.00 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900615850 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900615850 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900615850 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 95.07 UNIFIRST CO 04/12/2021 116243 0900617213 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 100.27 Total 116243:379.31 US Bank Equipment Finance 04/12/2021 116244 439349150 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76 Total 116244:596.76 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 04/12/2021 116245 0079535-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 04/2021 16,458.75 Total 116245:16,458.75 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-41900-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Central Services 1,690.25 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Police Department 1,077.85 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Police Department 23.13 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Public Works Department 153.99 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-43000-386 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Public Works Department 2,313.21 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Parks 33.96 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 601-49400-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Water 5,769.39 XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 602-49450-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Sewer 791.62- XCEL ENERGY 04/12/2021 116246 726383544 101-45210-381 ELECTRIC 2/23/21-3/24/21 Golf Course 142.69 Total 116246:10,412.85 Yamaha Golf & Utility 04/12/2021 116247 01-240059 101-45210-415 GOLF CART RENTAL Golf Course 150.00 Total 116247:150.00 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 04/12/2021 116248 0183982-IN 701-49800-221 REPLACEMENT BROOM BOBCAT /TOOLCAT SW 578.00 Total 116248:578.00 Grand Totals: 625,595.10 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the agenda item is to gain Council approval to provide notice to the City of Long Lake of the City Of Orono’s intent to terminate the fire service contracts in 2025. 2. Background. The City Council has indicated a desire to explore alternate means of providing fire protective services for the City of Orono once the current contracts reach their end on December 31st 2025. Two agreements relating to fire require 36 month notice or will automatically renew in five year increments. 3. Contracts / Agreements. The following table lists the contracts and agreements and their proposed dispositions. Title Date Description/ Purpose Disposition Contract for Joint Ownership August 2001 Provides for joint ownership of the land and building of the 240 Willow Drive. Letter terminating contract Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection October 2002 Contract where by Long Lake Provided Fire Services to Orono Letter terminating contract COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct City Administrator to send notices of fire contract and agreement termination. Exhibits A. Letter of Termination for Joint Ownership Contract B. Letter of Termination for Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection. References A. Contract for Joint Ownership, August 2001 B. Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection, October 2002 Item No.: 4 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Notice of Termination of Fire Contracts with Long Lake Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator Agenda Section: Consent Agenda April _____, 2021 Long Lake City Administrator Scott Weske City of Long Lake 450 Virginia Avenue PO Box 606 Long Lake, MN 55356 RE: NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF CONTRACT FOR JOINT OWNERSHIP Dear City Administrator Weske: The City of Orono serves this Notice of Termination to terminate the Contract for Joint Ownership that commenced in August 2001 [hereinafter: First Contract] pursuant to Section 7. For your convenience, a copy of the First Contract is attached. Section 7 of the First Contract provides the following: Section 7: 7. Term. This Agreement shall be effective upon the date of execution, and shall extend through December 31, 2020. It shall automatically extend for successive five (5) year extensions unless one of the cities covered by this agreement serves notice of termination not less than three (3) years before the original termination or the termination date of any subsequent extension. The Agreement may not otherwise be terminated except for any of the following reasons: a. The express agreement of both cities to terminate the Agreement; or b. The expiration of the term of the Agreement provided that the three-year notice of termination preceding the expiration of the term is given; or c. An event that makes it unlawful for all or substantially all of the purpose of the Agreement, i.e. joint ownership of the land and building to be continued; or d. For good cause as defined above; or e. For material breach of this Agreement provided that the city seeking the termination first provides the other city written notice and thirty (30) days to cure. Pursuant to Section 11 of the First Contract, all notices must be “delivered or mailed” to Long Lake: City Administrator with a copy to City Attorney. Accordingly, the City of Orono hereby notifies the City of Long Lake that the First Contract shall terminate on its expiration date of December 31, 2025. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Adam Edwards City Administrator CC: Long Lake City Attorney Enc. Contract for Joint Ownership Long Lake City Administrator Scott Weske City of Long Lake 450 Virginia Avenue PO Box 606 Long Lake, MN 55356 Medina City Administrator Scott Johnson 2052 County Road 24 Medina, MN 55340 RE: NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR FIRE PROTECTION Dear City Administrator Weske and City Administrator Johnson: The City of Orono serves this Notice of Termination to terminate the Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection dated October 15, 2002, [hereinafter: Second Contract] pursuant to Sections 10 and 20. For your convenience, a copy of the Second Contract is attached. Sections 10 and 20 of the Second Contract provide the following: Section 10: 10. Term of this Agreement This Agreement covers the period January 1, 2002 through December 31, 2020. A contract year covers the period January 1 through December 31 of a calendar year. This Agreement will become effective upon ratification by the Contracting Cities. The terms of this agreement will be extended for a period of five years unless this Agreement is terminated as provided in Section 20 of the Agreement. Section 20: 20. Termination of this Agreement This Agreement shall be terminable only as follows: 1. For “Good Cause” by any city that desires to terminate its participation in the Agreement provided that such termination is preceded by a minimum of a 36-months notice. “Good Cause” shall mean, but is not limited to, a pattern of inadequate service quality; including inadequate response to call, inadequate training, and inadequate handling of calls; and/or a pattern of budget overruns. 2. For breach of contract; 3. By mutual agreement of all cities cover by the agreement. 4. City of Medina may terminate its participation in this Agreement without case, subject to providing a twenty-four month notice of termination. 5. This agreement may be renegotiated or terminated by the cities to enable participation in a fire district or similar organizational arrangement. Accordingly, the City of Orono hereby notifies the City of Long Lake and the City of Medina that the Second Contract shall terminate on its expiration date of December 31, 2025. Please contact me with any questions or concerns. Sincerely, Adam Edwards City Administrator CC: Long Lake City Attorney: Medina City Attorney: Ronald Batty Kennedy & Graven, Chartered Fifth Street Towers 150 South Fifth Street Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Enc. Agreement and Contract for Fire Protection AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the agenda item is to gain Council approval to appoint a new Maintenance Worker within Public Works. 2. Background. The Public Works Department has six full time maintenance worker positions. The maintenance worker positions are critical to meet current service needs and are essential to City operations. One position is currently unfilled. 3. Recruitment. The selection process for the vacant position has been completed. The process involved application screening, an interview panel, practical exercise testing and background checking. 4. Recommended Candidate. The top candidate is Mr. Justin Mielke. Justin has 7 years of public works experience with Hennepin County and Watertown. 1. Recommended Compensation. I recommended that Mr. Mielke be appointed to the position of Public Works Maintenance Worker effective May 3rd, 2021. a. Salary. Starting salary of $26.84/hr (Grade 7, Step 2) b. Vacation. Starting vacation to be earned at a rate or 10 days (80 hours) per year COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to appoint Mr. Justin Mielke as a Public Works Maintenance Worker. Item No.: 5 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Public Works Maintenance Worker Appointment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of seasonal and part time employees. 2. Background. The hourly pay is proposed to be $12.00-$14.00 for the Golf Course Clubhouse Attendants, Brush Site Attendants, and Sledding Attendants; $12.00-$16.00 for Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Employees, $10.00-$16.00 for Utilities Maintenance Workers; and $15.00-$20.00 for the Clubhouse Manager. The Clubhouse Manager will be a part time employee. All other employees will be seasonal and fall under the 6 month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA membership. 3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates. Name Position Wage ($/hr) Remarks Approved Feb 22nd Marie Jorland Clubhouse Manager $20.00 Returnee Kimberley Haug Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee Calvin Schmidt Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee Chad Stowell Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee Ron Steffenhagen Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee Mitchell Hall Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Scott Prochnow Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Marshall Hambro Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Approved March 8th Wendy Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Logan Reynalds Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee Lloyd Engler Golf Course Maintenance $12.00 Returnee Approved March 29th Zachary Conway Parks/GC Maintenance $14.50 New hire Vicki Hines Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire Requesting Approval Alex Collins Golf Course Maintenance $12.00 New hire Rebecca Anderson Utility Maintenance Worker $16.00 Returnee Lily Clark Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employees as in the list above. Item No.: 6 Date: April 12 , 2021 Item Description: Appointment of 2021 Seasonal Employees V4 Presenter: Adam Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is gain council approval of the job description and recruitment for the Public Works Superintendent Position. 2. Reorganization. With the recent appointment of Adam Edwards as the City Administrator/City Engineer, the Public Works Director position has now been vacated. This presents and unique opportunity to reorganize the department. The proposed organization would see the creation of a Public Works Superintendent in lieu of a Director position. Proposed structure: 3. Position Description. The Public Works Superintendent Position Description is attached as Exhibit A. The position retains the duties of the Public Works Director Position less the engineering, parks and the capital improvement plan responsibilities. The position will be a Grade 13 and FLSA exempt. 4. Recruitment. The Public Works Superintendent position is critical to maintaining Streets, Stormwater, Sanitary Sewer Water and Facilities. The selection process for the vacant position will involve advertising the position, application screening, an interview panel and reference checking. Upon completion of the process a candidate will be presented to the council for consideration of appointment. 5. Timeline. The timeline for the process is as follows: When What 13-30 April 2021 Advertise Position 3-7 May 2021 Review Applications 10-18 May 2021 Interviews 24 May 2021 Council Approval/Appointment NLT 14 June 2021 New Employees First Day COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Public Works Superintendent position and authorize staff to initiate the recruitment process. Exhibits A. Job Description Item No.: 7 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Public Works Superintendent Position and Recruitment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF ORONO Position Title: Public Works Superintendent Document Date: April 1, 2021 Department: Public Works Accountable to: City Administrator/City Engineer Grade: 13 FLSA Status: Exempt Nature of Work Administer all function of Public Works including Streets, Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater, Facilities and Fleet. Supervision Received and Exercised This position is supervised by the City Administrator/ City Engineer. Provides direct supervision to Public Works Supervisors and indirect supervision of Maintenance Workers. Examples of Work Essential functions listed below are intended as illustrations of the various types of work that may be performed. The omission of specific statements of duties does not exclude them if the work is similar, related or a logical assignment to the position. • DescrPlan, coordinate, supervise and review the activities of the department including daily, periodic, and emergency maintenance and repair activities to maintain the City’s streets, storm sewer, facilities and utility systems in safe and operational/useable condition. • Plan and coordinate public works services such as clean up days, brush site, compost and wood chip site. • Develop an annual budget covering all functions of the Public Works Department, and monitor expenditures to ensure compliance with the budget. • Responsible for the supervision of public works staff including hiring, training motivating, evaluating and disciplining in accordance with city personnel policy and applicable collective bargaining. • Ensures accurate tracking and reporting of service requests, tasks and work orders in the cities work flow management system to ensure request are completed in a timely The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer manner and the work effort required to maintain specific assets is recorded. • Works closely with GIS staff and the City Engineer to ensure the GIS mapping system and the asset management system are kept up to date. • Render technical advice, both written and verbal, to the City Council and Advisory Boards and Commissions. Attend the City Council meetings and others as necessary. • Assist City Engineer in the development of a multi-year capital improvement plan and program to address the city's infrastructure development, maintenance and replacement needs. • Investigate citizen complaints and respond to citizen requests and issues. • Prepare and review specifications for equipment and vehicles purchased by the City. • Conduct special projects as assigned. • Assist in the implementation of all water resource functions, including implementation of the Wetland Conservation Act and Surface Water Management Plan as well as erosion and sediment control as it relates to the MS4 NPDES requirements. • Periodically conducts field inspections of city facilities and infrastructure to ensure assets are properly maintained and repaired: identifies deficiencies; and issues work orders to subordinates or contractors to correct these deficiencies. • Plans, monitors, and continually evaluates the effectiveness of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities for the streets, fleet, facilities, storm sewer and utilities. • Provides, and sets the example for, excellent customer service. • Utilize computer technology for work management, information management and communications. • Prepare all necessary reports required by other government agencies. • Maintain records in accordance with the retention schedule. • Manage contacts/ contractors providing repair and maintenance services for city infrastructure facilities and equipment. • Establish and maintain safety program ensuring the department is fully compliant with all OSHA regulations. • Preparing short term and long term goals and objectives for public works • Performs other duties and assumes other responsibilities as assigned. Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Knowledge: • Mechanical — Knowledge of machines and tools, including their designs, uses, repair, and maintenance. • Public Safety and Security — Knowledge of relevant equipment, policies, procedures, and strategies to promote effective local, state, or national security operations for the protection of people, data, property, and institutions. • Customer and Personal Service — Knowledge of principles and processes for providing customer and personal services. This includes customer needs assessment, meeting quality standards for services, and evaluation of customer satisfaction. • Administration and Management — Knowledge of business and management principles involved in strategic planning, resource allocation, human resources modeling, leadership technique, production methods, and coordination of people and resources. • English Language — Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Personnel and Human Resources — Knowledge of principles and procedures for personnel recruitment, selection, training, compensation and benefits, labor relations and negotiation, and personnel information systems. Skills: • Active Listening — Give full attention to what other people are saying, taking time to understand the points being made, asking questions as appropriate, and not interrupting at inappropriate times. • Monitoring — Monitor/Assess performance of yourself, other individuals, or organizations to make improvements or take corrective action. • Speaking — Talk to others to convey information effectively. • Coordination — Adjust actions in relation to others' actions. • Management of Personnel Resources — Motivate, develop, and direct people as they work, identifying the best people for the job. • Time Management — Manage one's own time and the time of others. • Critical Thinking — Use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems. • Reading Comprehension — Understand written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents. • Complex Problem Solving — Identify complex problems and reviewing related information to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions. Abilities: • Oral Comprehension — Able to listen to and understand information and ideas presented through spoken words and sentences. • Oral Expression — Able to communicate information and ideas in speaking so others will understand. • Problem Sensitivity — Able to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong. It does not involve solving the problem, only recognizing there is a problem. • Written Comprehension — Able to read and understand information and ideas presented in writing. • Deductive Reasoning — Able to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers that make sense. • Inductive Reasoning — Able to combine pieces of information to form general rules or conclusions (includes finding a relationship among seemingly unrelated events). • Information ordering — Able to arrange things or actions in a certain order or pattern according to a specific rule or set of rules (e.g., patterns of numbers, letters, words, pictures, mathematical operations). Minimum Requirements • Formal public works and supervisor training such as post-secondary technical certification/degree in water supply and distribution systems, sewer collection systems, stormwater, public works administration or a closely related field., or equivalent; and • Five (5) years of experience in a leadership or public management role. • Ten (10) years of experience in all aspects of public works. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Seven (7) years of related experience, or any equivalent combination of education and experience. • Valid MN Driver’s License. Desirable Qualifications • Bachelor’s degree form and accredited university in a related field. Four years of post- secondary education in Engineering, Public Works, Construction Management, public administration of equivalent. • Ten (10) supervisory experience. • Class “S-D” or higher wastewater collection system license • Class “D” or higher water treatment and collection system license. Physical Demands and Working Environment See Physical and Environmental Addendum AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose: To consider changes to the City Code related to State Law references, Building Code appeals, and plumbing permitting. 2. Background: At its meeting on March 29th, the City Council approved some changes to the City Ordinances as they relate to the Building Code, as recommended by the Building Official Scott Qualle. Immediately after approval, the state provided additional comments related those changes. The Council is asked to approve these changes. These changes are generally housekeeping in nature. The plumbing permit language refers to the review of commercial plumbing permits. Currently, plumbing permits for commercial projects are reviewed by the State. The intent with the change is to have MnSpect complete that review, with proper accreditation. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the changes as proposed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the ordinance as drafted. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance Item No.: 8 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Amendments Related to Building Code Administration Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Created: 2021-02-27 04:26:59 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 1 of 4 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES 1 2 CITY OF ORONO 3 HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA 4 5 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES 6 PERTAINING TO THE BUILDING CODE, APPEALS, PLUMBING PLAN REVIEW 7 AND STATE STATUTE REFERENCES 8 9 10 THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: 11 12 SECTION 1. Sec. 86-01 shall be amended by adding text to read as follows: 13 Sec. 86-1. Permits and special requirements for moving buildings. 14 (a) Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this section, shall have the meanings 15 ascribed to them in this subsection, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: 16 Street means all streets and highways in the city which are not state trunk highways, county state-aid 17 highways, or county roads. 18 (b) Moving permit required and application. 19 (1) It is unlawful for any person to move a building on any street without a moving permit from the city. 20 (2) The application for a moving permit shall state the approximate size and weight of the structure or 21 building proposed to be moved, together with the places from and to which it is proposed to move the 22 structure or building, and proposed route to be followed, proposed dates and times of m oving and 23 parking, and the name and address of the proposed mover. Such application shall also state any 24 municipal utility, street and public property repairs or alterations that will be required by reason of 25 such movement. 26 (c) Permit and fee. The moving permit shall state the date or dates of moving, hours, routing, movement and 27 parking. Permits shall be issued only for moving buildings by building movers licensed by the state. Fees to be 28 charged shall be separate for each of the following: 29 (1) A moving permit fee to cover use of streets and route approval; and 30 (2) A fee equal to the anticipated amount required to compensate the city for any municipal utility and 31 public property (other than streets) repairs or alterations occasioned by such movement, whi ch shall 32 be paid in advance. 33 (d) Building permit and code compliance. Before any building is moved from one location to another within the 34 city, or from a point of origin without the city to a destination within the city, regardless of the route of 35 movement, it shall be inspected and a building permit shall have been issued for at least the work necessary 36 to bring it into full compliance with the state building code, including site, utility, and foundation work. 37 (e) Proof of tax payment. It is unlawful to move any building (including a manufactured home) if the point of 38 origin or destination (or both) is within the city, and regardless of the route of movement, without having 39 paid in full all real and personal property taxes and special assessments due on the building, and filing 40 written proof of such payment with the city. 41 42 Council Exhibit A Created: 2021-02-27 04:26:59 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 2 of 4 SECTION 2. Sections. 86-38 through 86-43 shall be amended by adding and deleting text to 43 read as follows: 44 Sec. 86-38. Codes adopted by reference. 45 The Minnesota State Building Code, as adopted by the commissioner of administration pursuant to Minn. 46 Stat. §§ 16B.59 to 16B.75326B.101-.16, including all of the amendments, rules and regulations established, 47 adopted and published from time to time by the Minnesota Commissioner of Administration, through the Building 48 Codes and Standards Division is hereby adopted by reference with the exception of the optional chapters, unless 49 specifically adopted in this ordinance. The Minnesota State Building Code is here by incorporated in this section as 50 if fully set out herein. 51 Sec. 86-39. Application, administration and enforcement. 52 (a) The application, administration, and enforcement of the code shall be in accordance with Minnesota State 53 Building Code, MN Statute 326B.121, as amended from time to time. The Code shall be enforced within the 54 extraterritorial limits permitted by Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1 when so established by this section. 55 (b) The code enforcement agency of this municipality is called the Building and ZoningCommunity Development 56 Department. 57 (c) This code shall be enforced by the Minnesota Certified Building Official designated by this Municipality to 58 administer the Code (Minn. Stat. § 16B.65326B.133, subd. 1). 59 (d) Prior to installation of a system of plumbing other than for a single-family dwelling with independent 60 plumbing service, complete plumbing plans and specifications, together with any additional information that 61 the Building Official may require, shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official , subject to 62 applicable state law. No construction shall proceed except in accordance with the approved plans. Any 63 alteration or extension of any existing plumbing system shall be subject to these same requirements. 64 (e) Upon receipt of an application, the City shall forward to the state for review all plumbing plans and 65 specifications for the following types of projects within the city: 66 (1) State licensed facilities as defined in Section 326B.103, subdivision 13 67 (2) public buildings as defined in Section 326B.103, subdivision 11; and 68 (3) projects of a special nature for which department review is requested by either the city or the state. 69 70 Sec. 86-40. Permits and fees. 71 (a) The issuance of permits and the collection of fees shall be as authorized in Minn. Stat. § 16B.62, subd. 1Rule 72 1300. 73 (b) Permit fees shall be assessed for work governed by this Code in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by 74 the municipality in Ordinance No. 22, 3rd series. In addition, a surcharge fee shall be collected on all permits 75 issued for work governed by this Code in accordance with Minn. Stat. § 16B.70326B.148. 76 Sec. 86-41. Building code board of appeals. 77 A building code board of appeals may be established by the council as and when necessary to hear and make 78 findings as to any issue arising under the state building code. The number of members of the board shall be the 79 same as required by law, or, if there is no such requirement, then the number established by the council. The 80 members shall be qualified by experience and training to pass upon matters in building construction. The building 81 Created: 2021-02-27 04:26:59 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 3 of 4 official shall be an ex officio member. The board shall investigate an d, after hearing, issue its findings in writing to 82 the building official with a duplicate copy to the appellant. It may recommend to the council such new legislation 83 as is consistent with such findings. Voting members of the board may be paid a nominal per diem for services 84 rendered in an amount fixed by the council at the time the board is established. Administrative costs and the per 85 diem expense of the board shall be paid by the appellant unless such payment is waived by law. 86 (Code 1984, § 2.53)Purposefully Left Blank 87 4 Sec. 86-42. Violations and penalties. 88 A violation of the Code is a misdemeanor (Minn. Stat. § 16B.69326B.082). 89 Sec. 86-43. Building code optional chapters. 90 (a) The Minnesota State Building Code, established pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 16B.59 to 16B.75326B.101-.16 91 allows the municipality to adopt by reference and enforce certain optional chapters of the m ost current 92 edition of the Minnesota State Building Code. 93 (b) The following optional provisions identified in the most current edition of the State Building Code in Minnesota 94 Rules, Chapter 1306, Special Fire Protection Systems are hereby adopted and incorporated as part of the 95 Building Code for this municipality. 96 (1) 1306.0020, Subpart 2. 97 (2) 1306.0030, E2. 98 SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage 99 and publication. 100 ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2021 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City 101 Council of Orono, Minnesota. 102 103 ATTEST: 104 105 106 107 ______________________________ _____________________________ 108 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 109 110 Ordinance published in The Laker Pioneer newspaper the week of ________, 2021. 111 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To consider a dock license for Dock Site B. 2. Background. Last year, a license was issued at Dock Site B, for Scott Brown. Mr. Brown sold his property to the Finnegans, and they have completed the dock application as the new owner of 3435 Crystal Bay Road. The Finnegan’s do not yet have a boat, but have agreed to provide registration when they do acquire one. The applicant has provided payment for the 2021 season. The license agreement prepared by the City Attorney has been modified, incorporating applicant’s information. The lease will expire November 1, 2030. The Finnegans have received a permit to demolish and rebuild a new home on the subject property, this construction is likely to occur over the summer. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the dock license for Dock Site B. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve the dock license, authorizing the Mayor and the City Administrator to sign the license agreement. Exhibits A. Dock Site Map B. Application Materials C. License Agreement Item No.: 9 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Dock License for Dock Site B Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 50. 0 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Dock sites This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 3/13/2020 3:20 PM 35 Feet City Limits Parcels (2/1/2020) Dock Site B Exhibit A Dock sections are 8 ft x 3.5 ft. Dock will extend 80 feet into the lake. 1 DOCK SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made on April 12, 2021 between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55323 (the “City”), and Kevin Finnegan, an individual who owns property at 3435 Crystal Bay Road (“Licensee”). WHEREAS, the City has made available dock sites at specified locations on public property and public rights of way; WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to construct and maintain a dock at a dock site and agrees to the terms of this License Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1.License to Use Property. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Licensee a license to use Dock Site # B (“Dock Site”), as designated on the official Orono Dock Location Map. 2.Term. The term of this License Agreement shall be for ten (10) years and will commence on April 13, 2021 and end on October 31, 2030 unless terminated prior thereto as provided herein. 3.Conditions. The City and the Licensee agree that the Licensee will use the Dock Site subject to the following conditions: A.Docks. The Licensee shall maintain only one (1) dock at the Dock Site. B.License plates. Licensee shall securely fix the license plate issued by the City to the street-side end of the licensed dock. License plates shall be maintained by the Licensee and shall remain the property of the City. C.Removal of docks. Upon termination of a dock license, the Licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and all accessory items, including but not limited to stairs leading to the dock from the public property or public right of way. Any dock or accessory item that has not been removed will be removed by the City and all costs the responsibility of the last license holder for that Dock Site. D.Dock Construction; specifications and dimensions. The dock on the Dock Site shall comply with the following regulations: 1) The dock shall comply with LMCD regulations and all applicable state laws and regulations; 2) Docks shall be constructed of materials approved by the Dock Inspector; docks shall be of plank or rail construction; and all dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock; Dock Site B Exhibit C 2 3) Docks shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to a neighboring dock license site or private property line unless City Council grants an exception. 4) Docks may not be permanently installed. E. Fires. No fires of any kind shall be permitted on the Dock Site. F. Landscaping. Licensee shall not cut or disrupt any trees or other vegetation along the shoreline in any way. All landscaping activity must be approved by the City. G. Mowing. Licensee shall mow and maintain the Dock Site area. H. Trails and Sidewalks. Licensee shall not obstruct the trails or sidewalks adjacent to the Dock Site in any way. I. Watercraft. The Licensee shall only moor watercraft that were declared on the Licensee’s Dock License Application at the Dock Site. If the declared watercraft is removed from the City dock program, the Licensee may substitute a replacement watercraft upon providing the City with the documentation it requires. Newly declared replacement watercraft may be subject an additional LMCD fee. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the Licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, only two (2) times in a calendar year. Except as described in the Orono City Code and herein, no watercraft shall be moored at the Dock Site. J. Dock accessories. All dock accessories must be approved in writing by the Dock Inspector prior to use at the Dock Site. K. Parking. Licensee agrees not to park at the Dock Site. L. Dock Storage. The dock must be removed from the water no later than November 1. The dock and dock accessories may not be stored on the Dock Site between November 1st and April 1st. 4. Use and Control of Property. Except as provided herein, the Licensee shall have the exclusive use and control of the Dock Site and the same rights, obligations, and liabilities as a private property owner. The Licensee shall be permitted to use the Property for the purposes described in this License Agreement and shall not use the Property for any other purposes. The Licensee shall not use the Dock Site, or permit anything to be done in or about the Property, which will in any way conflict with any law, statute, ordinance, or governmental rule or regulation. The Licensee shall use and keep the Dock Site in a clean and orderly condition. 5. City Access. City staff shall be free to enter the Dock Site for any reason at any time to perform maintenance, landscaping, inspections, and other regulatory functions. 6. Failure to Comply. If the Licensee fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the City Code, a state statute or a state regulation, the Licensee shall be notified in writing of the way or ways the dock or Dock Site area does not comply. The Licensee shall have fourteen (14) days to remove the dock or otherwise bring the Dock Site into compliance. If the violation is not corrected within fourteen (14) days, the license shall be revoked, this Agreement shall be terminated and all property shall be removed from the dock lease site unless, within the 3 fourteen (14) days, the Dock Administrator receives from the Licensee a written request for a hearing. 7. Payment. The Licensee agrees to pay for all costs of bringing the Dock Site into compliance, including the costs of removing property from the dock site. 8. Indemnification. The Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all liability, damages, penalties, judgments, or claims of whatever nature arising from injury to person or property sustained by anyone arising out of use by the Licensee, its members, guests and invitees and occupancy of the Dock Site and will at Licensee’s own cost and expense defend any and all suits or actions (just or unjust) which may be brought against the City or in which the City may be impleaded with others upon any such above-mentioned matter, claim, or claims. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement will include indemnity against all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any such claims or proceedings brought thereon and the defense thereof. All of the indemnifications contained in this License Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this License Agreement. 9. Liability Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain during the term of this License Agreement a blanket or general liability insurance policy against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring in connection with the use and occupancy of the Dock Site. 10. Property Damage Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain all risk property insurance during the term of this License Agreement in an amount sufficient to cover all items of property owned, maintained, or controlled by Licensee, its members, guests and invitees on the Dock Site. 11. Transferability. Dock licenses may not be sold, assigned, licensed, or otherwise transferred in any way to any person, partnership or corporation, except that the license may be transferred to a purchaser of the license holder’s residential property within the City. Dock space may not be rented. 12. Waiver of Default. Any waiver by the City of a default under the provisions of this License Agreement will not operate or be construed as a waiver of a subsequent default by Licensee. No waiver will be valid unless in writing and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk on behalf of the City. 13. Invalidity of Provisions. If any term or provision of this License Agreement or any application hereof to any person or circumstance is to any extent found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this License Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable will not be effected thereby and each term and provision of this License Agreement will be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. Entire Agreement. This instrument together with the Lease Agreement contain the entire and only agreement between the parties and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument will have any force and effect. This License Agreement cannot be modified in any way except by writing executed by both parties. 4 15. Governing Law. This License Agreement will be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of Minnesota, as the same from time to time exists. 16. Attorney’s Fees. The Licensee shall pay all of the City’s costs, charges, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and fees of agents and others retained by the City, incurred in enforcing Licensee’s obligations hereunder or incurred by the City in any litigation, negotiation or transaction in which Licensee causes the City, without the City’s fault, to become involved or concerned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO BY: Mayor Dennis Walsh Attest:__________________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk LICENSEE: Printed Name: John Finnegan AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a CUP to install a full bathroom in a proposed accessory building. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 10th, and considered to be complete on February 16th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on April 17, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in a proposed 2,240 square foot detached garage with a gym. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. As the building is considered oversized, additional covenants will be applied. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 15, 2021, 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 CUP subject to the standard plumbing in an accessory building and OAB covenants. 5. Public Comment. No comments from the neighbors were received; and no one spoke at the public hearing. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits of 3/15/2021 A. Application & Narrative B. Proposed Survey C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Property Owners List E. Plat Map Item No.: 10 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000018 - Glenn & Nancy Solie, 3500 Bayside Road, CUP – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-916 & 78-418 FILE NO. LA21 -000018 WHEREAS, on February 10, 2021, Glenn Solie and Nancy Solie, a married couple, (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a conditional use permit pursuant to the City Code for the property addressed 3500 Bayside Road and legally described as: Lots 24 and 25, Auditor’s Subdivision Number 203 The legal description as surveyed is as follows: The East 165.23 feet of the West 808.66 feet of that part of the Northeast Quarter of Section 5, Township 117 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian which lies northerly of the northerly right-of-way line of Bayside Road and southerly of the northerly 1649.89 feet of said Northeast Quarter; ALSO, that part of the East 165.23 feet of the West 808.66 feet of said Northeast Quarter which lies southerly of the southerly right-of-way line of Bayside Road and northerly of Lake Minnetonka. NOTE: Because of the lack of dimensions on the plat of Auditor’s Subdivision No.203, and because the underlying legal descriptions are not specific to direction, the above legal description shows what the owner possibly owns. Three different abstracts were examined without a clear solution to the problem. Therefore, some type of judicial proceedings may be required to firmly establish boundaries, (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418(6) to allow plumbing which includes a shower or bathtub in an accessory building; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, 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 March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, 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/denies] the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000018. 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 Single Family Lakeshore Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.17 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 167 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for a conditional use permit for plumbing an oversized accessory building (“OAB”). An OAB covenant has already been provided by the applicants. 6. In considering this application for conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed use 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The City Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit provided the City finds that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed accessory building improvement including the plumbing fixtures are compliant with the zoning ordinance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The Property is served by a private septic system and private well. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed building is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The garage including plumbing is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the house on the property and the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed building is expected to be residential- looking in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the Property. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the building which includes plumbing is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The garage will be situated in a conforming location and will not be visible when viewed from off the Property on the street side, and the views from the neighbors will be screened by existing vegetation and the physical separation. In the opinion of staff, additional screening or buffering is not necessary. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed building with plumbing is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed building will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed building has been visually designed to conform to the residence on the property, and will not have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Further approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory building with a shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the applicants’ intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property regarding the limitations on the use. Additionally, a conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. 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 conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-418 and 78-916 to allow plumbing which includes a shower or bathtub within an OAB, 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 11-12-2020 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. The undersigned Owners hereby agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the Property providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals will expire on that date (April 12, 2022). 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 April 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 ________________________________________ Glenn Solie, Fee Owner _________________________________________ Nancy Solie, Fee Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2021, by Glenn Solie, husband of Nancy Solie. ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of _____________, 2021, by Nancy Solie, wife of Glenn Solie. ____________________________________ Notary Public D A T E : D R A W N B Y : S H E E T O F 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 P R O J E C T N A M E : B U I L D I N G D E S C R I P T I O N : , Q G X V W U L D O ' U L Y H 3 2 % R [ : L Q V W H G 0 L Q Q H V R W D J E R E M Y B . D E S I G N N U M B E R : P 2 0 4 0 7 1 5 P R O J E C T N U M B E R : ( 2 0 - 9 0 2 ) 4 0 ' - 0 " X 5 6 ' - 0 " X 1 4 ' - 6 " © A l l d r a w i n g s a n d c o n t e n t c o p y r i g h t R A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . C a l l R A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . t o o b t a i n c o p i e s o f t h i s p l a n . U n a u t h o r i z e d r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e p l a n s i s a v i o l a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w . G L E N N S O L I E A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . R ) D [ Z Z Z U D P E X L O G L Q J V F R P & R Q W U D F W R U / L F H Q V H 1 X P E H U 2 2 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " E N D W A L L 1 E N D W A L L 2 S I D E W A L L 2 S I D E W A L L 1 D A T E : D R A W N B Y : S H E E T O F 1 2 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 P R O J E C T N A M E : B U I L D I N G D E S C R I P T I O N : , Q G X V W U L D O ' U L Y H 3 2 % R [ : L Q V W H G 0 L Q Q H V R W D J E R E M Y B . D E S I G N N U M B E R : P 2 0 4 0 7 2 5 P R O J E C T N U M B E R : ( 2 0 - 9 0 2 ) 4 0 ' - 0 " X 5 6 ' - 0 " X 1 4 ' - 6 " © A l l d r a w i n g s a n d c o n t e n t c o p y r i g h t R A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . C a l l R A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . t o o b t a i n c o p i e s o f t h i s p l a n . U n a u t h o r i z e d r e p r o d u c t i o n o f t h e s e p l a n s i s a v i o l a t i o n o f f e d e r a l l a w . G L E N N S O L I E A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . R ) D [ Z Z Z U D P E X L O G L Q J V F R P & R Q W U D F W R U / L F H Q V H 1 X P E H U 8' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 3' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 20 ' P U R L I N S 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 1 0 ' P U R . 2 0 ' P U R L I N S 4 0 ' - 0 " 56 ' - 0 " 14 ' - 0 " 2 8 ' - 0 " 1 4 ' - 0 " 24 " S I D E & E N D W A L L OV E R H A N G S CO N T I N U O U S P R O F I L E V E N T A B 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 2 ' SI D E W A L L C O L U M N S S2 E1 E2 S1 F L O O R P L A N C L (3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L H E A D E R ) 3' 0 " X 6 ' 8 " 1 - L I T E W A L K D O O R R. O . = 4 0 5 / 1 6 " X 8 1 1 / 8 " KN O B / K N O B K E Y E D L A T C H W/ D E A D B O L T 40 3 0 V I N Y L S L I D I N G W I N D O W R. O . = 4 8 " X 3 6 " ( ) - T O P O F W I N D O W A T 1 7 ' - 3 / 4 " NO T E : T O P O F W I N D O W S T O MA T C H T O P O F W A L K D O O R S UN L E S S O T H E R W I S E N O T E D 16 ' X 1 2 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 4 ' 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 8 ' 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 4 ' (3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L H E A D E R ) 16 ' X 1 2 ' OV E R H E A D D O O R C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L C L B B B B B A 14 ' M A N S A R D ED G E E D G E E D G E E D G E 4 P L Y C O L U M N S A T O H D ' S HE A D E R T O B E A R O N ( 2 ) P L I E S EA C H E N D 36 " D I A . X 1 2 " TH I C K F O O T I N G 36 " D I A . X 1 2 " TH I C K F O O T I N G 36 " D I A . X 1 2 " TH I C K F O O T I N G HE A D E R S U P P O R T E D AT E X T E R I O R W A L L CO L U M N B Y A S I M P S O N HU C Q 4 1 0 - S D S H A N G E R 24 " C U P O L A W / WE A T H E R V A N E 24 " C U P O L A W / WE A T H E R V A N E 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 8 ' C L B * * C L 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 4 ' 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 8 ' 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 4 ' 3 P L Y 2 X 6 - 2 8 ' A A E P A A E P AT T I C A C C E S S EL E C T R I C A L PA N E L N S E W DA T E : DR A W N B Y : SH E E T OF 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 P R O J E C T N A M E : BU I L D I N G D E S C R I P T I O N : 59 2 I n d u s t r i a l D r i v e P. O . B o x 6 6 0 Wi n s t e d , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 5 JE R E M Y B . DE S I G N N U M B E R : P 2 0 4 0 7 2 5 P R O J E C T N U M B E R : ( 2 0 - 9 0 2 ) 4 0 ' - 0 " X 5 6 ' - 0 " X 1 4 ' - 6 " © All drawings and content copyright RAM Buildings Inc. Call RAM Buildings Inc. to obtain copies of this plan. Unauthorized reproduction of these plans is a violation of federal law. G L E N N S O L I E A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . R 32 0 - 4 8 5 - 2 8 4 4 8 0 0 - 7 1 0 - 4 7 2 6 Fa x 3 2 0 - 4 8 5 - 3 6 2 5 ww w . r a m b u i l d i n g s . c o m Co n t r a c t o r L i c e n s e N u m b e r 2 0 1 7 1 9 7 6 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 3'-0" 16'-0" 3'-0" 16'-0" 2'-0" 8'-0" 8'-0" 8' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 20' PURLINS 20' PURLINS 10' PUR. 20' PURLINS 40 ' - 0 " 56'-0" 14'-0" 28'-0" 14'-0" 24" SIDE & ENDWALL OVERHANGS CONTINUOUS PROFILEVENT A B 3 PLY 2X6-22' SIDEWALL COLUMNS S2 E1 E2 S1 FLOOR PLAN CL (3 PLY 14" LVL HEADER) 3'0" X 6'8" 1-LITE WALKDOOR R.O.= 40 5/16" X 81 1/8" KNOB/KNOB KEYED LATCH W/ DEADBOLT 4030 VINYL SLIDING WINDOW R.O.= 48" X 36" ( ) - TOP OF WINDOW AT 17'-3/4" NOTE: TOP OF WINDOWS TO MATCH TOP OF WALKDOORS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 16' X 12' OVERHEAD DOOR 3 PLY 2X6-24' 3 PLY 2X6-28' 3 PLY 2X6-24' (3 PLY 14" LVL HEADER) 16' X 12' OVERHEAD DOOR CL CL CL CL CL CL CL C L C L C L C L C L C L B B BBB A 14' MANSARD EDGE EDGE EDGE EDGE 4 PLY COLUMNS AT OHD'S HEADER TO BEAR ON (2) PLIES EACH END 36" DIA. X 12" THICK FOOTING 36" DIA. X 12" THICK FOOTING 36" DIA. X 12" THICK FOOTING HEADER SUPPORTED AT EXTERIOR WALL COLUMN BY A SIMPSON HUCQ410-SDS HANGER 24" CUPOLA W/ WEATHERVANE 24" CUPOLA W/ WEATHERVANE 3 PLY 2X6-28'C L B * * C L 3 PLY 2X6-24' 3 PLY 2X6-28' 3 PLY 2X6-24' 3 PLY 2X6-28' A A E P A A E P ATTIC ACCESS ELECTRICAL PANEL N S EW DA T E : DR A W N B Y : SH E E T OF 12 / 1 0 / 2 0 2 0 P R O J E C T N A M E : BU I L D I N G D E S C R I P T I O N : 59 2 I n d u s t r i a l D r i v e P. O . B o x 6 6 0 Wi n s t e d , M i n n e s o t a 5 5 3 9 5 JE R E M Y B . DE S I G N N U M B E R : P 2 0 4 0 7 1 5 P R O J E C T N U M B E R : ( 2 0 - 9 0 2 ) 4 0 ' - 0 " X 5 6 ' - 0 " X 1 4 ' - 6 " © All drawings and content copyright RAM Buildings Inc. Call RAM Buildings Inc. to obtain copies of this plan. Unauthorized reproduction of these plans is a violation of federal law. G L E N N S O L I E A M B u i l d i n g s I n c . R 32 0 - 4 8 5 - 2 8 4 4 8 0 0 - 7 1 0 - 4 7 2 6 Fa x 3 2 0 - 4 8 5 - 3 6 2 5 ww w . r a m b u i l d i n g s . c o m Co n t r a c t o r L i c e n s e N u m b e r 2 0 1 7 1 9 7 6 22 ' - 1 1 5 / 8 " ENDWALL 1 ENDWALL 2 SIDEWALL 2 SIDEWALL 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. LA21-000018 GLENN SOLIE, 3500 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Nancy Solie, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a bathroom including a shower in an accessory building to be constructed. Staff recommends approval pursuant to the standard conditions for CUPs for plumbing. Nancy Solie, 3500 Bayside Road, noted her husband Glenn had to catch a flight and the Commission may know more about it than she does. Ressler noted it is pretty straightforward, they have seen it before. Ms. Solie noted they are not planning on renting it out, it is just in the backyard. Curtis clarified it is a gym with a bathroom. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:25 p.m. Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000018, 3500 Bayside Rd, Conditional Use Permit as applied based on Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 02/10/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/16/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/17/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 March 2021 Subject: #LA21-000018, Glenn Solie, 3500 Bayside Rd, CUP Public Hearing Background The applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in a proposed 2,240 square foot detached garage. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. As the building is considered oversized, additional covenants will be applied. Applicable Regulations: Plumbing in the Accessory Building CUP (Section 78-418(6)) The proposed building is permitted. The applicant’s request to install a bathroom with full bathing facilities requires a CUP. The building is a conforming size, and proposed in a conforming location. Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed accessory building improvement including the plumbing fixtures are compliant with the zoning ordinance. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by a private septic system and private well. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install a full bathroom, including shower, in a new accessory garage building. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA20-000059 19 Oct 2020 Page 2 of 3 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed building is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The garage including plumbing is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the house on the property and the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed building is expected to be residential- looking in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the Property. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the building which includes plumbing is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The garage will be situated in a conforming location and will not be visible when viewed from off the Property on the street side, and the views from the neighbors will be screened by existing vegetation and the physical separation. In the opinion of staff, additional screening or buffering is not necessary. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed building with plumbing is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed building will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed building has been visually designed to conform to the residence on the property, and will not have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Further approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory building with a shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the applicants’ intended use of the accessory building. FILE # LA20-000059 19 Oct 2020 Page 3 of 3 3. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. 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 as allowed by the Zoning Code? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the approval, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the property owners’ agreement to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property addressing the plumbing, providing that the garage will not be: 1. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. 3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Property Owners List Exhibit E. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: Approved By 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the keeping of honey bees. 2. Background. The applicant is requesting to keep honey bees on their property. The definition of Farm Animals includes honeybees, but the definition of Animal Unit, used to regulate farm animal density, does not include honeybees. Farm animals require a condition use permit on the LR-1A district meeting city code standards include lot size and setbacks. The applicant is proposed 2-4 hives with a maximum of 6. Generally, one hive is roughly 20” in length, 16” wide and 10” tall. The city code is silent on number of hives allowed. The applicant has been coordinating with the University of Minnesota to find a good fit for his property. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on February 25, 2021. Following the 60- day rule the application will expire April 24, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment The planning commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2021. Following the public hearing the planning commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested CUP with a maximum of 6 hives total. 5. Public Comment. The applicant submitted neighbor letters in support of the application. The neighbor at 3500 Bayside, Mrs. Solie, spoke at the meeting in support of the application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. DRAFT PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Narrative C. Proposed Site Plan D. Neighbor Comments E. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 11 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000019 – Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-303 FILE NO. LA21-000019 WHEREAS, on February 15, 2021, Todd Ziesmer (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3440 Bayside Rd and legally described in exhibit A, hereinafter the “Property”; WHEREAS, the Applicant have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit per Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-303 to allow farm animals for honey bees within the LR-1A District; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000019. 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-1AZoning District. 3. The Property contains 2.03 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 116 feet. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 4. The Property is in the Tier 1 Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following Conditional Use Permit: a. Farm Animals (Honeybees) 6. The Orono City Council requires certain standards for keeping of farm animals; these standards are met. 7. In considering this application for conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed application upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; Farm Animals in the LR-1A zoning district is consistent with the Community Management Plan. This is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Farm Animals use is listed as a permitted conditional use in the LR-1A district. This criteria is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by City sewer and water. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The use will not generate an excessive demand on public services. This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; Farm animals are a permitted accessory use in the neighboring rural districts. Properties meeting the sizing requirements are able to support farm animal use in the lakeshore district. This criteria is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; no change of character is called for, the use is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The applicant is not proposing changes to the character of the site. Up to Honeybee hives are being proposed in the rear of the home meeting all setback requirements. This is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; the use is not expected to impair the use and or enjoyment of neighboring properties and should not negatively impact property values. This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Staff does not anticipate the need for screening. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the use shall comply with city and state codes, and shall not create a nuisance. This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; allowing honeybees on a residential property will not impact parking or traffic. This is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed hives will be located in the rear of the property meeting all setback requirements. No scenic or environmental impacts should be impacted. This is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lighting is proposed. This is met. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. Allowing honeybees should not prove detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. This is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-303 to allow Farm Animals for Honeybees subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 3. The conditional use permit granted by this resolution runs with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by placing at least 1 hive within CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (April 12, 2022). 4. A maximum of 6 honeybee hives are permitted per Planning Commission recommendation. 5. Relocation of the hives may require City approval. Please confirm prior to relocation. 6. Additionally, the conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. 7. 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 April, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Exhibit A Property Legal Description: 3440 Bayside Road - Ziesmer Beehives Beehivess Ziesmer Bee Colony Site Plan Vaughan home set back Henning Home Legend: Gray space - 75' property line set back Red space - 150' residence set back Yellow space - bee colony zone Property Address: 3440 Bayside Road REVISED Ziesmer Bee Colony Description Dear Orono City Planner and Council, The purpose of this letter is to notify you that my wife and I have recently submitted a conditional use permit application to begin our new hobby of beekeeping this spring. Our family has lived at 3440 Bayside Road for 32 years and have thoroughly enjoyed the beauty of our community. Marie and I appreciate the space many of us have to beautify our properties with flower gardens, enjoy fresh vegetables from our gardens, tend and harvest fruit trees, and even provide delicious vegetation for the deer population. Having bee colonies on our property will enhance production and beauty of these plants in our neighborhood. The Orono City Code defines bee colonies in the same category as farm animals and requires at least one acre for the property dwelling and one acre for each animal unit – with which our 2.03 acre property complies. There is no clear definition in the code establishing how many beehives are equivalent to an animal unit, so the city planner asked that I work with the University of Minnesota Bee Squad to determine the appropriate number of hives for our property. The feedback received from the Bee Squad is they are currently studying the optimal amount of space per bee hive, but they are not ready to offer a recommendation for my permit. Their suggestion is to start small and grow to a point that the hives will be sustainable. We plan to start with two to four hives and potentially grow to as many as six hives, if that number can be sustainable. Please note: a certain number of bee colonies often do not survive the winter (a higher risk for new beekeepers) – which is why we intend to start with two to four hives. The code states that any building or structure associated with the animals is located more than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and at least 75 fee from the nearest lot line. The site plan submitted indicates the area where the beehives will be located based on these parameters. Also submitted is an aerial view of neighboring properties and the location of the beehive zone. To help us start our hobby off on the right foot, we have enrolled in the University of Minnesota Bee Squad online course entitled “Beekeeping in Northern Climates” that takes us through two seasons of beekeeping and has been a terrific resource. We have also joined the West Metro Bee Club (based at Otten Bros Garden Center) and we look forward to sharing experiences with fellow beekeepers in our area. A cover letter and beehive site map was mailed to nine neighbors on February 20. As of this writing, I have received positive and encouraging feedback from Tim and Natalie Vaughan, Chris and Margaret Flury, and Lynn Walstedt, with no negative responses. It is important to know that bees only forage on plant nectar and pollen and are not attracted sugar water for hummingbirds, jelly for orioles, or human food/drinks (it is yellow jacket wasps that are attracted to these items). Thank you for your help and I look forward to working through the approval process with you! Todd Ziesmer 3440 Bayside Road Orono, MN 55356 tziesmer@usfamily.net 612-250-9293 ORIGINAL Ziesmer Bee Colony Description Dear Orono City Planner and Council, The purpose of this letter is to notify you that my wife and I have recently submitted a conditional use permit application to begin our new hobby of beekeeping this spring. Our family has lived at 3440 Bayside Road for 32 years and have thoroughly enjoyed the beauty of our community. Marie and I appreciate the space many of us have to beautify our properties with flower gardens, enjoy fresh vegetables from our gardens, tend and harvest fruit trees, and even provide delicious vegetation for the deer population. Having bee colonies on our property will enhance production and beauty of these plants in our neighborhood. The Orono City Code defines bee colonies in the same category as farm animals and requires at least one acre for the property dwelling and one acre for each animal unit – with which our 2.03 acre property complies. There is no clear definition in the code establishing how many beehives are equivalent to an animal unit, so the city planner asked that I work with the University of Minnesota Bee Squad to determine the appropriate number of hives for our property. Contact was initiated February 6 and I’m waiting for a response. The code states that any building or structure associated with the animals is located more than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and at least 75 fee from the nearest lot line. The site plan submitted indicates the area where the beehives will be located based on these parameters. To help us start our hobby off on the right foot, we have enrolled in the University of Minnesota Bee Squad online course entitled “Beekeeping in Northern Climates” that takes us through two seasons of beekeeping and has been a terrific resource. We have also joined the West Metro Bee Club (based at Otten Bros Garden Center) and we look forward to sharing experiences with fellow beekeepers in our area. Finally, I have listed a few facts and benefits of having bees in our neighborhood (source - https://www.benefits-of-honey.com): Bees are responsible for pollinating 70 of the 100 crops that provide 90% of the world’s food. It is the only insect that produces food eaten by humans. Honey is the only food that includes all the substances necessary to sustain life, including enzymes, vitamins, minerals, and water; and it's the only food that contains "pinocembrin", an antioxidant associated with improved brain functioning. A honey bee can fly for up to six miles, and as fast as 15 miles per hour. It takes one ounce of honey to fuel a bee's flight around the world (National Honey Board). A honey bee visits 50 to 100 flowers during a collection trip. A colony of bees consists of 20,000-60,000 honeybees and one queen. Worker honey bees are female, live for about 6 weeks and do all the work. Each honey bee colony has a unique odor for members' identification. Only worker bees sting, and only if they feel threatened and they die once they sting. Queens have a stinger, but they don't leave the hive to help defend it. It is estimated that 1100 honey bee stings are required to be fatal. Thank you for your help and I look forward to working through the approval process with you! Todd Ziesmer 3440 Bayside Road Orono, MN 55356 tziesmer@usfamily.net 612-250-9293 4. LA21-000019 TODD ZIESMER, 3440 BAYSIDE RD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Todd Ziesmer, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow honey bees on their property. Planning Department Staff is recommending approval. The definition for farm animals includes honey bees and farm animals require a CUP in the LR1A district meeting City code standards and those conditions are lot size and setbacks. The Applicant is proposing to have 2-4 hives with a maximum of 6. City code is silent on number of hives allowed. The Applicant has been coordinating with the University of Minnesota bee squad to find the best fit appropriate for their size and location of property. A narrative is included in the exhibits with additional information from the Applicant. Regarding setbacks, one of the conditions for the CUP is that all animal structures are required to be 75 feet from all property lines and 150 feet from adjacent homes. The Applicant submitted a site plan indicating all these setbacks are met with the proposed location. Another requirement of the CUP is that 1 acre of their land is dedicated to dwelling and 1 acre is dedicated for each animal unit. This is just over 2 acres in size so Staff feels this is met. All conditions outlined by the City code are met with no adverse impacts anticipated for the use of hives and honey bees. The Applicant submitted comments of support from the neighbors and the issues for consideration, if the Planning Commission finds it necessary to impose any additional conditions in order to mitigate any potential impacts by allowing this CUP. Ressler clarified this is a CUP, setbacks are being met per code, and there is support from the neighbors. Oakden replied that is correct. Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, said it is very straightforward, no variances, everything complies, and he is looking forward to his new hobby. He sent out letters introducing the project to 8-9 of his neighbors and has received very positive feedback. One neighbor had just a few questions and the primary concern some have about bees is them being a nuisance. He wants to clarify that honey bees are very different than wasps. Honey bees forage on natural plants, nectar, and pollen, so they will not be bothering the hummingbird feeder, oils, jellies, and when sitting outside honey bees stick to the flowers and the plants. Mr. Ziesmer noted they are amazing and he and his wife have been contemplating it for a couple of years. They are enrolled in the University of Minnesota bee squad online program and it is very fascinating. All neighbors that have responded have said they are looking forward to the bees helping out all of the gardens and flowers. Erickson noted Mr. Ziesmer may want to go up to 6 hives and asked if he would be comfortable with a limitation of not more than 6. Ms. Ziesmer would be fine with that, yes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. The neighbor two doors down Ms. Solie, 3500 Bayside Rd, noted she received the letter, she is totally in support of it, and thinks it is fantastic. She is very much in favor. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:32 p.m. Ressler said setbacks are met, neighbors are in support, and there is a recommendation from Erickson to limit to 6 hives which he thinks is smart because if it turns into a larger operation the Commission can revisit it. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000019, 3440 Bayside Rd, Conditional Use Permit with the recommendation of a cap of 6 hives. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 Date Application Received: 02/15/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/25/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/24/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Planner Date: March 15, 2021 Subject: #LA21-000019, Todd Ziesmer, 3440 Bayside Road, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Background The applicant is requesting to keep honey bees on their property. The definition of Farm Animals includes honeybees, but the definition of Animal Unit, used to regulate farm animal density, does not include honeybees. Farm animals require a condition use permit on the LR-1A district meeting city code standards include lot size and setbacks. The applicant is proposed 2-4 hives with a maximum of 6. Generally, one hive is roughly 20” in length, 16” wide and 10” tall. The city code is silent on number of hives allowed. The applicant has been coordinating with the University of Minnesota to find a good fit for his property. A narrative is included as Exhibit B. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-303 - Setbacks: All animal structures are required to be 75’ from all property lines and 150’ from adjacent homes. The applicant has submitted a site plan indicating all setbacks will be met. Section 78- 303 - Lot Area/Width: Farm Animal Lot Minimum Lot Area Required 1 acre for a dwelling + 1 acre for each animal unit Actual 2.03 acres This criteria is met. Applicable Regulations: Conditional Uses: Keeping of farm nnimals (78-303) (3)Keeping of farm animals for noncommercial purposes and for the use of the occupants of premises, provided that: 1. Where the applicant requests a conditional use permit to keep farm animals other than horses, there must be at least one acre for the dwelling and one acre for each animal unit. Calculations of minimum acreage required shall not include any Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow the keeping of honey bees. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA21-000019 March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 3 land defined as a wetland or wetland buffer under section 78-1602. The applicant has 2.03 acres of land and can meet the land size requirements of this code. 2. Any building or structure associated with the animals is located more than 150 feet from the nearest adjacent residence and at least 75 feet from the nearest lot line. The applicant has submitted a site plan which indicates a conforming envelope in the rear of the lot. Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; Farm Animals in the LR-1A zoning district is consistent with the Community Management Plan. This is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Farm Animals use is listed as a permitted conditional use in the LR-1A district. This criteria is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by City sewer and water. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The use will not generate an excessive demand on public services. This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; Farm animals are a permitted accessory use in the neighboring rural districts. Properties meeting the sizing requirements are able to support farm animal use in the lakeshore district. This criteria is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; no change of character is called for, the use is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The applicant is not proposing changes to the character of the site. Honeybee hives are being proposed in the rear of the home meeting all setback requirements. This is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; the use is not expected to impair the use and or enjoyment of neighboring properties and should not negatively impact property values. This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Staff does not anticipate the need for screening. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the use shall comply with city and state codes, and shall not create a nuisance. This criterion is met. LA21-000019 March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 3 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; allowing honeybees on a residential property will not impact parking or traffic. This is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed hives will be located in the rear of the property meeting all setback requirements. No scenic or environmental impacts should be impacted. This is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; No lighting is proposed. This is met. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. Allowing honeybees should not prove detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. This is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The applicant is proposed to have honeybee on the residential property. All the conditional outlined by the City Code are met. No adverse impacts are anticipated with the proposed use of honeybees and the hive locations. Public Comments The applicant submitted comments of support from the neighbors. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested Conditional Use Permit ? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit D. Neighbor Comments Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, front yard setback and side yard setback variances for a new home. 2. Background. The applicant is planning to construct a new home on the property. Currently, the property has a nonconforming 855 sq. ft single family home. The applicant is proposing to place the new home with a slightly larger front yard setback and similar side yard setback. The proposed front yard setback is 35.4 feet. The proposed side yard setbacks are 19’ to the north and 22 feet to the south. The applicant is proposing a 2 story home with a walk out basement. The property is nonconforming with respect to area (0.64 acres) and in width (93’), where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300’ in width. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on March 2, 2021. Following the 60-day review period this application would expire May 1, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment The planning commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2021. Following the public hearing the planning commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variances. The planning commission appreciated the applicant’s efforts to design a home that meets the needs of the property. 5. Public Comment. The applicant submitted letters of support from the two abutting neighbors. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Plans C. DRAFT PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Narrative F. Neighbor Letters G. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 12 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000020 – Jacob Brown, 4085 Watertown Road, 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 78-395 and 78-72 FILE NO. LA21-000020 WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, Jacob Brown (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 4085 Watertown Road and legally described as: That part of SE ¼ Sec. 31,T 118, R23, beginning at intersection of CL of Watertown Road, with east line of west 10 acres of that part of east ½ of SE ¼ lying east of west 35 rods and southerly of CL said road and northerly of luce line trail; thence south along said east line 396 ft thence right at right angles 72.94 feet; thence north at right angles 299.6 feet : thence west at right angles 9.56 feet; thence north at right angles to CL of said road: thence sely along said CL to point of beginning. Except road, Hennepin County, MN (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-72 to allow lot area and lot width variance; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 395 to allow 35.4’ front yard setback, 19’ north side setback and 23’ south side setback; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, 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 March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, 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: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000020. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.64 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 73’ feet. 4. The Property is within the ”exempt” tier according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Front yard setback b. Side yard setbacks 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 necessary to improve this existing substandard lot. The side yard and front yard setback variance request is 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 to use the property in a reasonable CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming building 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 area and width, 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 by construction of the residence. 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 home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and width of the lot within the RR-1A zoning district is unique, and supports approval of 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 is unique within the existing 5-acre zoning district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant stated this is true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting 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 applicant has stated the narrow lot results in setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. 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 Sections 78-395 and 78-72 to allow variance for a new home, subject to the following conditions: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated February 9, 2021 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 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 within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (April 12, 2022). 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 12 day of April 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 5. LA21-000020 JACOB BROWN, 4085 WATERTOWN RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Jacob Brown & Stacy Kromenhoek, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a lot area, lot width, front yard setback, and side yard setback variances to allow for a new home on 4085 Watertown Road. The Planning Staff is recommending approval on these requested variances. Currently the property has a non- conforming single-family home which is outlined on the survey on screen. The property is non-conforming. With respect to area, it is .64 acres and measured at the road is about 93 feet wide. This is the RR1A zoning district which is a five-acre zoning district, and 300 feet in width. The Applicant noted overall height is roughly 35 feet from final grade to peak height, following the City code calculations for defined height, Staff has actually calculated the proposed height of the home to be 28.3 feet so it is meeting the height requirements of City code. Oakden said the Applicant has identified practical difficulties, the overlapping side yard setbacks, as seen on the survey there is a 50-foot side yard setback and she showed from the north side and the south side completely overlapping, eliminating that building envelope. Oakden noted the substandard lot area, lot width, and there is also quite a bit of slope in getting to the narrow part of the property. Staff agrees with the Applicant’s findings of the reasons for practical difficulties. The Applicant is proposing to move the house further away from the front yard setback than the existing home footprint and working to bring that home closer into conformity. The existing home sits about 21 feet from the road and the Applicant is proposing a farther setback of 35.4 feet from the road. The required front yard is a 100-foot setback. The Applicant worked to find a narrow house design of 28 feet in width to try and accommodate some spacing and side yard setbacks, closely maintaining that existing house footprint. The proposed home was designed to create as large setbacks as possible and the Applicant is requesting 19 feet to the property line because of the proposed deck stairs, and 23 feet to the west property line and that is measured from the closest point (noted on screen) due to the strange configuration of the lot with the small jut-in on the property line. Lot area and lot width variances are because the lot is substandard in the new house construction. Staff found supportive findings for the proposed variance included in the memo. The Applicant submitted letters of support from the two abutting neighbors. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, front, and side yard setback variances. Ressler noted the zoning is what is making this a bit of a rat’s nest as there is 19 for one side setback and 23 on the other; they are going to 35 as proposed to 21 right now for front yard setback. Oakden stated that is correct. 21 was the existing house and 35 is the proposed house, so they are bringing the house slightly farther back away from the road. Ressler said improving the position. Oakden replied that is correct. Stacy Kromenhoek and Jacob Brown, 1025 West Cove Lane. Mr. Kromenhoek thanked the Commissioners for voting for the bees - as future neighbors in that area they are thrilled to hear that. She also thanked the City Planners who were immensely helpful as this is a very difficult process and they really held the Applicant’s hands. As the Commissioners see they have a very unique lot, she is difficult but quite pretty and they are trying to make a best attempt at meeting all the setbacks or at least improving their compliance to the setbacks. They chose a very narrow house design that would probably fit within the room they are standing in now and pulled it as far back off the road as possible. They also tried to reorient the house – it was sitting at a funny angle on the lot – so they could get equal setbacks on both sides. They have met with the neighbors and spent a considerable amount of time talking with them and let them know they were trying to make it equal on both sides. She noted it is about 22 feet on the other side except for those stairs and they were all amenable to that. They also received an additional letter of support from the neighbor across the road, the owner of Dandelion Farms. They also intend to build the home to make it fit the flavor, character, and charm of the neighborhood. It is a very rural, residential area and the home they chose reflects that farmhouse style as well and really complements the neighbors’ designs. Ms. Kromenhoek noted they read through the Comprehensive Plan as it was important to her to understand what was expected and she thinks they have made all best attempts to meet the variances and the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:39 p.m. Ressler noted they have an existing condition that is being improved as far as front yard setbacks, side yard setbacks are reasonable and are just being triggered because of how it is being zoned. They have support from the Staff. He asked if there is anyone opposed to the application as presented to the Commission tonight. McCutcheon replied no and it is a pretty conservative house footprint to be honest. Ressler agrees and thinks they have approved different things more aggressive than this. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000020, 4085 Watertown Rd, Variances as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 Date Application Received: 02/17/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/02/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 05/01/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Planner Date: March 15, 2021 Subject: LA21-000020, Jacob Brown, 4085 Watertown Road, Variances, Public Hearing Background The applicant is planning to construct a new home on the property. Currently, the property has a nonconforming 855 sq. ft single family home. The applicant is proposing to place the new home with a slightly larger front yard setback, similar side yard setback. The applicant is proposing a 2 story home with a walk out basement. The property is nonconforming with respect to area with 0.64 acres and in 93’ in width, where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300’ in width. The applicant noted a overall height of roughly 35’ from final grade to peak height. Following how the City Code calculates defined height, staff has calculated the height of the proposed home at 28.3’. The project conforms to the height limit. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the overlapping side yard setbacks, substandard lot area, width the topography of the lot as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Staff agrees with this finding. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width, front yard setback and side yard setback variances for a new home. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the approval. LA21-000020 March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and width creating overlapping side yard setbacks. The applicant is proposing to move the house further away from the front yard setback then the existing home footprint working to bring the home closer to conforming. Meeting the front yard setback is limited due to the grading of the lot supporting variances for a new home. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 - Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required Existing Proposed Front 100’ 21’ 35.4 Rear 100’ Roughly 300’ Side (north) 50’ 22’ 22’ (House) 19’(Deck Stairs) Side (south) 50’ 35’ 23’ Section 78- 395 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300’ Actual 28,526 s.f. (0.64 acre) 73’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 28,526 s.f. (0.64 acre) Allowed: 5,705 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 1,444 s.f. (5%) Applicable Regulations: Front and Side Yard Setback (78-395) The required front yard setback is 100 feet. The existing house is located 21 feet from the front property line. The new proposed home is 35.4 feet from the front property line bringing the overall home closer to conformance. Due to the topography and the grade drop off in the rear of the home creates a limited buildable space. The required side yard setback is 50 feet. The lot is 93 feet in width at the road and 73 feet for the defined width at the 100 foot front yard setback. This creates an overlapping side yard setback and eliminates a buildable envelope for a home on the property. The existing home had a 22 feet setback to the east and 35 feet setback to the west. The proposed home was design to create as large of a setback as possible due to the narrow home design. The applicant is requesting a 19’ to the east property line due to the proposed deck stairs. They are requesting 23 feet to the west property line due to unique lot shape. Lot Area and Width: Lots of Record outside the Shoreland Overlay District (78-72) B. (3) In R or RR districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R or RR district in the city not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of this chapter and shall not be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval. Administrative approval may be granted for a lot of record LA21-000020 March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 5 not meeting the lot area and width requirements if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: a) The lot area and lot width each meet at least 50 percent of the district standard. Not Met b) Suitable primary and alternate septic sites are identified on the property and are protected from future development by execution of a covenant. Not Met c) All other zoning ordinance requirements must be met, including but not limited to the following: 1. Setbacks. Not Met 2. Hardcover. N/A 3. Lot coverage by structures. Met 4. Accessory structure requirements. N/A 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 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 side yard and front yard setback variance request is 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 to use the property in a reasonable manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming building 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 area and width, and LA21-000020 March 15, 2021 Page 4 of 5 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered by construction 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 a single family home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and width of the lot within the RR- 1A zoning district is unique, and supports approval of 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 is unique within the existing 5-acre zoning district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant stated this is true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting 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 applicant has stated the narrow lot results in 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. Public Comments The applicant submitted letters of support from the two abutting neighbors. 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? LA21-000020 March 15, 2021 Page 5 of 5 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area, lot width, front and side yard setback variances. 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. Narrative Exhibit F. Neighbor Letters Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By 1. Purpose. Consider a resolution approving a side yard setback variance. 2. Background. The property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2 foot setback to the north, and a 15.5 setback to the south, addressing the neighbors comment to create maximum setback to the north. The applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback. The new application is maintaining the varied side yard setbacks but in some areas, the home occupies areas not originally considered. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on March 1, 2021. Following the 60-day rules the application expired April 30, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The planning commission held a public hearing on March 15, 2021. Following the public hearing the planning commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variances. The planning commission commented on the same home placements as previously approved but with a slightly different footprint. They found the changes to be similar as to the previous approvals. 5. Public Comment. No public comments were submitted. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. DRAFT PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Overlay & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Narrative F. Septic Report G. LA20-000071 Approval Resolution H. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 13 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000022 – Alliance Builders o/b/o Efim Shukalovich, 15 Stubbs Bay Road, PID 3211823340006, 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 78-395 FILE NO. LA21-000022 WHEREAS, on March 1, 2021, Alliance Builders o/b/o Efim Shukalovich (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 15 Stubbs Bay Road (PID 3211823340006) and legally described as: That part of the SE ¼ of the SW ¼ of Section 32, Township 118 North, Range 23 West of the 5th Principal Meridian described as follows: The South 264 feet of the East 462.89 feet of said SE ¼ of SW ¼, EXCEPT the North 123.75 feet thereof; and EXCEPT that portion thereof lying South of the following described line: commencing at a point one rod North of the Southeast corner of said SE ¼ of SW 1/4, thence West 462.78 feet; and EXCEPT road. (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to allow for side yard setbacks; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, 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 March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021 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 #LA21-000022. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.2 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 123.77 feet. 4. The Property is exempt from hardcover restrictions according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Side yard setback 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The side yard setback variance request is 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 to use the property in a reasonable manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming building 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 area and width, 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 by construction of the residence. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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 home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and width of the lot within the RR-1A zoning district is unique, and supports approval of the requested side yard 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 is unique within the existing 5-acre zoning district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant stated this is true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting 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 applicant has stated the narrow lot results in setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-395 to allow side yard setback subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 02/17/2021 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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 (April 12, 2022). 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, Mayo ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 12" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:07:58 PM A101Cover Page 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. PL A N I N F O R M A T I O N CO D E I N F O R M A T I O N Sh e e t L i s t Sh e e t Nu m b e r Sh e e t N a m e A1 0 1 C o v e r P a g e A1 0 2 E l e v a t i o n s A1 0 3 F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t A1 0 4 M a i n L e v e l A1 0 5 U p p e r L e v e l A1 0 6 R o o f P l a n A1 0 7 S e c t i o n A1 0 8 D e t a i l P a g e 1 A1 0 9 D e t a i l P a g e 2 Area Schedule Ar e a L e v e l N a m e 17 1 4 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l F i n i s h e d B a s e m e n t 20 7 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l M e c h R o o m 55 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l S t a i r s 47 2 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l S p o r t s C o u r t 21 1 7 S F M a i n L e v e l M a i n L e v e l 10 8 S F M a i n L e v e l F r o n t P o r c h 92 3 S F M a i n L e v e l G a r a g e 30 2 S F M a i n L e v e l D e c k 11 2 8 S F U p p e r L e v e l U p p e r L e v e l SI T E P L A N B Y O T H E R S AL L P L A N S A R E T O B E R E V I E W E D B Y T H E G E N E R A L CO N T R A C T O R A N D T H E M U N I C I P A L B U I L D I N G OF F I C I A L P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . AV A S T U D I O L L C . I S N O T R E S P O N S I B L E FO R A N Y P R O B L E M A S A R E S U L T O F A N E R R O R OM I S S I O N O N T H E S E P L A N S . FR A M I N G N O T E S : -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S T O B E 2 X 6 @ 1 6 " O . C . WI T H A D O U B L E T O P P L A T E U N L E S S OT H E R W I S E N O T E D . -WA L L F R A M I N G S H A L L B E S . P . F . S T U D G R A D E OR B E T T E R U N L E S S N O T E D O T H E R W I S E (U . N . O . ) -AL L H E A D E R S S H A L L B E ( 2 ) - 2X 1 0 U . N . O . -EX T E R I O R S H E A T H I N G S H A L L B E 7 / 1 6 " MA T E R I A L C O N S I S T I N G O F O R I E N T E D S T R A N D BO A R D ( O S B ) . -AL L F L O O R A N D C E I L I N G S Y S T E M S T O CH E C K E D A N D D E S I G N E D B Y T H E D E S I G N A T E D MA N U F A C T U R E R . T R U S S P L A N S T O B E O N S I T E @ T I M E O F F R A M I N G -PR E S S U R E T R E A T E D W O O D I S T O B E U S E D WH E R E W O O D I S I N C O N T A C T W I T H C O N C R E T E AN D A T 2 X 6 M U D S I L L . T R E A T E D M E M B E R S T O BE S . Y . P . # 2 O R B E T T E R . -FO R O P E N I N G S I N E X T E R I O R W A L L S ( O R WA L L S W I T H L A T E R A L L O A D I N G : a) 0 ' -0" - 4' -0" = 1 J A C K S T U D b) 4 ' -0" - 8' -0" = 2 J A C K S T U D S c) 8 ' -0" - 12 ' -0" = 3 J A C K S T U D S d) G R E A T E R T H E N 1 2 ' = C O N S U L T E N G I N E E R . -PO S T S C A L L E D O U T A R E N U M B E R O F K I N G ST U D S R E Q U I R E D P E R S I D E O F O P E N I N G . CO N C R E T E N O T E S : -AL L C O N C R E T E F O O T I N G S A N D F O U N D A T I O N SY S T E M S A R E D E S I G N E D F O R A 2 0 0 0 P . S . F . SO I L -FO U N D A T I O N W A L L S S H A L L B E F U L L H E I G H T AT U N B A L A N C E D F I L L G R E A T E R T H E N 3 ' -4" -1/ 2 " A N C H O R B O L T S E M B E D D E D 7 " M I N I M U M @ 4 ' O . C . M A X . 1 2 " M I N . F R O M E A C H E N D . MI N I M U M O F 2 B O L T S I N E A C H S I L L P L A T E -PA D F O O T I N G S R E I N F O R C E M E N T I S T O B E LO C A T E D 3 " F R O M B O T T O M O F F O O T I N G T Y P . (W H E N R E Q U I R E D ) -CO N T R A C T O R I S R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L ST E E L R E B A R S I Z I N G P E R S T A T E A N D L O C A L BU I L D I N G C O D E S -MI N . 5 0 0 0 P S I C O N C R E T E @ A L L F O O T I N G S IN S U L A T I O N : -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S T O H A V E A M I N I M U M RA T I N G O F R -20 -AL L A T T I C S P A C E S A R E T O H A V E A M I N I M U M RA T I N G O F R -49 -AL L F L O O R S P A C E S O V E R U N C O N D I T I O N E D SP A C E O R C A N T I L E V E R E D A R E T O H A V E A MI N I M U M R A T I N G O F R -30 SH E E T R O C K : -AL L C E I L I N G S A R E T O H A V E 5 / 8 " N O N -SA G G Y P S U M BO A R D U . N . O . -AL L W A L L S A R E T O H A V E 1 / 2 " G Y P S U M B O A R D U . N . O . -GA R A G E C E I L I N G A N D W A L L S T H A T A D J O I N H O U S E WA L L S A R E T O B E 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " G Y P S U M B O A R D U . N . O . -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S O F G A R A G E A N D H O U S E T H A T AR E W I T H I N 5 ' S E T B A C K T O H A V E 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " EX T E R I O R G R A D E G Y P S U M B O A R D O N E X T E R I O R S I D E OF W A L L A N D 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " O N I N T E R N A L S I D E O F W A L L . DO O R S A N D W I N D O W S : AL L W I N D O W S A N D D O O R S T O N E D O U B L E G L A S S PA N E L S W I T H L O W -E R A T I N G S . -AN Y W I N D O W W I T H I N 2 4 " O F A D O O R S W I N G M U S T B E TE M P E R E D -AN Y W I N D O W A B O V E A T U B M U S T B E T E M P E R E D -AN Y W I N D O W W I T H I N A S T A I R W A Y M U S T B E TE M P E R E D -WI N D O W G L A Z I N G M U S T B E A T L E A S T 1 8 " A B O V E FI N I S H E D F L O O R W H E N W I N D O W I S A B O V E 6 ' F R O M GR A D E . -AL L B E D R O O M S T O H A V E A T L E A S T O N E W I N D O W TH A T H A S A C L E A R E G R E S S O P E N I N G O F 5 . 7 S Q . F T . WI T H M I N . D I M E N S I O N S O F 2 4 " I N H E I G H T A N D 2 0 " I N WI D T H , S I L L H E I G H T N O T T O B E G R E A T E R T H E N 4 4 " AB O V E F I N I S H E D F L O O R . -WI N D O W S W I T H S I L L S W I T H I N 3 ' O F T H E F L O O R T H E Y SE R V E A N D A R E 7 2 " A B O V E G R A D E M U S T E I T H E R H A V E A F A L L P R E V E N T I O N O R O P E N I N G L I M I T E R D E V I C E P E R CO D E . ME C H A N I C A L & E L E C T R I C A L : -AL L E L E C T R I C A L A N D M E C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T T O BE V E R I F I E D A N D I N S T A L L E D P E R C O D E B Y AP P R O V E D T R A D E S A N D I N S T A L L E R S . CO D E I N F O R M A T I O N : SI N G L E F A M I L Y C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E I R C -1 -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E R E S I D E N T I A L C O D E -20 1 7 N A T I O N A L E L E C T R I C A L C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E M E C H A N I C A L & F U E L G A S C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E F I R E C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A P L U M B I N G C O D E SO I L T Y P E : DE S I G N E D W I T H 2 0 0 0 P S F S O I L S , A L L FO U N D A T I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N M U S T F A C T O R I N TH I S A T M I N I M U M WI N D E X P O S U R E : DE S I G N E D W I T H " E X P O S U R E B " C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S AN D W I N D G U S T S O F 1 1 5 M P H P E R 2 0 2 0 M N I R C CO D E R E G U L A T I O N S . GE N E R A L N O T E S : -AL L F O U N D A T I O N W A L L S T R U C T U R A L IN F O R M A T I O N U S E D T O C O N S T R U C T T H E FO U N D A T I O N S Y S T E M I S T O B E O N S I T E W H E N PO U R I N G O R B U I L D I N G W A L L S . -AL L S T R U C T U R A L B E A M S , P O S T S & T A L L W A L L S AR E T O B E B U I L T P E R I -LE V E L S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . -AL L M A N U F A C T U R E D F L O O R S & R O O F T R U S S E S AR E T O B E I N S T A L L E D P E R M A N U F A C T U R E R S SP E C I F I C A T I O N S . -AL L M A N U F A C T U R E D F L O O R & R O O F T R U S S SP E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E T O B E O N S I T E D U R I N G IN S T A L L A T I O N . WI N D O W A N D E X T E R I O R D O O R U -FA C T O R T O B E 0. 3 0 O R B E T T E R GL A S S S O L A R H E A T G A I N C O E F F I C I E N T ( S H G C ) T O BE 0 . 2 8 O R B E T T E R GE N E R A L N O T E S 12 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 3D F r o n t 1'-0" / 1'-0" 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0" 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0" / 1 '-0" 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0"2' - 0" 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 8" / 1'-0" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " GR A D E S L O P E A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8 " / 1 '-0 " 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM As indicated 1/22/2021 4:07:59 PM A102Elevations72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Fr o n t ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Re a r 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 Le f t 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 Ri g h t UP 85 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 1 0 " 19 ' - 4 " 22 ' - 0 " 12' - 6" 20 ' - 5 " 14 ' - 1 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 6 " 7 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 0"27' - 0"22' - 0" 6' - 6 " 79 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " BE D R O O M 1 WA L K I N CL O S E T FL E X R O O M BA T H SA U N A ME C H R O O M / S T O R A G E FA M I L Y R O O M SPORTS COURT UN E X C A V A T E D UN E X C A V A T E D 9 ' - 0 " 2' - 8 " 16' - 0"3' - 4" 11 ' - 3 " 3' - 7 " 6' - 2 " 6' - 6 " 21' - 10" 8 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 8 " FI R S T F L O O R C A N T I L E V E R 2 8 " X 6 0 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 6 0 " F I X E D (3 ) - 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 16' X 9' O.H. INSULATED DOOR 1 3 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 7 2 " X 8 0 " S L I D I N G G L A S S D O O R 72 " X 8 0 " S L I D I N G G L A S S D O O R 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 5' - 4 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 5 " 6 ' - 6 " 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 36 " X 6 0 " CA S E M E N T 7 2 " X 2 4 " F I X E D 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 1 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 3 " 12 ' - 9 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 29 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 22' - 0" 4' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 3 " 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 1 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 1 A1 0 7 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 3 PLY 18" LVL HEADER 12 " 30 " 12 " 24 " S A U N A DO O R 2 8 " X 8 0 " 28 " X 8 0 " W C 48 " X 3 2 " SH O W E R FA N FA N 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M ( 1 0 " D R O P P E D ) 30 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 28 " X 8 0 " 1 2 ' - 1 " 3 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 4 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 0 " F U R N A C E 8" O F 6 " P O U R E D 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . GA R A G E D O O R A B O V E 8" O F 6 " P O U R E D 92 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 4 B E A R I N G W A L L 2" L E D G E SD SD (2 ) - 2X 1 0 H D R . 32 " X 8 0 " AI R EX C H A N G E R SU M P PU M P FD 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . BO T T O M O F S T A I R C A S E & W A L L S B E L O W S T A I R S (3 ) - 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 0 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D L E D G E R B D . AT T A C H E D W I T H L E D G E R L O K 5" S C R E W S " W " P A T T E R N 1 2 " O . C . AN D 2 A T E A C H E N D O F L E D G E R 34 " -38 " H I G H HA N D R A I L 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T W R A P P E D W / L P T R I M T Y P . T R E A T E D 2 X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . 40" OF 8" POURED 20" X 8" CONC. FTG.136" OF 8" POURED 20" X 8" CONC. FTG.CEILING OPEN TO ABOVE 22'0" X 22'0" CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 6 B E A R I N G W A L L 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . D R A F T S T O P AT T A C H E D T O O N E S I D E O F F L O O R T R U S S BE T W E E N C E I L I N G O F B A S E M E N T AN D S U B F L O O R O F F I R S T F L O O R 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . C E I L I N G UP T O 8 0 S Q N O C E I L I N G W A T E R HE A T E R CA R P E T ST A I R S 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 4 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 4 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . ( 3 ) - 2 X 1 0 T R E A T E D TR E A T E D 2 X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M ( 1 0 " D R O P P E D ) CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 6 B E A R I N G W A L L (2 ) - 2X 1 0 H D R . 9' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 1 0 ' - 4 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 12 ' 0 " X 1 1 ' 4 " 8' - 6 3 / 4 " 4' - 1 0 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 13 ' 8 " X 1 4 ' 1 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 42 ' 1 0 " X 2 1 ' 2 " 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 10 0 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 13 6 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 10 0 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 1 A1 0 8 49' - 0"GARAGE DOOR ABOVE 2' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 4 " 2' - 10"1' - 4"9' - 4"1' - 10" 3 2 ' - 0 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0' - 2" 2 A1 0 8 1 A109 2 A1 0 9 1' - 2"6' - 6"1' - 0"4' - 10"SEE ENGINEERING FOR FOOTING AND WALL SPECKSSEE ENGINEERING FOR FOOTING AND WALL SPECKS2X8 STUDS @ TALL WALL SEE ENGINEERING ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:00 PM A103Foundation /Basement 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Fo u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. UP UP UP R e f r i g e r a t o r R e f r i g e r a t o r Ra n g e DW 23 ' - 8 " 8' - 4 " 19 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 12' - 6" 12 ' - 2 " 6' - 1 0 " 3' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 3' - 0"22' - 0"27' - 0"4' - 0" 1 5 ' - 6 " 1 6 ' - 6 " 7 ' - 0 " 53' - 0" 15 ' - 0 " 22' - 0" 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 1' - 6"9' - 0"2' - 0" 4 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 0 " 42 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 3 " 12 ' - 9 " 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 6' - 8 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 9 " 6 ' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 10 ' - 7 3 / 4 " LI V I N G R O O M DI N I N G R O O M PA N T R Y FO Y E R OF F I C E LA U N D R Y MU D R O O M MA S T E R B A T H MA S T E R S U I T E HI S CL O S E T OPEN TO BELOW GA R A G E PO R C H op e n r i s e r s t a i r s gr a n i t e s i l l 2' 1 0 1 / 2 " wi n d o w s i l l 2' - 0 " 2' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " 2' - 1 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 " 8 ' - 5 " 5' - 0 " 10 ' - 5 " 8' - 3 " KI T C H E N 9' - 0 " 3' - 2 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 2 " 2 ' - 7 " 2 ' - 7 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 19 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 4' - 7 1 / 4 " 7 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 9' - 0 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 7' - 2 1 / 4 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 22' - 0" 5 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 6' - 6 " 4' - 0 " 19 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 6' - 2 " 2' - 2 " 4' - 3 " 4' - 3 " 1 ' - 6 " 8 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 S I D E D F I R E P L A C E 3 ' - 0 " O P T I O N A L S H E L V I N G 3' - 5 " 3' - 5 " 3 ' - 5 " 4' - 0 " 15 " 30 " 15 " 15 " 30 " 15 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 2 " T V 2' - 6 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4' - 6 " 5' - 6"13' - 6"12' - 0"13' - 6"4' - 6" 20 ' - 5 " 14 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 1 1 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 3' - 0 " 4' - 5 " 4' - 5 " 3' - 0 " 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 8 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 4 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T CU S T O M E N T R Y D O O R T. B . D . B Y O W N E R 60" X 24" FIXED 60" X 24" FIXED60" X 24" FIXED60" X 24" FIXED 9' X 9' O.H. DOOR 16 ' X 8 ' O . H . D O O R 2 PLY 11 7/8" LVL HDR. 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L H D R . 54 " X 2 4 " F I X E D 1 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 8 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 1 A1 0 7 2 ' - 0 " 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 9 6 " D O O R W / 3 6 " X 1 2 " T R A N S O M E 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 12 ' 6 " X 1 5 ' 6 " W O O D F L O O R 12 ' 0 " C E I L I N G 15 ' 3 " X 2 1 ' 0 " W O O D F L O O R 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 6 0 " F R E E ST A N D I N G T U B CU S T O M S H O W E R TI L E F L O O R & W A L L S GL A S S D O O R 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 13 ' 0 " X 8 ' 5 " W O O D F L O O R HE R CL O S E T 30 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 2 8 " X 9 6 " 28 " X 9 6 " PO C K E T FA N FA N W C W C FA N 30 " V A N I T Y 2 8 " X 9 6 " CA R P E T F L O O R CA R P E T F L O O R 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 14 ' 0 " X 1 4 ' 3 " CA R P E T F L O O R 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 9 ' - 0 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " TEMPERED TEMPERED BA T H TI L E F L O O R 28 " X 9 6 " BE N C H 32 " X 9 6 " FI R E R A T E D DO O R 3 0 " S I N K C A B I N E T 2 4 " 2 4 " 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 11 ' 1 " X 1 1 ' 3 " W O O D F L O O R TI L E F L O O R W A S H E R DR Y E R 3 2 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 12 " B O X V A U L T E D C E I L I N G 8' 8 " X 9 ' 6 " CA R P E T F L O O R 30 " X 9 6 " 2 8 " X 9 6 " P O C K E T W O O D F L . CE N T E R V A U L T E D C E I L I N G 19 ' 9 " X 1 5 ' 6 " W O O D F L O O R 24 " 24 " 30 " 24 " 30 " LS36 " 36 " 36 " 20 " 20 " 12 " 24 " 36 " S I N K 12 " 5 ' - 0 " 48 " 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T 3 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L H D R . ( F L U S H ) 2 P L Y 9 1 / 4 " L V L B E A M (2 ) - 2X 1 0 B E A M GI R D E R T R U S S G I R D E R T R U S S 9 ' - 1 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 P L Y 9 1 / 4 " L V L H D R . 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 6 " 5' - 6 " 7' - 7 3 / 4 " 5' - 8 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 2 " 9 ' - 1 3 / 4 " DE C K CE D A R D E C K I N G T & G C E I L I N G GIRDER TRUSS EN G . A T T I C T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. E N G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . G I R D E R T R U S S 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 6" S U B F R A M E TI L E F L O O R DN T& G W O O D C E I L I N G CO N C R E T E S L A B UP 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 3 " LO C K E R S 85 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " SDCM SDCM 4" C O N C . S L A B 5/ 8 " T Y P E -X GY P . B D . O N NO T E D W A L L S AN D C E I L I N G 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. SD SD 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L ( F L U S H ) G I R D E R T R U S S 1 A1 0 8 GI R D E R T R U S S 2 A1 0 8 1 A109 2X8 STUDS @ TALL WALL SEE ENGINEERING ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:01 PM A104Main Level 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ma i n L e v e l ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 8 ' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 2 6 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 20 ' - 0 " 13' - 4 1/2" 1 7 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 31' - 0"SLOPPED CEILINGSLOPPED CEILING 13 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 15' - 0" 28 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 9 ' - 0 " 8' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0" BE D R O O M 3 BE D R O O M 4 WA L K I N CL O S E T WALK IN CLOSET BA T H BONUS ROOM 5 ' - 3 " 2' - 1 1 1 / 2 " TU B E S K Y L I G H T S 3 ' - 1 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 2 8 " X 6 0 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 36 " X 6 0 " CA S E M E N T 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 5' - 2 1 / 4 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 9 " 4' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3"4' - 3" 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 36" X 60" FIXED36" X 60" FIXED 1 A1 0 7 2 2 " X 3 4 " A T T I C A C C E S S SD CMSD CM SD SD E N G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . FA N FA N LI N E N 15 ' 1 1 " X 1 2 ' 9 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G CA R P E T F L O O R TI L E F L O O R 13 ' 1 1 " X 1 3 ' 3 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G CA R P E T F L O O R 30 " 30 " 24 " 30 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 30" X 80" W C ARCH WINDOW 48" X 72" TEMPERED 28 " X 8 0 " PO C K E T 36 " X 6 0 " SH O W E R 1/ 2 " W A L L SD SD DN 13'4" X 30'0"8' 1 1/8" CEILING CARPET FLOOR 5' - 9 " 6' - 6 3 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 4 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 3 " 5 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 1 / 4 " 4' - 2 " 7' - 4 1/2"ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:01 PM A105Upper Level 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Up p e r L e v e l 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E & WA T E R @ R O O F S A D D L E RI D G E V E N T 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 10 " / 1 ' - 0 " 10 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0" 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " RI D G E V E N T RI D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E & WA T E R @ R O O F S A D D L E 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8" / 1'-0"ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:02 PM A106Roof Plan 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ro o f P l a n ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. Foundation /Basement Level -9' -8 1/4"Main Level 0' -0"T.O. Main Level 10' -1 1/8"Upper Level 11' -7 7/8"T.O. Upper Level 19' -9"T.O. Foundation -1' -8 1/4" 1 0 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 0 1 / 4 " 5 " / 1 ' - 0 " 5 " / 1 '-0 " 0 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 3 ' - 7 " 7 ' - 5 3 / 4 " GIRDER TRUSS G I R D E R T R U S S 18 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 12 " R I S E D C E I L I N G SL O P P E D C E I L I N G EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . R -49 B L O W I N I N S U L . 4 M I L . P O L Y . V . B . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . 4" CONCRETE SLAB OVER 6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER OVER 4" GRANULAR COMPACTED FILL 3/ 4 " O S B S U B F L . 3/ 4 " O S B S U B F L . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . C E I L I N G DR A I N T I L E T O S U M P P U M P ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 18 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 4" C O N C R E T E S L A B O V E R 6 M I L . V A P O R B A R R I E R OV E R 4 " G R A N U L A R C O M P A C T E D F I L L W O O D S T E P S 7 3 / 4 " M A X R I S E R 10 " M I N . T R E A D R -30 F B G L S . B L O W N I N I N S U L . 4 M I L . P O L Y . V . B . 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . ST A I R C A S E N O T E S : #1 T r e a d s m u s t b e a m i n i m u m of 1 0 ”an d r i s e r s m u s t b e a ma x i m u m o f 7 3 / 4 ” fo r re s i d e n t i a l s t a i r s . #2 H a n d r a i l m u s t b e 3 4 ” to 38 ” ab o v e n o s e o f t r e a d an d m u s t t e r m i n a t e a t wa l l o r n e w e l p o s t . #3 S p a c e b e t w e e n g u a r d s mu s t b e l e s s t h a n 4 ”. #4 G u a r d s m u s t b e a t l e a s t 3 4 ” hi g h wh e n m e a s u r e d v e r t i c a l l y f r o m no s e o f t r e a d a n d 3 6 ” hi g h o n op e n s i d e s o f l a n d i n g s o v e r 3 0 ” ab o v e f l o o r o r g r a d e b e l o w . #5 H a n d r a i l g r i p s i z e m u s t b e 1 ¼ ” mi n . t o 2 5 / 8 ” ma x . d i a m e t e r . #6 N o s i n g o n s t a i r t r e a d s mu s t n o t e x c e e d 1 1 / 4 ”, ra d i u s o n e d g e o f n o s i n g no t t o e x c e e d 9 / 1 6 ” 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 34 " - 38 " H I G H HA N D R A I L 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . 11' - 9 3/8" 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 0 ' - 7 3 / 8 " 0' - 1 0 " 0 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 0' - 1 0 " 2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 7 ' - 0 5 / 1 6 " 2 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 2' - 10 1 / 2 " K I T C H E N W I N D O W S I L L H E I G H T ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:04 PM A107Section72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. RO O F : VE N T R O O F 1 / 3 0 0 T H . V A L L E Y S & AL L R O O F / W A L L I N T E R S E C T I O N S 30 Y R A R C H I T E C T U R A L A S P H A L T I C S H I N G L E S 15 # A S P H A L T F E L T IC E & W A T E R S H I E L D ( F I R S T 6 ' -0" AN D A L L V A L L E Y S A S P E R C O D E ) EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . 1/ 2 " P L Y W D . S H T G . W / C L I P S AI R C H U T E ( P R O V I D E U N O B S T R U C T E D A I R F L O W ) (R -49 ) B L O W I N I N S U L A T I O N 4 M I L . P O L Y V A P O R B A R R I E R 5/ 8 " G Y P . C E I L I N G B D . FA S C I A : 2X 6 S U B F A S C I A 6" A L U M I N U M F A S C I A AL U M I N U M V E N T E D S O F F I T WA L L : 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . T Y P . 4 -MI L . P O L Y V A P O R B A R R I E R (R -20 ) F B G L S . B A T T I N S U L A T I O N 2X 6 S T U D S @ 1 6 " O . C . 7/ 1 6 " O S B S H E A T H I N G TY V A K E H O U S E W R A P SI D I N G P E R E L E V A T I O N 7/ 1 6 " O S B R I M S H E A T H I N G RI M B E T W E E N M A I N A N D U P P E R L E V E L S 2X 4 C O N T I N U O U S R I B B O N B D . (R -20 ) C L O S E D S E L L F O A M I N S U L . R I M DU R A S E A L O R S A M E Q L T Y . 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) # 4 R E B A R 50 0 0 P S I M I N C O M P R E S S I V E S T R E N G T H RI M B E T W E E N L O W E R A N D M A I N L E V E L S 7/ 1 6 " O S B R I M S H E A T H I N G TR E A T E D 2 X 8 S I L L P L A T E & S I L L S E A L T Y P . (R -20 ) C L O S E D S E L L F O A M I N S U L . R I M DU R A S E A L O R S A M E Q L T Y . FO U N D A T I O N 1/ 2 " D I A M E T E R A . B . W / 7 " M I N . E M B E D D E D & 2 " SI D E X 1 / 8 " T H I C K S Q U A R E O R R O U N D CO U N T E R S I N K W A S H E R S @ 4 8 " A N D W I T H I N 1 2 " FR O M E A C H C O R N E R & W I N D O W W E L L (R -10 ) 2 " ( X P S ) F O A M I N S U L A T I O N C O M P L Y I N G W I T H AS T M C 5 7 8 6 M I L L C O N T I N U O U S S L I P S H E E T T O T O P O F C O N C R E T E W A L L AS P H A L T E M U L S I O N P A I N T W A T E R P R O O F I N G WE A T H E R R E S I S T A N T O P A Q U E P R O T E C T I V E C O A T I N G TO 6 " B E L O W G R A D E M I N . DR A I N T I L E T O S U M P P U M P 8" X 1 0 0 " P O U R E D I N P L A C E C O N C R E T E W A L L HO R I Z O N T A L 3 R O W S O F # 4 VE R T I C A L # 6 3 6 " O . C . 2X 4 C O N T I N U O U S R I B B O N B D . 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ho u s e / G a r a g e S e c t i o n Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " Up p e r L e v e l 11 ' - 7 7 / 8 " T. O . U p p e r L e v e l 19 ' - 9" T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 0 " 5' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " AR C H T& G W O O D C E I L I N G 4" C O N C . S L A B 2" L E D G E SA N D F I L L 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E A N D W A T E R T O S E P A R A T E W O O D F R A M E F R O M CO N C R E T E S L A B 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M 1 0 " D R O P P E D G I R D E R T R U S S 2' - 0 " RI D G E V E N T RI D G E V E N T EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1' - 11" 3 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T W R A P P E D W / L P T R I M 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D L E D G E R B D . AT T A C H E D W I T H L E D G E R L O K 5" S C R E W S " W " P A T T E N T 1 2 " O . C . AN D 2 A T E A C H E N D O F L E D G E R (3 ) - 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D TREATED 2X10 @ 16" O.C. CE D A R D E C K I N G ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:05 PM A108Detail Page 1 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ho u s e / P o r c h S e c t i o n 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 De c k S e c t i o n Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1 ' - 3 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2X 8 S T U D S @ T A L L W A L L SE E E N G I N E E R I N G SE E E N G I N E E R I N G F O R F O O T I N G A N D W A L L S P E C K S SE E E N G I N E E R I N G F O R F O O T I N G A N D W A L L S P E C K S 3" MIN. ABS OR PVC OR EQUIVALENT GAS TIGHT PIPE 4" PERFORATED DRAIN TILE W/FILTER FABRIC 8"X16" ROCK TRENCHMIN 6 MIL OR 3 MIL CROSS LAMINATED POLY SHALL BE LAPPED 12" AND PLACED ON TOP OF 4" MIN. GRANULAR GAS PERMEABLE LAYER IN S T A L L L A B E L R E A D I N G ( R A D O N R E D U C T I O N SY S T E M ) O N T H E V E N T P I P E A T E A C H F L O O R AN D I N A C C E S S I B L E A T T I C S AL L C O N T R O L J O I N T S , I S O L A T I O N J O I N T S CO N S T R U C T I O N J O I N T S A N D A N Y O T H E R JO I N T S I N C O N C R E T E S L A B S S H A L L B E SE A L E D W I T H C A U L K O R S E A L A N T SEAL ALL FLOOR OPENINGS ALL PIPE JOINTS AND FITTINGS TO BE GLUED OR TRANSITION COUPLINGSPROVIDE SPACE FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF A FAN *MIN. 24' DIAMETER CENTERED ON THE AXIS OR THE VENT STACK *MIN. VERTICAL DISTANCE 36"INSTALL LIVE OUTLET IN ATTIC WHERE FUTURE FAN MAY BE INSTALLED LIGHT FIXTURE IN ATTIC AREA ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:06 PM A109Detail Page 2 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ga r a g e / S p o r t s C o u r t S e c t i o n 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Pa s s i v e R e d o n D e t a i l ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 12" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:07:58 PM A101Cover Page 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. PL A N I N F O R M A T I O N CO D E I N F O R M A T I O N Sh e e t L i s t Sh e e t Nu m b e r Sh e e t N a m e A1 0 1 C o v e r P a g e A1 0 2 E l e v a t i o n s A1 0 3 F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t A1 0 4 M a i n L e v e l A1 0 5 U p p e r L e v e l A1 0 6 R o o f P l a n A1 0 7 S e c t i o n A1 0 8 D e t a i l P a g e 1 A1 0 9 D e t a i l P a g e 2 Area Schedule Ar e a L e v e l N a m e 17 1 4 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l F i n i s h e d B a s e m e n t 20 7 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l M e c h R o o m 55 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l S t a i r s 47 2 S F F o u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l S p o r t s C o u r t 21 1 7 S F M a i n L e v e l M a i n L e v e l 10 8 S F M a i n L e v e l F r o n t P o r c h 92 3 S F M a i n L e v e l G a r a g e 30 2 S F M a i n L e v e l D e c k 11 2 8 S F U p p e r L e v e l U p p e r L e v e l SI T E P L A N B Y O T H E R S AL L P L A N S A R E T O B E R E V I E W E D B Y T H E G E N E R A L CO N T R A C T O R A N D T H E M U N I C I P A L B U I L D I N G OF F I C I A L P R I O R T O C O N S T R U C T I O N . AV A S T U D I O L L C . I S N O T R E S P O N S I B L E FO R A N Y P R O B L E M A S A R E S U L T O F A N E R R O R OM I S S I O N O N T H E S E P L A N S . FR A M I N G N O T E S : -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S T O B E 2 X 6 @ 1 6 " O . C . WI T H A D O U B L E T O P P L A T E U N L E S S OT H E R W I S E N O T E D . -WA L L F R A M I N G S H A L L B E S . P . F . S T U D G R A D E OR B E T T E R U N L E S S N O T E D O T H E R W I S E (U . N . O . ) -AL L H E A D E R S S H A L L B E ( 2 ) - 2X 1 0 U . N . O . -EX T E R I O R S H E A T H I N G S H A L L B E 7 / 1 6 " MA T E R I A L C O N S I S T I N G O F O R I E N T E D S T R A N D BO A R D ( O S B ) . -AL L F L O O R A N D C E I L I N G S Y S T E M S T O CH E C K E D A N D D E S I G N E D B Y T H E D E S I G N A T E D MA N U F A C T U R E R . T R U S S P L A N S T O B E O N S I T E @ T I M E O F F R A M I N G -PR E S S U R E T R E A T E D W O O D I S T O B E U S E D WH E R E W O O D I S I N C O N T A C T W I T H C O N C R E T E AN D A T 2 X 6 M U D S I L L . T R E A T E D M E M B E R S T O BE S . Y . P . # 2 O R B E T T E R . -FO R O P E N I N G S I N E X T E R I O R W A L L S ( O R WA L L S W I T H L A T E R A L L O A D I N G : a) 0 ' -0" - 4' -0" = 1 J A C K S T U D b) 4 ' -0" - 8' -0" = 2 J A C K S T U D S c) 8 ' -0" - 12 ' -0" = 3 J A C K S T U D S d) G R E A T E R T H E N 1 2 ' = C O N S U L T E N G I N E E R . -PO S T S C A L L E D O U T A R E N U M B E R O F K I N G ST U D S R E Q U I R E D P E R S I D E O F O P E N I N G . CO N C R E T E N O T E S : -AL L C O N C R E T E F O O T I N G S A N D F O U N D A T I O N SY S T E M S A R E D E S I G N E D F O R A 2 0 0 0 P . S . F . SO I L -FO U N D A T I O N W A L L S S H A L L B E F U L L H E I G H T AT U N B A L A N C E D F I L L G R E A T E R T H E N 3 ' -4" -1/ 2 " A N C H O R B O L T S E M B E D D E D 7 " M I N I M U M @ 4 ' O . C . M A X . 1 2 " M I N . F R O M E A C H E N D . MI N I M U M O F 2 B O L T S I N E A C H S I L L P L A T E -PA D F O O T I N G S R E I N F O R C E M E N T I S T O B E LO C A T E D 3 " F R O M B O T T O M O F F O O T I N G T Y P . (W H E N R E Q U I R E D ) -CO N T R A C T O R I S R E S P O N S I B L E F O R A L L ST E E L R E B A R S I Z I N G P E R S T A T E A N D L O C A L BU I L D I N G C O D E S -MI N . 5 0 0 0 P S I C O N C R E T E @ A L L F O O T I N G S IN S U L A T I O N : -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S T O H A V E A M I N I M U M RA T I N G O F R -20 -AL L A T T I C S P A C E S A R E T O H A V E A M I N I M U M RA T I N G O F R -49 -AL L F L O O R S P A C E S O V E R U N C O N D I T I O N E D SP A C E O R C A N T I L E V E R E D A R E T O H A V E A MI N I M U M R A T I N G O F R -30 SH E E T R O C K : -AL L C E I L I N G S A R E T O H A V E 5 / 8 " N O N -SA G G Y P S U M BO A R D U . N . O . -AL L W A L L S A R E T O H A V E 1 / 2 " G Y P S U M B O A R D U . N . O . -GA R A G E C E I L I N G A N D W A L L S T H A T A D J O I N H O U S E WA L L S A R E T O B E 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " G Y P S U M B O A R D U . N . O . -AL L E X T E R I O R W A L L S O F G A R A G E A N D H O U S E T H A T AR E W I T H I N 5 ' S E T B A C K T O H A V E 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " EX T E R I O R G R A D E G Y P S U M B O A R D O N E X T E R I O R S I D E OF W A L L A N D 5 / 8 " T Y P E " X " O N I N T E R N A L S I D E O F W A L L . DO O R S A N D W I N D O W S : AL L W I N D O W S A N D D O O R S T O N E D O U B L E G L A S S PA N E L S W I T H L O W -E R A T I N G S . -AN Y W I N D O W W I T H I N 2 4 " O F A D O O R S W I N G M U S T B E TE M P E R E D -AN Y W I N D O W A B O V E A T U B M U S T B E T E M P E R E D -AN Y W I N D O W W I T H I N A S T A I R W A Y M U S T B E TE M P E R E D -WI N D O W G L A Z I N G M U S T B E A T L E A S T 1 8 " A B O V E FI N I S H E D F L O O R W H E N W I N D O W I S A B O V E 6 ' F R O M GR A D E . -AL L B E D R O O M S T O H A V E A T L E A S T O N E W I N D O W TH A T H A S A C L E A R E G R E S S O P E N I N G O F 5 . 7 S Q . F T . WI T H M I N . D I M E N S I O N S O F 2 4 " I N H E I G H T A N D 2 0 " I N WI D T H , S I L L H E I G H T N O T T O B E G R E A T E R T H E N 4 4 " AB O V E F I N I S H E D F L O O R . -WI N D O W S W I T H S I L L S W I T H I N 3 ' O F T H E F L O O R T H E Y SE R V E A N D A R E 7 2 " A B O V E G R A D E M U S T E I T H E R H A V E A F A L L P R E V E N T I O N O R O P E N I N G L I M I T E R D E V I C E P E R CO D E . ME C H A N I C A L & E L E C T R I C A L : -AL L E L E C T R I C A L A N D M E C H A N I C A L E Q U I P M E N T T O BE V E R I F I E D A N D I N S T A L L E D P E R C O D E B Y AP P R O V E D T R A D E S A N D I N S T A L L E R S . CO D E I N F O R M A T I O N : SI N G L E F A M I L Y C O N S T R U C T I O N T Y P E I R C -1 -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E R E S I D E N T I A L C O D E -20 1 7 N A T I O N A L E L E C T R I C A L C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E M E C H A N I C A L & F U E L G A S C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A S T A T E F I R E C O D E -20 2 0 M I N N E S O T A P L U M B I N G C O D E SO I L T Y P E : DE S I G N E D W I T H 2 0 0 0 P S F S O I L S , A L L FO U N D A T I O N C O N S T R U C T I O N M U S T F A C T O R I N TH I S A T M I N I M U M WI N D E X P O S U R E : DE S I G N E D W I T H " E X P O S U R E B " C L A S S I F I C A T I O N S AN D W I N D G U S T S O F 1 1 5 M P H P E R 2 0 2 0 M N I R C CO D E R E G U L A T I O N S . GE N E R A L N O T E S : -AL L F O U N D A T I O N W A L L S T R U C T U R A L IN F O R M A T I O N U S E D T O C O N S T R U C T T H E FO U N D A T I O N S Y S T E M I S T O B E O N S I T E W H E N PO U R I N G O R B U I L D I N G W A L L S . -AL L S T R U C T U R A L B E A M S , P O S T S & T A L L W A L L S AR E T O B E B U I L T P E R I -LE V E L S P E C I F I C A T I O N S . -AL L M A N U F A C T U R E D F L O O R S & R O O F T R U S S E S AR E T O B E I N S T A L L E D P E R M A N U F A C T U R E R S SP E C I F I C A T I O N S . -AL L M A N U F A C T U R E D F L O O R & R O O F T R U S S SP E C I F I C A T I O N S A R E T O B E O N S I T E D U R I N G IN S T A L L A T I O N . WI N D O W A N D E X T E R I O R D O O R U -FA C T O R T O B E 0. 3 0 O R B E T T E R GL A S S S O L A R H E A T G A I N C O E F F I C I E N T ( S H G C ) T O BE 0 . 2 8 O R B E T T E R GE N E R A L N O T E S 12 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 3D F r o n t 1'-0" / 1'-0" 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0" 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0" / 1 '-0" 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0"2' - 0" 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 8" / 1'-0" 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " GR A D E S L O P E A W A Y F R O M B U I L D I N G 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1'-0" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0" 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8 " / 1 '-0 " 8 " / 1 ' - 0 " ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM As indicated 1/22/2021 4:07:59 PM A102Elevations72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Fr o n t ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Re a r 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3 Le f t 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 4 Ri g h t UP 85 ' - 6 " 23 ' - 1 0 " 7' - 1 0 " 19 ' - 4 " 22 ' - 0 " 12' - 6" 20 ' - 5 " 14 ' - 1 0 " 7 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 6 " 7 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 0"27' - 0"22' - 0" 6' - 6 " 79 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " BE D R O O M 1 WA L K I N CL O S E T FL E X R O O M BA T H SA U N A ME C H R O O M / S T O R A G E FA M I L Y R O O M SPORTS COURT UN E X C A V A T E D UN E X C A V A T E D 9 ' - 0 " 2' - 8 " 16' - 0"3' - 4" 11 ' - 3 " 3' - 7 " 6' - 2 " 6' - 6 " 21' - 10" 8 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 8 " FI R S T F L O O R C A N T I L E V E R 2 8 " X 6 0 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 6 0 " F I X E D (3 ) - 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 16' X 9' O.H. INSULATED DOOR 1 3 ' - 0 " 9 ' - 0 " 7 2 " X 8 0 " S L I D I N G G L A S S D O O R 72 " X 8 0 " S L I D I N G G L A S S D O O R 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 3 6 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 5' - 4 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 5 " 6 ' - 6 " 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 36 " X 6 0 " CA S E M E N T 7 2 " X 2 4 " F I X E D 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 6 " 6' - 1 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 3 " 12 ' - 9 " 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 29 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 15 ' - 0 " 22' - 0" 4' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 3 " 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 6' - 4 1 / 2 " 3 ' - 1 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 5 ' - 0 " 4' - 0 " 1 A1 0 7 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 3 PLY 18" LVL HEADER 12 " 30 " 12 " 24 " S A U N A DO O R 2 8 " X 8 0 " 28 " X 8 0 " W C 48 " X 3 2 " SH O W E R FA N FA N 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M ( 1 0 " D R O P P E D ) 30 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 28 " X 8 0 " 1 2 ' - 1 " 3 ' - 5 3 / 4 " 4 ' - 5 1 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 0 " F U R N A C E 8" O F 6 " P O U R E D 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . GA R A G E D O O R A B O V E 8" O F 6 " P O U R E D 92 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 4 B E A R I N G W A L L 2" L E D G E SD SD (2 ) - 2X 1 0 H D R . 32 " X 8 0 " AI R EX C H A N G E R SU M P PU M P FD 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . BO T T O M O F S T A I R C A S E & W A L L S B E L O W S T A I R S (3 ) - 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 0 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D L E D G E R B D . AT T A C H E D W I T H L E D G E R L O K 5" S C R E W S " W " P A T T E R N 1 2 " O . C . AN D 2 A T E A C H E N D O F L E D G E R 34 " -38 " H I G H HA N D R A I L 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T W R A P P E D W / L P T R I M T Y P . T R E A T E D 2 X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . 40" OF 8" POURED 20" X 8" CONC. FTG.136" OF 8" POURED 20" X 8" CONC. FTG.CEILING OPEN TO ABOVE 22'0" X 22'0" CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 6 B E A R I N G W A L L 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . D R A F T S T O P AT T A C H E D T O O N E S I D E O F F L O O R T R U S S BE T W E E N C E I L I N G O F B A S E M E N T AN D S U B F L O O R O F F I R S T F L O O R 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . C E I L I N G UP T O 8 0 S Q N O C E I L I N G W A T E R HE A T E R CA R P E T ST A I R S 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 4 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W / 2 4 " B E L L W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . 12 " D I A . C . I . P . C O N C P I E R 4 8 " BE L O W G R O U N D W I T H S I M P S O N A B A Z 6 6 P O S T B A S E AT T A C H M E N T T O 6 x 6 P O S T w / ( 1 ) 1 / 2 " D I A . AN C H O R B O L T T Y P . ( 3 ) - 2 X 1 0 T R E A T E D TR E A T E D 2 X 1 0 @ 1 6 " O . C . 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M ( 1 0 " D R O P P E D ) CO N C . P A D 2 0 " W . X 8 " D . UN D E R B E A R I N G W A L L T Y P . NO T E : 2 X 6 B E A R I N G W A L L (2 ) - 2X 1 0 H D R . 9' - 9 " 9' - 9 " 1 0 ' - 4 " 1 0 ' - 6 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 12 ' 0 " X 1 1 ' 4 " 8' - 6 3 / 4 " 4' - 1 0 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 13 ' 8 " X 1 4 ' 1 " 8' 1 1 / 2 " C E I L I N G 42 ' 1 0 " X 2 1 ' 2 " 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 36 " X 3 6 " X 1 2 " D E E P C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) - #4 R E B A R E A C H W A Y M I N . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 10 0 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 13 6 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 40 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 10 0 " O F 8 " P O U R E D 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . 1 A1 0 8 49' - 0"GARAGE DOOR ABOVE 2' - 1 0 " 16 ' - 4 " 2' - 10"1' - 4"9' - 4"1' - 10" 3 2 ' - 0 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0 ' - 2 " 0' - 2 " 0' - 2" 2 A1 0 8 1 A109 2 A1 0 9 1' - 2"6' - 6"1' - 0"4' - 10"SEE ENGINEERING FOR FOOTING AND WALL SPECKSSEE ENGINEERING FOR FOOTING AND WALL SPECKS2X8 STUDS @ TALL WALL SEE ENGINEERING ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:00 PM A103Foundation /Basement 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Fo u n d a t i o n / B a s e m e n t L e v e l ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. UP UP UP R e f r i g e r a t o r R e f r i g e r a t o r Ra n g e DW 23 ' - 8 " 8' - 4 " 19 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 12' - 6" 12 ' - 2 " 6' - 1 0 " 3' - 0 " 16 ' - 0 " 3' - 0"22' - 0"27' - 0"4' - 0" 1 5 ' - 6 " 1 6 ' - 6 " 7 ' - 0 " 53' - 0" 15 ' - 0 " 22' - 0" 7' - 6 " 7' - 6 " 1' - 6"9' - 0"2' - 0" 4 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 2 1 ' - 0 " 42 ' - 0 " 37 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 3 " 12 ' - 9 " 6' - 3 1 / 2 " 6' - 8 1 / 2 " 1 1 ' - 6 " 1 5 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 9 " 6 ' - 9 " 4' - 0 " 10 ' - 7 3 / 4 " LI V I N G R O O M DI N I N G R O O M PA N T R Y FO Y E R OF F I C E LA U N D R Y MU D R O O M MA S T E R B A T H MA S T E R S U I T E HI S CL O S E T OPEN TO BELOW GA R A G E PO R C H op e n r i s e r s t a i r s gr a n i t e s i l l 2' 1 0 1 / 2 " wi n d o w s i l l 2' - 0 " 2' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 6 " 2' - 1 1 / 2 " 5 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 1 / 2 " 8 ' - 1 " 8 ' - 5 " 5' - 0 " 10 ' - 5 " 8' - 3 " KI T C H E N 9' - 0 " 3' - 2 " 9' - 0 " 4' - 2 " 2 ' - 7 " 2 ' - 7 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 19 ' - 0 3 / 4 " 4' - 7 1 / 4 " 7 ' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 9' - 0 1 / 2 " 11 ' - 5 1 / 2 " 7' - 2 1 / 4 " 6' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 22' - 0" 5 ' - 4 1 / 2 " 6 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 6' - 6 " 4' - 0 " 19 ' - 6 " 2 0 ' - 1 0 " 5 ' - 0 " 6' - 2 " 2' - 2 " 4' - 3 " 4' - 3 " 1 ' - 6 " 8 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 6 " 6 ' - 0 " 6 ' - 0 " 3 S I D E D F I R E P L A C E 3 ' - 0 " O P T I O N A L S H E L V I N G 3' - 5 " 3' - 5 " 3 ' - 5 " 4' - 0 " 15 " 30 " 15 " 15 " 30 " 15 " 4 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 2 " T V 2' - 6 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4' - 6 " 5' - 6"13' - 6"12' - 0"13' - 6"4' - 6" 20 ' - 5 " 14 ' - 1 0 3 / 4 " 1 1 ' - 3 1 / 4 " 3' - 0 " 4' - 5 " 4' - 5 " 3' - 0 " 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 8 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 60 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 2 4 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T CU S T O M E N T R Y D O O R T. B . D . B Y O W N E R 60" X 24" FIXED 60" X 24" FIXED60" X 24" FIXED60" X 24" FIXED 9' X 9' O.H. DOOR 16 ' X 8 ' O . H . D O O R 2 PLY 11 7/8" LVL HDR. 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L H D R . 54 " X 2 4 " F I X E D 1 ' - 6 " 5 ' - 6 " 1 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 0 " 2 8 " X 7 2 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 7 2 " F I X E D 1 A1 0 7 2 ' - 0 " 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 9 6 " D O O R W / 3 6 " X 1 2 " T R A N S O M E 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 12 ' 6 " X 1 5 ' 6 " W O O D F L O O R 12 ' 0 " C E I L I N G 15 ' 3 " X 2 1 ' 0 " W O O D F L O O R 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 3 6 " X 1 0 8 " F I X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 6 0 " F R E E ST A N D I N G T U B CU S T O M S H O W E R TI L E F L O O R & W A L L S GL A S S D O O R 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 13 ' 0 " X 8 ' 5 " W O O D F L O O R HE R CL O S E T 30 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 2 8 " X 9 6 " 28 " X 9 6 " PO C K E T FA N FA N W C W C FA N 30 " V A N I T Y 2 8 " X 9 6 " CA R P E T F L O O R CA R P E T F L O O R 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 14 ' 0 " X 1 4 ' 3 " CA R P E T F L O O R 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 36 " X 1 0 8 " FI X E D T E M P . 9 ' - 0 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3 " TEMPERED TEMPERED BA T H TI L E F L O O R 28 " X 9 6 " BE N C H 32 " X 9 6 " FI R E R A T E D DO O R 3 0 " S I N K C A B I N E T 2 4 " 2 4 " 10 ' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G 11 ' 1 " X 1 1 ' 3 " W O O D F L O O R TI L E F L O O R W A S H E R DR Y E R 3 2 " X 9 6 " 30 " X 9 6 " 12 " B O X V A U L T E D C E I L I N G 8' 8 " X 9 ' 6 " CA R P E T F L O O R 30 " X 9 6 " 2 8 " X 9 6 " P O C K E T W O O D F L . CE N T E R V A U L T E D C E I L I N G 19 ' 9 " X 1 5 ' 6 " W O O D F L O O R 24 " 24 " 30 " 24 " 30 " LS36 " 36 " 36 " 20 " 20 " 12 " 24 " 36 " S I N K 12 " 5 ' - 0 " 48 " 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T 3 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L H D R . ( F L U S H ) 2 P L Y 9 1 / 4 " L V L B E A M (2 ) - 2X 1 0 B E A M GI R D E R T R U S S G I R D E R T R U S S 9 ' - 1 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 8 " 8 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 P L Y 9 1 / 4 " L V L H D R . 3 ' - 7 1 / 2 " 13 ' - 6 " 5' - 6 " 7' - 7 3 / 4 " 5' - 8 1 / 2 " 8' - 1 3 / 4 " 6 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 5 ' - 6 " 3 ' - 2 " 9 ' - 1 3 / 4 " DE C K CE D A R D E C K I N G T & G C E I L I N G GIRDER TRUSS EN G . A T T I C T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. E N G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . G I R D E R T R U S S 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 1 8 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 6" S U B F R A M E TI L E F L O O R DN T& G W O O D C E I L I N G CO N C R E T E S L A B UP 2 ' - 9 " 3 ' - 3 " LO C K E R S 85 ' - 6 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4 ' - 4 1 /4 " 4' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 2 ' - 0 " SDCM SDCM 4" C O N C . S L A B 5/ 8 " T Y P E -X GY P . B D . O N NO T E D W A L L S AN D C E I L I N G 5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. SD SD 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . 2 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L ( F L U S H ) G I R D E R T R U S S 1 A1 0 8 GI R D E R T R U S S 2 A1 0 8 1 A109 2X8 STUDS @ TALL WALL SEE ENGINEERING ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:01 PM A104Main Level 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ma i n L e v e l ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 4 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 8 ' - 6 " 1 3 ' - 6 " 2 6 ' - 4 1 / 4 " 20 ' - 0 " 13' - 4 1/2" 1 7 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 31' - 0"SLOPPED CEILINGSLOPPED CEILING 13 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 15' - 0" 28 ' - 2 1 / 4 " 9 ' - 0 " 8' - 0"14' - 0"22' - 0" BE D R O O M 3 BE D R O O M 4 WA L K I N CL O S E T WALK IN CLOSET BA T H BONUS ROOM 5 ' - 3 " 2' - 1 1 1 / 2 " TU B E S K Y L I G H T S 3 ' - 1 " 2 ' - 7 " 3 ' - 4 " 2 8 " X 6 0 " C A S E M E N T 2 8 " X 6 0 " F I X E D 36 " X 6 0 " CA S E M E N T 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 5' - 2 1 / 4 " 3' - 3 " 4' - 9 " 4' - 3 " 3' - 3 " 3' - 3"4' - 3" 36 " X 6 0 " FI X E D 36" X 60" FIXED36" X 60" FIXED 1 A1 0 7 2 2 " X 3 4 " A T T I C A C C E S S SD CMSD CM SD SD E N G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . FA N FA N LI N E N 15 ' 1 1 " X 1 2 ' 9 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G CA R P E T F L O O R TI L E F L O O R 13 ' 1 1 " X 1 3 ' 3 " 8' 1 1 / 8 " C E I L I N G CA R P E T F L O O R 30 " 30 " 24 " 30 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 30" X 80" W C ARCH WINDOW 48" X 72" TEMPERED 28 " X 8 0 " PO C K E T 36 " X 6 0 " SH O W E R 1/ 2 " W A L L SD SD DN 13'4" X 30'0"8' 1 1/8" CEILING CARPET FLOOR 5' - 9 " 6' - 6 3 / 4 " 4' - 4 " 3 0 " X 8 0 " 4 ' - 3 " 4 ' - 3 " 5 ' - 0 " 3' - 1 1 / 4 " 4' - 2 " 7' - 4 1/2"ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:01 PM A105Upper Level 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Up p e r L e v e l 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E & WA T E R @ R O O F S A D D L E RI D G E V E N T 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 10 " / 1 ' - 0 " 10 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8" / 1'-0"1'-0" / 1'-0" 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " RI D G E V E N T RI D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T R I D G E V E N T 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E & WA T E R @ R O O F S A D D L E 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0"2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 8" / 1'-0"ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:02 PM A106Roof Plan 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander Bocharnikov 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ro o f P l a n ALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. Foundation /Basement Level -9' -8 1/4"Main Level 0' -0"T.O. Main Level 10' -1 1/8"Upper Level 11' -7 7/8"T.O. Upper Level 19' -9"T.O. Foundation -1' -8 1/4" 1 0 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 2 ' - 0 1 / 4 " 5 " / 1 ' - 0 " 5 " / 1 '-0 " 0 ' - 9 1 / 4 " 3 ' - 7 " 7 ' - 5 3 / 4 " GIRDER TRUSS G I R D E R T R U S S 18 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 12 " R I S E D C E I L I N G SL O P P E D C E I L I N G EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . R -49 B L O W I N I N S U L . 4 M I L . P O L Y . V . B . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . 4" CONCRETE SLAB OVER 6 MIL. VAPOR BARRIER OVER 4" GRANULAR COMPACTED FILL 3/ 4 " O S B S U B F L . 3/ 4 " O S B S U B F L . 5/ 8 " G Y P . B D . C E I L I N G DR A I N T I L E T O S U M P P U M P ENG. ROOF TRUSSES @ 24" O.C. 18 " E N G . W E B T R U S S E S @ 1 9 . 2 " O . C . 4" C O N C R E T E S L A B O V E R 6 M I L . V A P O R B A R R I E R OV E R 4 " G R A N U L A R C O M P A C T E D F I L L W O O D S T E P S 7 3 / 4 " M A X R I S E R 10 " M I N . T R E A D R -30 F B G L S . B L O W N I N I N S U L . 4 M I L . P O L Y . V . B . 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . 5/ 8 " T Y P E X G Y P . B D . ST A I R C A S E N O T E S : #1 T r e a d s m u s t b e a m i n i m u m of 1 0 ”an d r i s e r s m u s t b e a ma x i m u m o f 7 3 / 4 ” fo r re s i d e n t i a l s t a i r s . #2 H a n d r a i l m u s t b e 3 4 ” to 38 ” ab o v e n o s e o f t r e a d an d m u s t t e r m i n a t e a t wa l l o r n e w e l p o s t . #3 S p a c e b e t w e e n g u a r d s mu s t b e l e s s t h a n 4 ”. #4 G u a r d s m u s t b e a t l e a s t 3 4 ” hi g h wh e n m e a s u r e d v e r t i c a l l y f r o m no s e o f t r e a d a n d 3 6 ” hi g h o n op e n s i d e s o f l a n d i n g s o v e r 3 0 ” ab o v e f l o o r o r g r a d e b e l o w . #5 H a n d r a i l g r i p s i z e m u s t b e 1 ¼ ” mi n . t o 2 5 / 8 ” ma x . d i a m e t e r . #6 N o s i n g o n s t a i r t r e a d s mu s t n o t e x c e e d 1 1 / 4 ”, ra d i u s o n e d g e o f n o s i n g no t t o e x c e e d 9 / 1 6 ” 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 34 " - 38 " H I G H HA N D R A I L 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . 11' - 9 3/8" 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 0 ' - 7 3 / 8 " 0' - 1 0 " 0 ' - 7 3 / 4 " 0' - 1 0 " 2' - 0" 2' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 '-0 " / 1 '-0 " 7 ' - 0 5 / 1 6 " 2 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 2' - 10 1 / 2 " K I T C H E N W I N D O W S I L L H E I G H T ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:04 PM A107Section72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. RO O F : VE N T R O O F 1 / 3 0 0 T H . V A L L E Y S & AL L R O O F / W A L L I N T E R S E C T I O N S 30 Y R A R C H I T E C T U R A L A S P H A L T I C S H I N G L E S 15 # A S P H A L T F E L T IC E & W A T E R S H I E L D ( F I R S T 6 ' -0" AN D A L L V A L L E Y S A S P E R C O D E ) EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . 1/ 2 " P L Y W D . S H T G . W / C L I P S AI R C H U T E ( P R O V I D E U N O B S T R U C T E D A I R F L O W ) (R -49 ) B L O W I N I N S U L A T I O N 4 M I L . P O L Y V A P O R B A R R I E R 5/ 8 " G Y P . C E I L I N G B D . FA S C I A : 2X 6 S U B F A S C I A 6" A L U M I N U M F A S C I A AL U M I N U M V E N T E D S O F F I T WA L L : 1/ 2 " G Y P . B D . T Y P . 4 -MI L . P O L Y V A P O R B A R R I E R (R -20 ) F B G L S . B A T T I N S U L A T I O N 2X 6 S T U D S @ 1 6 " O . C . 7/ 1 6 " O S B S H E A T H I N G TY V A K E H O U S E W R A P SI D I N G P E R E L E V A T I O N 7/ 1 6 " O S B R I M S H E A T H I N G RI M B E T W E E N M A I N A N D U P P E R L E V E L S 2X 4 C O N T I N U O U S R I B B O N B D . (R -20 ) C L O S E D S E L L F O A M I N S U L . R I M DU R A S E A L O R S A M E Q L T Y . 20 " X 8 " C O N C . F T G . W / ( 2 ) # 4 R E B A R 50 0 0 P S I M I N C O M P R E S S I V E S T R E N G T H RI M B E T W E E N L O W E R A N D M A I N L E V E L S 7/ 1 6 " O S B R I M S H E A T H I N G TR E A T E D 2 X 8 S I L L P L A T E & S I L L S E A L T Y P . (R -20 ) C L O S E D S E L L F O A M I N S U L . R I M DU R A S E A L O R S A M E Q L T Y . FO U N D A T I O N 1/ 2 " D I A M E T E R A . B . W / 7 " M I N . E M B E D D E D & 2 " SI D E X 1 / 8 " T H I C K S Q U A R E O R R O U N D CO U N T E R S I N K W A S H E R S @ 4 8 " A N D W I T H I N 1 2 " FR O M E A C H C O R N E R & W I N D O W W E L L (R -10 ) 2 " ( X P S ) F O A M I N S U L A T I O N C O M P L Y I N G W I T H AS T M C 5 7 8 6 M I L L C O N T I N U O U S S L I P S H E E T T O T O P O F C O N C R E T E W A L L AS P H A L T E M U L S I O N P A I N T W A T E R P R O O F I N G WE A T H E R R E S I S T A N T O P A Q U E P R O T E C T I V E C O A T I N G TO 6 " B E L O W G R A D E M I N . DR A I N T I L E T O S U M P P U M P 8" X 1 0 0 " P O U R E D I N P L A C E C O N C R E T E W A L L HO R I Z O N T A L 3 R O W S O F # 4 VE R T I C A L # 6 3 6 " O . C . 2X 4 C O N T I N U O U S R I B B O N B D . 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ho u s e / G a r a g e S e c t i o n Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " Up p e r L e v e l 11 ' - 7 7 / 8 " T. O . U p p e r L e v e l 19 ' - 9" T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1 2 ' - 0 " 1 0 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 1 ' - 6 3 / 4 " 8 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 1 ' - 0 " 5' - 7 3 / 4 " 2' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 0 " / 1 '-0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 1 ' - 0 " / 1 ' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " 1' - 0 " AR C H T& G W O O D C E I L I N G 4" C O N C . S L A B 2" L E D G E SA N D F I L L 2 L A Y E R S O F I C E A N D W A T E R T O S E P A R A T E W O O D F R A M E F R O M CO N C R E T E S L A B 3 P L Y 1 4 " L V L B E A M 1 0 " D R O P P E D G I R D E R T R U S S 2' - 0 " RI D G E V E N T RI D G E V E N T EN G . R O O F T R U S S E S @ 2 4 " O . C . Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1' - 11" 3 P L Y 1 1 7 / 8 " L V L B E A M 36 " H I G H R A I L I N G 6X 6 T R E A T E D P O S T W R A P P E D W / L P T R I M 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D L E D G E R B D . AT T A C H E D W I T H L E D G E R L O K 5" S C R E W S " W " P A T T E N T 1 2 " O . C . AN D 2 A T E A C H E N D O F L E D G E R (3 ) - 2X 1 0 T R E A T E D TREATED 2X10 @ 16" O.C. CE D A R D E C K I N G ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:05 PM A108Detail Page 1 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ho u s e / P o r c h S e c t i o n 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 De c k S e c t i o n Fo u n d a t i o n / Ba s e m e n t L e v e l -9' - 8 1 / 4 " Ma i n L e v e l 0' - 0" T. O . M a i n L e v e l 10 ' - 1 1 / 8 " T. O . F o u n d a t i o n -1' - 8 1 / 4 " 1 ' - 3 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 2X 8 S T U D S @ T A L L W A L L SE E E N G I N E E R I N G SE E E N G I N E E R I N G F O R F O O T I N G A N D W A L L S P E C K S SE E E N G I N E E R I N G F O R F O O T I N G A N D W A L L S P E C K S 3" MIN. ABS OR PVC OR EQUIVALENT GAS TIGHT PIPE 4" PERFORATED DRAIN TILE W/FILTER FABRIC 8"X16" ROCK TRENCHMIN 6 MIL OR 3 MIL CROSS LAMINATED POLY SHALL BE LAPPED 12" AND PLACED ON TOP OF 4" MIN. GRANULAR GAS PERMEABLE LAYER IN S T A L L L A B E L R E A D I N G ( R A D O N R E D U C T I O N SY S T E M ) O N T H E V E N T P I P E A T E A C H F L O O R AN D I N A C C E S S I B L E A T T I C S AL L C O N T R O L J O I N T S , I S O L A T I O N J O I N T S CO N S T R U C T I O N J O I N T S A N D A N Y O T H E R JO I N T S I N C O N C R E T E S L A B S S H A L L B E SE A L E D W I T H C A U L K O R S E A L A N T SEAL ALL FLOOR OPENINGS ALL PIPE JOINTS AND FITTINGS TO BE GLUED OR TRANSITION COUPLINGSPROVIDE SPACE FOR FUTURE INSTALLATION OF A FAN *MIN. 24' DIAMETER CENTERED ON THE AXIS OR THE VENT STACK *MIN. VERTICAL DISTANCE 36"INSTALL LIVE OUTLET IN ATTIC WHERE FUTURE FAN MAY BE INSTALLED LIGHT FIXTURE IN ATTIC AREA ScaleProject number Date Drawn byAVASTUDIO.HOUZZ.COMAVA STUDIO 12733 WOODCOURT LANE, MINNETONKA MN 55343 PHONE 612 532 8159 EMAIL AVASTUDIO.AB1@GMAIL.COM 1/4" = 1'-0"1/22/2021 4:08:06 PM A109Detail Page 2 72Orono15 Stubbs Bay Rd S 10/14/2020 Alexander BocharnikovALL PLANS ARE TO BE REVIEWED BY THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING OFFICIAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.AVA STUDIO LLC. IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PROBLEM AS A RESULT OF AN ERROR OMISSION ON THESE PLANS. 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 1 Ga r a g e / S p o r t s C o u r t S e c t i o n 1/ 4 " = 1 ' - 0 " 2 Pa s s i v e R e d o n D e t a i l 7. LA21-000022 ALLIANCE BUILDERS, 15 STUBBS BAY ROAD NO/ PID 32-118-23-34-0006, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Efim Shukalovich, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Ms. Oakden noted the Planning Commission saw this property not too long ago. The Applicant is requesting a side yard setback variance and Staff recommends approval. This property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2-foot setback to the north, and a 15.5-foot setback to the south property line for side yard setbacks, addressing the neighbor’s comment to create maximum setbacks to the north at that time. The Applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties have and as the previous house footprint had but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. She said the Applicant is maintaining the same side yard setbacks but it a new house footprint so it is a new volume and house footprint within those required yards. The Applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the setbacks is being proposed. That new footprint within the required yard is the trigger for the Commission’s re-review and this additional variance. The property is non-conforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres and in width at 123.77 feet, where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300 feet in width, so it is substandard. The Applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and the building envelope of the property. She noted a lot analysis was done as well as an analysis of that side yard setback. Staff has found supportive findings for practical difficulty requirements and is recommending approval of the proposed side yard setback variances with that new footprint. She noted on screen there is an overlay where the yellow is the proposed house footprint and the blue was the original approved; the white is the overlap. Originally there was some approval of house on the side and the front and the new proposed house is pulled back about two feet from the original for the front yard, but they are proposing more massing on the north side and the south side with the wrap-around deck. Most of that additional footprint is to the rear of the house so it should not make too big of an impact from the street. The Applicant also reached out to that neighbor who commented originally and spoke with them about maintaining that setback. Ressler clarified the new footprint of the front yard setback is the trigger and asked if that is correct. Oakden noted it is the side yard setback. Ressler clarified and said they are improving the front yard setback. Oakden replied that is correct. Ressler said it is a substandard lot and makes the building envelope difficult to comply. Oakden said that is correct. McCutcheon said the Applicant reached out to the neighborhood and the neighborhood was fine with it. Oakden believes they reached out to the neighbor and if the Applicant is here, he can speak to that. Oakden did receive an email from the Applicant stating they had reached out and communicated with that northern neighbor. Ressler asked if any neighbor has gone on record with their feedback. Oakden has not received any official statements or signatures. Efim Shukalovich, Alliance Builders, was the initial buyer who provided the plan to the seller when he was applying for the variance. He is looking to build a house for a family, his wife and three girls. They are changing the house a little bit and moving the deck from the back to the side and that is the house they have come up with. He hopes for approval. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:03 p.m. Kirchner appreciates that this has been pushed back a bit from the front and it does not look like, where he is assuming a garage would go based on the proposed driveway, looks no further forward than what the Planning Commission had originally approved. While he understands there is additional footprint towards the rear, it still appears to maintain within the original setback. Barring any neighbors concerns or public comment against it, Kirchner does not see an issue with this as it seems to conform for the most part to what they had already approved specific to the side yard setbacks. Ressler agrees and thinks the Staff recommendation of approval is prudent based on the mitigants that have been presented. Kirchner moved, Bollis seconded, to approve LA21-000022 Alliance Builders, 15 Stubbs Bay Road No/ Pid 32-118-23-34-0006, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 Date Application Received: 02/18/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/01/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/30/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Planner Date: March 15, 2021 Subject: LA21-000022, Alliance Builders o/b/o Efim Shukalovich, 15 Stubbs Bay Road, PID 3211823340006, Variances, Public Hearing Background The property received lot area, lot width and side yard setback variances in December 2020 (LA20-000071). That application established an 18.2 foot setback to the north, and a 15.5 setback to the south, addressing the neighbors comment to create maximum setback to the north. The applicant recently purchased the vacant property and is proposing to place the new home at a similar front setback as neighboring properties but does encroach into required setback areas not previously approved. The applicant is proposing a rambler style home with a walk out basement. The new application is maintaining the side yard setbacks but a new home footprint within the setbacks is being proposed. The property is nonconforming with respect to area with 1.22 acres and in width at 123.77’, where the RR-1A district requires 5 acres in area and 300’ in width. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the existing lot width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. They have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are inherent practical difficulties with the substandard lot size and width supporting variances for a new home. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 - Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required Prev. variance approved Proposed Met/ Not Met Front 100’/ **45’ per northern neighbor 50.2’ 52’ Met Application Summary: The applicant is requesting side yard setbacks. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA21-000022 March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Rear 100’ Roughly 360’ Roughly 360’ Met Side (North) 50’ 18.2’ 18.2’ Not Met Side (South) 50’ 15.5’ 15.5’ Not Met **Front yard setback. For lots that are non-conforming with respect to area the minimum front yard setback for the principal building, and accessory buildings less than 1,000 square feet, shall be equal to the average depth of the existing front yards on the adjacent lots on each side of the non- conforming lot fronting on the same street. However, the depth of such front yard shall not be less than ten feet. Section 78- 78-395- Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300’ Actual 53,206 s.f. (1.2 acre) 123.77’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 53,206 s.f. (1.2 acre) Allowed: 10,641 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,148 s.f. (6 %) Applicable Regulations: Side Yard Setback (78-395) The required side yard setback is 50’. The applicant is proposing a 15.5’ setback to the south and 18.2’ setback to the north. The lot is 123.77’ feet wide and applying the 50’ setbacks on either side would allow for a 23.77’ wide building envelope for a new home. The abutting neighbor with a similar lot size maintains approximately a 16’ side yard setback, similar to the applicant’s request. 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: LA21-000022 March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 4 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 side yard setback variance request is 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 to use the property in a reasonable manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming building 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 area and width, 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 by construction 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 a single family home is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and width of the lot within the RR- 1A zoning district is unique, and supports approval of the requested side yard 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 is unique within the existing 5-acre zoning district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant stated this is true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting 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 applicant has stated the narrow lot results in setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. LA21-000022 March 15, 2021 Page 4 of 4 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. Public Comments No public comments were submitted. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Overlay & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Septic Report Exhibit G. LA20-000071 Approval Resolution Exhibit H. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To consider approval of a resolution approving the preliminary plat for Long Bridge. 2. MN§462.358 Sub 3b. Application Deadline The application was received on February 17, 2021 and considered to be complete on February 26th. The 120-Day review period has been extended and will expire on June 26, 2021. 3. Background/ Council Vote. This project was the subject of a sketch plan in 2020 (LA20-000003). The proposed preliminary plat is generally consistent with the sketch plan. 4. Proposal Summary. The applicant proposes splitting the parcel into three buildable lots and an outlot for a private road. This private road will terminate in a conforming cul de sac. The right of way width and pavement width conform to city standards. All three lots conform to city standards, each being more than two acres of dry-buildable area and 200 feet of frontage. None of the lots are lake lots. Though in the MUSA and eligible to connect to the sanitary sewer, all lots will be served by on-site septic and wells because the sanitary sewer is not readily accessible. Hennepin County preliminarily supports the location of the proposed intersection, no turn lanes are required. They are requesting additional right of way for future roadway needs and confirmation of sight distance. This parcel includes a pond and a tributary that feeds Long Lake. The Watershed District (MCWD) has identified needs including easements and infrastructure improvements plans for improving water quality. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 15th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed preliminary Plat. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 on a motion to approve the preliminary plat. Commissioners supported the project, subject to staff’s recommended conditions, which included City Engineer comments, Hennepin County comments, Watershed District approval, and confirmation of two septic sites. These conditions have been incorporated into the draft resolution. 6. Public Comment. No written comments for or against the proposal have been received. Staff has fielded calls regarding the project. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Plan set C. PC Minutes – draft D. PC staff report Item No.: 14 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000021 – John Newell o/b/o Stephen and John Newell, 1485 6th Avenue N, Preliminary Plat – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: E. Applicant Narrative F. City Engineer comments G. County Comments H. MCWD preliminary comments References PC Staff report and Exhibits 3-15-21 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR LONG BRIDGE (FILE NO. LA21-000021) WHEREAS, on February 17, 2021 John Newell, o/b/o Stephen and John Newell (“Applicants”), applied for a preliminary plat for the property legally described in Exhibit A; WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, 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 the preliminary plat application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 21, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the preliminary plat; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application, the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff, and the comments received from the public during the meeting; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested preliminary plat as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1.This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000021. 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 is guided for Urban Low Density Residential in the 2040 Community Management Plan. Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 4. The Property contains 24.68 acres in area. 5. The parcel will be subdivided into 3 buildable lots and 1 outlot for a private road. All lots conform to the size and width requirements of the LR -1A zoning district upon being combined. 6. The Developer has prepared grading plans to manage stormwater on site conforming to applicable rules and ordinances. 7. Access to the property is via County Road 6, a Hennepin County road. 8. While the parcel is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), the lots will be served by on-site septic systems because the City Council finds that sanitary sewer is not reasonably accessible, per Section 82-223. 9. Water will be provided via on-site wells. 10. The Parks, Trails and Open Space element of the Orono Community Management Plan (CMP) has no current plans for parks that specifically require dedication of park land from this property. 11. The City Council finds that a conservation design plan is not necessary due to the scope of the development and the intention to minimize grading, and waives the requirement as authorized in Section 82-300. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Further, based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants preliminary plat approval to allow the subdivision of the property into 3 buildable lots, as depicted on the plans most recently updated February 25, 2021 prepared by Gronberg and Associates, attached as Exhibit B, subject to the following conditions: A. Project Specific Conditions 1. The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City Engineer in their comment letter dated March 1, 2021 (Exhibit C) shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 2. Watershed District (MCWD) approval, including provision of easement necessary to support the pond and related infrastructure on the property. 3. Hennepin County approval, outlined in the comment letter dated March 17, 2021 and attached as Exhibit D. 4. Suitable documentation for two septic sites for each lot to be provided prior to Final Plat. 5. The following estimated fees are due at the time of final plat unless otherwise noted. These fees are based on the 2021 Fee schedule and the fee schedule in effect at the time of Final Plat approval will govern. a. Stormwater and Drainage Trunk: The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee) of $16,120.00 (Number of new lots (2) times per lot amount ($8,060). c. Park dedication: $11,100.00 ($5,550 x 2 new lots). B. General conditions imposed on preliminary plats shall apply, and are as follow: 1. Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval. 2. Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas" and to the approved SWPPP. All erosion controls as required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing grading and excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in working order until the site is vegetated and stabilized. 3. The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing, signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 4. Septic sites shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance. 5. This approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. 6. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 7. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 8. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by filing a final Plat application within one year of the date of Council approval, or the preliminary plat will expire on that date (April 12, 2022). 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. C. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions: 1) Final Street and Storm Sewer plans and specifications. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The Public Works Department and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all utility improvements. 2) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans. 3) Landscaping plan to reflect a natural pattern of replacement trees, versus a lineal replacement pattern along the new road. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 4) Final Plans for improvements proposed in the Hennepin County Right of Way. 5) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. D. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the City. These submittals are as follows: 1). Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing by Gronberg and Associates dated February 25, 2021 attached hereto as Exhibit A, except as modified herein. B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" 10' along exterior property lines and 5' along the interior property lines. C. Dedication of “Drainage Easements” over all drainageways. D. Name of plat. E. Name of the street. 2). Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to be provided in the Letter of Credit based on 125% of the estimated cost of improvements. D. One original copy of any private covenant, homeowners' association agreement or other private restriction intended to be CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 filed in the chain of title of the property at the time the final plat or survey is recorded. 3). Fees required: Application fee, Park dedication, Stormwater and Drainage Trunk enumerated above. E. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the development. F. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to streets, curb & gutter, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 125% of the improvement costs. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 7 Exhibit A Legal Description LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR JOHN & STEPHEN NEWELL : (per Certificate of Title No. 1446543) Par 1: That part of Lot 1 lying West of a line drawn parallel with and 395 feet East of, measured at right angles to the East line of the West 1/2 of the Southwest Quarter of Section 26, Township 118, Range 23 and the same extended and lying North of the North line of Lot 2 and its Easterly extension; That part of Lot 2, lying North of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1379; All in "Auditor's Subdivision No. 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota" Par 2: That part of Government Lot 1, Section 26, Township 118, Range 23 described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 2, "Auditor's Subdivision No. 291, Hennepin County, Minnesota"; thence West along the extension of the North line of said Lot 2 and along the South line of Lot 1, said Auditor's Subdivision to the most Westerly line of Lot 1, said Auditor's Subdivision; thence South along the extension of the most Westerly line of Lot 1, said Auditor's Subdivision; to the South line of said Section 26; thence East along the South line of said Section 26 to its intersection with the West line of Lot 2, said Auditor's Subdivision; thence North to the point of beginning. Except that portion thereof embraced in Registered Land Survey Nos. 934 and 1379; and Except the West 50 feet of that part of the above described Government Lot 1 lying North of the North line of Registered Land Survey No. 934; and Except that part of Government Lot 1, lying Southerly of the Easterly extension of the Northerly line of Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1379. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 6. LA21-000021 JOHN NEWELL, 1485 6TH AVE N, PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) John Newell, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. In front of the Commission is a proposal for a three-lot subdivision to take the existing 24-acre parcel, split it into three buildable lots and one outlot for a road. This project was the subject of a sketch plan about a year ago and the project is fairly consistent with that sketch plan. Barnhart highlighted the access for the project would be off of County Road 6 and Hennepin County has provided some comment as to what they would like to see in terms of additional right-of-way. It seems to him that they are accepting the location as proposed, though they may require some work near the right-of-way to preserve a site visibility issue. Staff supports the project subject to Hennepin County approval of the access. Staff has also reviewed it from a City Engineering standpoint and provided some commentary in terms of additional changes primarily related to storm water management. Staff recommends approval subject to those conditions also. All three lots will be consistent with the City’s zoning ordinance in terms of lot area and lot width; all three lots have adequate sites for a new home in character with the neighborhood, and for two septic sites located for each lot. Staff suggested that approval would be subject to identification of those septic sites. Each lot will be served by an on-site well. During the sketch plan process the Commission had some comments about connecting to the sanitary sewer. Staff does not recommend it as a requirement, although it is certainly feasible, because it is not immediately adjacent to the property. Generally, they require sanitary sewer to be immediately adjacent to the property before instituting a requirement to connect to that. Each lot meets the minimum size requirements for dry buildable area and meets the lot width requirements in terms of the requirements for the zoning district. For Lots 1 and 3, the measurement will be off the new road outlot A, and Lot 2 frontage will be based on the distance at the building setback and does meet those requirements. Staff has asked for confirmation for that number, as Staff’s computation came out above 235 feet and they would like verification for that. The Applicant has provided a storm water management proposal that the City Engineer provided comment on; they also expect the Watershed District to provide some additional comment. There are a number of basins or infiltration areas scattered throughout the development and the unique feature of this project is that throughout the area is Long Lake Creek which is a tributary to Long Lake. That water has been identified as impaired and is part of the strategy of the Watershed District to improve water quality of the Long Lake Watershed District. Barnhart would imagine the Watershed District will have some comments coming in terms of recommended conditions so Staff has tagged on to those and suggests approval subject to the Watershed District comments as they complete their review. The project provides a landscaping plan based on the length of the road. Previously in the City’s rural areas, they have tried clumping of trees rather than a suburban, tree every 40 foot on center, and the plan reflects that goal. Planning Staff is recommending approval of the project subject to four conditions: 1. City Engineer comments 2. Hennepin County approval 3. Watershed District approval 4. Confirmation of two conforming septic sites for each lot. John Newell, 1485 County Road 6, stated they have hired someone to come in and verify those two septic locations on both lots and that has been done. There are some hoops to deal with regarding the Watershed District and Mr. Newell is working with them at this point in time. They have requests for an easement across Lot 1 in order to be able to access the pond; he has already given them full access and he thinks it was applied for back in 1995 and never followed through on. Mr. Newell thinks the documentation is LA21-21 Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 already there and he does not believe that will be an issue. Mr. Newell is a landscape architect so the first thing he did when he bought the property was to machine-move trees, so they already have a regimented landscaping appearance to it which he hopes will conform. He knows that will have to be determined once they have that plan in place. Bollis asked regarding lot width for Lot 2, was that a question? Barnhart replied the comment was that Staff just wanted confirmation that it was over 200 feet; his math shows that it is over 200 feet and he just wants confirmation from the surveying company in the final drawing. Bollis assumes the easement for the Watershed District is through Lot 1 at the end of the cul -de-sac. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis asked if that will eat into any of the dry buildable on Lot 1. Mr. Newell replied it shouldn’t; there is already an existing easement or entrance there that he planted off as much as he can leaving about a 45-foot path to be able to still get access in, which should allow just about any kind of dredging. He believes that is the reason they want to be able to get back in and clean that pond should it silt-out. Mr. Newell noted they just examined it last year and when he spoke with Heidi there were no plans to do any type of work, except there is one thing up by the dam that they are proposing. Bollis asked to clarify that it is not an access easement, but more of an easement to do work within that wetland. Mr. Newell replied that is correct…it is so they can get into that pond. Barnhart said to be clear, he does not know what the full intent is for that property or easement and that is why they are deferring to their comment. Mr. Newell stated their intent, once they clear the mortgage, is to actually donate all the wetlands. So, the property that is directly below Lot 3, those wetlands and the pond would be donated to the Watershed District. Gettman asked to go to the second to last page of the packet showing the lots that border the lake. Mr. Newell noted they do not border a lake. Gettman understands that. He noted on screen the area below the blue line and asked if those are three separate, oversized lots that have houses on them; how will they be affected by the wetlands area. Barnhart does not understand the question. Gettman noted it is for the Applicant and he is trying to make sure he understands what Mr. Newell is talking about regarding the wetlands; is the area that has the house right now below that or south of that or is it the area west of it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 Mr. Newell said it would be north of his house, pretty much due north. It is really where the creek runs through the property. He clarified it would be the pond and the entire marsh area. Gettman noted those three properties to the south, those are not Mr. Newell’s properties. Mr. Newell replied no, there is an easement driveway-wise to access those two lots, the point and then Megan Dayton’s home; those two lots at the point. Gettman was trying to clarify that those two lots will not be affected by this plan. Mr. Newell replied no, they will still have that same access through the same driveway. Ressler noted the application as proposed is not to donate those wetlands so it is still intact based on the application in front of the Commission. He appreciates the color and the clarity as well. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. Ressler noted the Commission has seen this before and has feedback from the past they can memorialize if necessary. There were some changes recommended and Staff noted the previous feedback was supportive of City sewer, but that it is not required. Barnhart stated previously the Commission suggested it, Staff notes that it is an opportunity but does not recommend it as a requirement. Ressler noted Staff recommendation is for approval and Lot 2 is the one they wanted to clarify on record as a condition to verify the width is 200 feet. Barnhart replied yes. Bollis moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000021, 1485 6th Ave N, Preliminary Plat with Staff recommendations. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0 Date Application Received: February 17, 2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: February 26, 2021 120-Day Review Period Expires: June 26, 2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: March 15, 2021 Subject: #LA21-000021, John Newell o/b/o Stephen and John Newell (Owners), 1485 Sixth Avenue N, Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Background This project was the subject of a sketch plan in 2020 (LA20-000003). The proposal is consistent with the sketch plan. Three lots are proposed, each with access off of a proposed new private road that will intersect with County Rd 6 at the location of the existing driveway. The County has provided comments regarding the proposal, attached as Exhibit I. No access onto County Rd 6 is proposed or supported. The private road serving the development will terminate in a conforming cul de sac approximately 540 feet from its intersection with County Rd 6. Off of this cul de sac will be one driveway serving three existing lots. This is no change from the current condition. If it is determined that a variance is necessary, this variance will be processed with the Final Plat. Each of the lots will be serviced by on-site septic systems; septic reports have been provided. The Commission previously suggested connection to municipal sanitary sewer service; while the property is in the Service Area and therefore eligible, the property does not fall under the parameters for required connection as in the opinion of staff, the sanitary sewer is not readily accessible, the infrastructure is not immediately adjacent to the subject property. Each lot will be served by an on-site well. There is currently one home on the property. After subdivision, this structure will be remain conforming, and located within lot 2. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide his 24.68 acre parcel into three buildable lots and a road outlot. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval, subject to: City Engineer comments Hennepin County and Watershed district approval Confirmation of two conforming septic sites. LA21-21 Council Exhibit D FILE # LA21-21 March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The site is dominated by natural features. A tributary (Long Lake Creek) serving Long Lake runs through the property. Long Lake has been identified as an ‘impaired water’ and the creek is part of the strategy to improve water quality. The Watershed District has provided comments regarding these strategies. A pond/ wetland complex is adjacent to this tributary, impacting the configuration of lots 1 and 3. There is a 75 foot buffer from the wetlands on the east side of the road, and a buffer of 40 feet on the west side. There are additional wetlands on lot 2. Buffers for these wetlands are 30-40 feet wide, per Watershed regulations. The applicant notes that the Maple, Basswood, and Oak forest south of the creek is not proposed to be impacted by the subdivision. The area north of the creek, while wooded, is largely made up of trees less than 6 inches in diameter. Discussed during the sketch plan phase, the Council waived the requirement for a Conservation design plan, in lieu of a plan identifying substantial trees greater than 6 inched in diameter. Consistent with City policy, no activity is proposed in the area of these trees, a tree survey was not deemed necessary in areas where no work is proposed. The Commission may require a comprehensive tree inventory. Analysis All lots are within the LR-1A zoning district, where 2.0 acres of dry-buildable area, and 200 feet of frontage are required. The subject parcel is in Tier 1 of the Stormwater Quality Overlay district, and upon subdivision, each lot is likely to remain Tier 1, which allows up to 25% lot coverage. Tier assignments will be confirmed at Final Plat. Lot Configuration Lot 1 is 3.49 gross acres, and 3.25 acres dry. Lot frontage is well over 400 feet. There is adequate opportunity for conforming septic and new home sites without impacting setbacks and buffers. Lot 2 is the existing home. It is proposed to be 17.2 acres gross, and 10.79 acres dry. The width is approximately 235 feet, though this dimension should be confirmed prior to Council. Lot 3 is 3.04 acres, 2.98 acres dry, and has more than 400 feet of frontage. There is adequate opportunity for conforming septic and new home sites without impacting setbacks and buffers. Stormwater. Stormwater is proposed to be treated in small areas scattered through the project. Stormwater management techniques are subject to approval by the city engineer and the watershed district. The City Engineer’s comments are provided as Exhibit H, and the Watershed’s as Exhibit J. The County has requested additional right of way to provide for 50’ of ROW along the southern half of the road. Support for these ROW acquisitions supports long term Transportation projects that benefit Orono residents. As noted above, this property is an important strategic part of the overall Long Lake Improvement project, and the watershed district has provided additional comments. Staff recommends that the project be approved subject to those comments. Landscaping. The proposal includes a landscaping plan, where a number of trees are required based on the length of the road. The landscaping plan is provided as Exhibit D. FILE # LA21-21 March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Fees Fees based on the 2021 Fee schedule and the addition of 2 lots include: These fees will be due prior to release of the Final Plat. Engineer Comments City Engineer comments are attached as Exhibit H. Staff recommends any approval be subject to these comments. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the following: City Engineer Comments Watershed District Comments County transportation comments Confirmation of two septic sites for each lot. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Preliminary Plat Exhibit C. Grading and Road Plan Exhibit D. Landscape Plan Exhibit E. Erosion Control/ SWPPP Plan Exhibit F. Narrative Exhibit G. Hardcover worksheets Exhibit H. City Engineer Comments Exhibit I. County Transportation Comments Exhibit J. MCWD Comments Exhibit K. Sec. 82-223 Sewerage Requirements Exhibit L. Mailing information Unit fee x Units =Total fee Stormwater Trunk Fee 8,060.00$ 2 16,120.00$ Based on acres Park dedication 5,550.00$ 2 11,100.00$ Total Fees 27,220.00$ LA21-21 Council Exhibit E H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Long Bridge\Long Bridge_PrePlatReview_2021-03-01.docx March 1, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Jeremy Barnhart 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Preliminary Plat Application Long Bridge Engineering Review #1 Dear Jeremy: As requested, I have completed an engineering review of the revised documents submitted for the above referenced project. We offer the following observations, comments, and recommendations for your consideration: 1. Four dry retention basins are proposed for stormwater runoff management to meet regulatory requirements. The following must be considered regarding stormwater management: a. Per City requirements, the proposed stormwater management system must limit proposed peak runoff rates to that of existing for the 1, 10, and 100 year – 24h hour events. Per NPDES requirements, the system must also treat the water quality volume, calculated as 1” times the sum of new and fully reconstructed impervious surface. If infiltration is prohibited as outlined by NPDES requirements, a wet sedimentation basin or filtration basin may be utilized. b. Based on suspected soil conditions and the submitted calculations, site soils do not seem conducive for infiltration. If infiltration is not possible due to site soils, volume control will not be required per NPDES requirements, but the water quality volume must still be treated. A permanent volume must be provided below the outlets for each basin to treat this volume. If using filtration, an underdrain must be installed with the basins to ensure complete drawdown between rainfall events. In addition, filtration basins should be located a minimum 3’ above the water table to ensure proper functionality. c. Per City requirements to track TMDLs and reduce loads to meet required Waste Load Allocations, the calculations for Total Suspended Solids (TSS) and Total Phosphorus (TP) loading must be provided. d. Facilities necessary for the ultimate development (street construction, sewer, basins, etc.) must be installed and the site mass-graded at the same time as street construction to ensure all drainage ways, watersheds, and runoff management systems are constructed per the approved Stormwater Management Plan and are sized adequately for proposed improvements. e. An 8’ wide bench must be provided around each basin to provide access to the outlet and for basin maintenance. f. Basins must be permanently vegetated prior to issuance of any building permits. g. Native vegetation should be utilized in basins and wetland buffers. LA21-21 Council Exhibit F Preliminary Plat Application Long Bridge Page 2 H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Long Bridge\Long Bridge_PrePlatReview_2021-03-01.docx h. An impervious surface exhibit must be provided to verify areas match the calculations. The exhibit must indicate existing and proposed impervious surfaces. i. Curb, gutter, and a spillway must be provided on the east side of the road at the entrance to direct runoff to the basin, or the Drainage Area Map and calculations should be revised to indicate runoff from this area bypassing Basin #4. j. A stormwater management plan outlining how the proposed improvements will meet all requirements must be submitted for review prior to Preliminary Plat approval to ensure adequate siting is available for required facilities. 2. The weir for Wetland A and the culvert under the driveway for Long Lake Creek must be indicated on the plan. 3. Final Plans must include the following: a. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan b. Street Construction Plan c. Utility Plan d. Landscape and Restoration Plan e. SWPPP meeting NPDES requirements 4. The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval and permitting. An existing access route to the Wetland A weir is located on the northeast side of the wetland. This access route should be confirmed as adequate with MCWD. A copy of any approvals or permits required must be submitted prior to Final Plat approval. 5. The applicant will be required to obtain a General Construction Permit (NPDES) to discharge stormwater associated with construction activity since more than 1 acre will be disturbed. A copy of the permit must be submitted prior to any land disturbing activity. 6. The applicant will be required to obtain Hennepin County approval and permitting for connection to County Road 6. A copy of any approvals or permits required must be submitted prior to Final Plat approval. 7. A variance will be required to allow a driveway approach serving more than two lots. The driveway for Lot 2 also serves 1305 and 1405 Sixth Avenue North. In addition, an Access Easement should be established over the driveway across Lot 2 and recorded with the Final Plat per the City’s approval process. 8. Since this parcel is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA), the lots are eligible for connection to the municipal sanitary sewer system. The most likely connection point would be on the south side via a low-pressure force main system. Additional discussion with the City regarding sanitary service should be undertaken to determine viability of municipal service. 9. The applicant will be required to submit a Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater management structures and facilities. The agreement must define maintenance responsibilities following completion of project, specify types and frequencies of inspection and maintenance activities, designate who will conduct inspection and maintenance activities, and outline reporting requirements. The Agreement will be recorded with the County per the City’s approval process. 10. Drainage and Utility Easements msut be provided as follows: a. Over all sanitary forcemain. b. Over all stormwater management facilities used to meet regulatory requirements, including access routes. c. Over all wetlands, creeks, and buffers, including existing access route to the Wetland A weir on northeast side of wetland). d. All swales, structures, and piping providing drainage for multiple properties (including the weir for Wetland A and the culvert for Long Lake Creek under the shared driveway). e. 5’ along all side lot lines, unless adjacent to Development boundary. f. 10’ along all front lot lines, rear lot lines, and adjacent to Development boundary. Preliminary Plat Application Long Bridge Page 3 H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Long Bridge\Long Bridge_PrePlatReview_2021-03-01.docx If you have any questions or comments, please contact me to discuss. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Robert E. Bean, Jr., P.E. Water Resources Engineer CC: Adam Edwards, Director of Public Works / City Engineer Hennepin County Transportation Project Delivery Public Works Facility, 1600 Prairie Drive, Medina, MN 55340 612-596-0300 | hennepin.us March 17, 2021 Mr. Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: Preliminary Plat Review – Newell Plat / 1485 6th Avenue North (Received 02/19/21) County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 6 (6th Avenue North) Hennepin County Plat Review ID #3812A (Reviewed 02/23/21) Mr. Barnhart: Please consider the following county comments for this preliminary plat proposal subdividing 1485 6th Avenue North into three single-family lots. Access: Pending demonstration of sufficient sight distance, use of the current access on CSAH 6 is supported. If desired, county permitting staff could assist in measuring the sight distance. Additionally, if the gravel driveway on the western edge of the site will not serve a public purpose, removal and regrading with proper ditch drainage is requested. Right-of-way: Dedication of 17 feet of right of-way to match a 50-foot half section along CSAH 6 is requested to provide space for future roadway needs. Additionally, consistent with city standards, dedication of a 10-foot drainage and utility easement is requested beyond the right of way. Storm Water/Drainage: The county storm water system will not take water from new drainage areas. The site needs to internally capture any additional stormwater runoff. Additional treatment may be needed if flow rates cannot match existing. Contact: Drew McGovern at 612-596-0208 or drew.mcgovern@hennepin.us Permits: Please inform the developer that all construction within county right-of-way requires an approved Hennepin County permit prior to beginning construction. This includes, but is not limited to, driveway and street access, drainage and utility construction, trail development, and landscaping. Contact: Michael Olmstead, Permits Coordinator at 612-596-0336 or michael.olmstead@hennepin.us Please contact Jason Gottfried: 612-596-0394, jason.gottfried@hennepin.us for further discussion. Sincerely, Carla Stueve, PE, PTOE County Highway Engineer LA21-21Council Exhibit G He nn e pin Co u n ty Na tur al Resources Map Da te : 1/2 4/2020 Co mm ents: Th is data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to co mp le te ness or accu r acy; (ii) is furnished with no wa rra nty of a ny kin d; an d (iii) is n otsuitable for leg al, eng ine erin g or surveying p urposes. Hennepin County shall n ot be liable for a ny d amage, injury or loss re sulting from this data. CO PYRIGHT © HENNEP IN COUNTY 2020 1 inch = 8 00 feet Le ge nd Streams We tlands Poten tial Wetland - HCW I Pr obab le We tland - HCW I Pr obab le We tland - NW I PID: 2 611 8233 3002 9 Add re s s: 1 485 SIXT H AVE N, O RO NO O wne r N am e: ST EPHEN L NEWELLTRUST ET AL Acr es: 24 .68 ¯ From:Grace Barlow To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:1485 6th Ave, Orono- MCWD Preliminary Comments Date:Monday, March 8, 2021 2:56:16 PM Jeremy, Good afternoon! This email is a follow up to my voicemail from earlier and as a response to the comment request for the above referenced address. Yes, the District does have interest in this site regarding potential water quality improvements- The property includes a regional stormwater pond that the District built in the ‘90s, which we are interested in potentially retrofitting. The easement was never recorded, so we are hoping to address that through this subdivision process. From a pure permit standpoint, the proposed project would require review under the District’s Erosion Control, Stormwater Management, and Wetland Protection rules. No application has been submitted to the District at this point, however the sooner that we are able to coordinate with the property owner prior to their submittal the better before plans become too solidified. Please feel free to contact me with any other questions- Thanks! Grace Barlow | Permitting Technician | Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard | Minnetonka, MN 55345 | Office: 952-641-4518 LA21-21 Council Exhibit H AGENDA ITEM 1. State Senator David Osmek will be presenting this item. Item No.: 15 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: Senator David Osmek Presenter: Senator David Osmek Agenda Section: Presentation AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to construct an addition and deck on the home. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 5, and considered to be complete on February 24. The 60-Day review period has been extended and now expires on June 24, 2021. Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing to construct a small addition on the south side of the home, and a deck on the lakeside of the home. The subject property is nonconforming with respect to area, width, hardcover, and setbacks; the entire home is within the 75-foot lake setback. Following the Planning Commission’s direction, the applicant has revised the plans to reduce the addition footprint by one foot as well as reconfigured and reduced the proposed deck footprint by 240 square feet, including the minimal flagstone path. The proposed hardcover is now shown to be 24.9%. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 15, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing and discussion, the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to deny the requested variances as proposed. Their discussion indicated that there were practical difficulties supporting some level of improvements for the property however not the hardcover in excess of 25%. 4. Public Comment. No written comments were received; no one spoke at the public hearing. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the revised request. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting your decision. Exhibits A. Proposed / Revised Plans B. Revised Hardcover Calculations C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits of 03/15/2021 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Site Photos F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations G. Aerial Photo H. Resolution No. 4430 I. Property Owners List J. Plat Map Item No.: 16 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000016 – Schimmel Construction o/b/o David & Kathryn Wiemer, 1405 Rest Point Road, Variances Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report Certificate of Survey for - Dave W emer 1405 Rest Point Rd. Orono, MN 55364 0 20 40 vQ' I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ori._ a 22703 10/21/20 Steven V. Ische License No. Date traverse PC 93.0 N ss o of 36S SOT 932.3 x§34` _ * . _. 932.5 93 h' RE h QT 1 935 4 _ r \ Q / i ! a V n 1.y . ,...,. _.. l 1-1 X436.6 1 J 11 0 x ! ! 1 4 U w c 0 /s/e 1• ' CO 934 9 934.6- 00,0, 346 L.S J4\\ app --• 0, 6 935.5 e35.4/ 10- linr 0 ! / 6361 a ! ( zc v V r 9347 o i N%" Q / y "Q g'24 o ,y' U 934.2 • P5 U A 3 0 1 ! p *. O 34.0 934.6 934.1 / FAV X929.8 9 0*01 - 935.4 935-4 933.6 / 933.5 Q 935 934.9 r 3 N / 1 t 935 r- — "-dbr (MEAS) '"_ w . 50.80 PL —_ : x31.9 / 931.8 931.6 SWLyL/NE' OFLOT 25 931.1 75 FOOT SETBACK TO O.H.W. l 931.0 MINIMUM SETBACKS: ROAD: 30' LAKE: 75' SIDE: 10, PROD. #1850-00 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. Lots 24 and 25, SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14 REST POINT PARK LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. 9 3ccc6.8 936.9 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: EXISTING HOUSE: 2,017 S. F. DRIVEWAY.' 804 S.F. CONCRETE: 169 S.R TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: 2,990 S.F. LOT AREA: 13,193 S.F. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 22.7 PREMIER LAND SURVEYING, LIC 1600 Arboretum Blvd., Suite 203 Victoria, MN 55386 952-443-3010 LEGEND X Spot Elevation Found Iron Monument Survey Control Point Pine Tree Ilk Deciduous Tree Contour Line I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ori._ a 22703 10/21/20 Steven V. Ische License No. Date traverse PC 93.0 N ss o of 36S SOT 932.3 x§34` _ * . _. 932.5 93 h' RE h QT 1 935 4 _ r \ Q / i ! a V n 1.y . ,...,. _.. l 1-1 X436.6 1 J 11 0 x ! ! 1 4 U w c 0 /s/e 1• ' CO 934 9 934.6- 00,0, 346 L.S J4\\ app --• 0, 6 935.5 e35.4/ 10- linr 0 ! / 6361 a ! ( zc v V r 9347 o i N%" Q / y "Q g'24 o ,y' U 934.2 • P5 U A 3 0 1 ! p *. O 34.0 934.6 934.1 / FAV X929.8 9 0*01 - 935.4 935-4 933.6 / 933.5 Q 935 934.9 r 3 N / 1 t 935 r- — "-dbr (MEAS) '"_ w . 50.80 PL —_ : x31.9 / 931.8 931.6 SWLyL/NE' OFLOT 25 931.1 75 FOOT SETBACK TO O.H.W. l 931.0 MINIMUM SETBACKS: ROAD: 30' LAKE: 75' SIDE: 10, PROD. #1850-00 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. Lots 24 and 25, SUBDIVISION OF LOT 14 REST POINT PARK LAKE MINNETONKA, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Subject to easements of record. 9 3ccc6.8 936.9 IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE: EXISTING HOUSE: 2,017 S. F. DRIVEWAY.' 804 S.F. CONCRETE: 169 S.R TOTAL IMPERVIOUS: 2,990 S.F. LOT AREA: 13,193 S.F. IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE: 22.7 PREMIER LAND SURVEYING, LIC 1600 Arboretum Blvd., Suite 203 Victoria, MN 55386 952-443-3010 Last Updated: January 2020 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.) A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] % MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. LA21-000016 SCHIMMEL CONSTRUCTION, 1405 REST POINT RD, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) David & Kathryn Wiemer, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis stated the Applicant proposes to build a 125 square foot addition on the south side of the home and an approximate 500 square foot deck on the lakeside. The addition is shown on screen in red and the deck is shown in yellow on the survey. The property is non- conforming with respect to area, width, hard cover, and setbacks. The entire home is located within the 75- foot setback from the lake. The proposed addition is shown to encroach within the 30-foot rear street setback and the 75-foot lake setback. The deck is shown within the 75 foot and average lakeshore setbacks. Existing hardcover on the level today is 22.7% with almost all of the hardcover within the 75-foot setback. The 75-foot setback is the line that starts here [noted on screen] and goes diagonally through the driveway. The Applicant is proposing an increase of approximately 604 square feet for 27.2% total site hardcover. Hardcover, lake setback, average lakeshore setback (ALS), and rear street setback variances would be required. Curtis noted the lake and rear street setbacks overlap eliminating the buildable area, creating a practical difficulty for development of the lot. The existing home has an approximate 2,000 square foot footprint which does result in reasonable use of the property. The 500 square foot deck and 125 square foot addition are relatively minimal, however, result in additional encroachments in both the rear and lake setback areas and add to the non-conforming hardcover on the property. The neighboring home to the north is located approximately 30 feet from the lake, determining the ALS which is not shown on the survey but she can provide an aerial photo. The Applicant’s proposal results in additional encroachments with the deck proposed at 23 feet and the addition to the home as close as 45 feet to the lake. Staff has received no public comments on the application. The practical difficulty analysis was provided in the Staff report; regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that there are no practical difficulties supporting the current variances to further encroach within the required setbacks to increase the total site hardcover above 25% or to place a deck within the ALS. In summary, Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as proposed. David & Kathryn Wiemer, Applicants, moved into this house in November 2019 after 35 years in Minnetonka. They looked at over 35 properties and this was “the one.” They have loved living on the lake and have had a little over a year to understand how they live and use both the indoor and outdoor spaces. The goal with the variances is twofold; they would like to convert what is now a small office space into a four-season porch with a door to a patio or a deck. There are also tables, chairs, and a fire ring outside that are regularly used and in the warmer months, the legs sink in to the grass. They are outside a lot to enjoy the lake and the views and look forward to working with the City to respect the interests of the various setback requirements while trying to achieve the goals and dreams of using and enjoying the property. Ms. Wiemer is available to answer any questions. Mr. Wiemer noted a photo with a room in the foreground that is the current office they would like to expand to the south; they can also see some chairs and a grill to wrap a deck or patio around on that side of it. Bollis asked if there is currently any deck or patio out there. Ms. Wiemer said there is nothing, they just have wood chips. They bought the house from the original owners who built the house in 2000 and there is overlap between the two setbacks, so they know there is already a challenge here. The Applicant noted they would like to use more of the outside space because there really is nothing right now. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Ressler noted it is always difficult when there is lakeshore involved in setbacks. Erickson asked who prepared the 3D color graphic. Ms. Oakden said it was the Applicant’s contractor. Erickson noted those were very well done. McCutcheon thinks the big thing is the allowed hardcover, it is 25% and the existing is 22%. With the house being built behind the lakeshore setback, he will throw that one out the window because that just makes sense. Then it is a skinny lot so the 30-foot setback from the road seems kind of ridiculous, too. He noted it is a unique situation and that is why they are here. He clarified the hardcover is where he draws the line – they can do things but within the hardcover limits is his initial thought. Bollis tends to agree with McCutcheon as the hardcover is so close at 27.2% for what they are asking for and he feels it could be modified to meet at least the hardcover. He agrees with the setbacks – he thinks they need to throw those out on this one and if they could meet the hardcover it would be a yes for him. Kirchner agrees with the comments that have been said. It is a unique lot and he agrees the hardcover does not seem to be implicated by the shape of the lot, rather the addition and amount of the addition. Ressler said there seems to be support for hardcover and not support for additional structure. Bollis clarified no support for above the 25% hardcover but the setback requests seem to be fine. Gettman thinks they are all in agreement that the 25% is really the stickler, but he would prefer to have the reduction of the overage above the 25% come back away from the lake so it is not contradicting everything the Planning Commission has said on everything else. He noted the red area could potentially go away and the yellow area reduced to get under the 25%; he is not trying to redesign but it is back to a preference. Ressler noted that is the difficulty, they try not to change what is there but it is nice to have additional feedback if it goes further to Council. He noted they could make a friendly amendment or make a motion one way or the other with the feedback they have provided. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to deny the application as it exists with the comments the Planning Commission has made. Curtis asked for a point of clarification, noting Gettman mentioned removal of the building addition, the red area. Is the Planning Commission specifying in their recommendation that the hardcover be reduced in a specific way or just pull the hardcover further from the lake and keep in the 25% limitation. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Gettman suggested that no comments be added to the denial because the City Council can hear the comments. It is an outright denial of the application as it exists. Curtis is looking for clarification on the discussion point. Gettman replied yes, if the Applicant can pull it back from the lake, it is not necessarily removal of the entire red area. Libby agrees with Gettman. Ressler thinks Staff has already made those comments and he tends to follow the Staff recommendation. [audio issues for a few seconds] This is always one of the tougher ones to find a solution around. He does not have anything that would disagree with the comments already made. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 02/05/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/24/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/25/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 March 2021 Subject: #LA21-000016, Schimmel Construction o/b/o David & Kathryn Wiemer, 1405 Rest Point Road, Variances Public Hearing Background The subject property is nonconforming with respect to area, width, hardcover, and setbacks; the entire home is within the 75-foot lake setback. The applicant is proposing to construct a 125 square foot addition on the south side of the home, and a ±500 square foot deck on the lakeside of the home. The proposed addition is shown to encroach within the 30-foot rear/street setback, and the 75- foot lake setback; the deck is shown to be within the 75-foot setback. The existing hardcover level on the property is 22.7% with much of the hardcover in the 75-foot setback. The applicant is proposing an increase of 604 square feet for 27.2% total site hardcover. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified existing nonconforming conditions and lack of privacy as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are no practical difficulties supporting the variances to further encroach within the required setbacks, to increase the total site hardcover above 25%, or to place an elevated deck within the average lakeshore setback. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct an addition and add a lakeside deck to the property. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. FILE #LA21-000016 15 March 2021 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 - Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear / Street 30’ 21’ Addition 20’ North Side 10’ 11.7’ No Change South Side Street 20’ 37.8’ Addition 30’ Lakeshore 75’ 29’ Deck 23’ Addition 45’ Average Lakeshore The average lakeshore setback appears to be ±30-feet based on the neighbor at 1385 Rest Point Road. The proposed deck will encroach approximately 7 feet based on the curve of the shoreline. Section 78- 330 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,530 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140’ Actual 13,193 s.f. (0.3 acre) 104’@ 75’ / 138’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 13,193 s.f. (0.3 acre) Allowed: 2,638 s.f. (20%) Existing: 2,016 s.f. (15.2%) Proposed: 2,141 s.f. (16.2%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 13,193 s.f. 3,298 s.f. (25 %) 2,990 s.f. (22.7%)* 3,593.9 s.f. (27.2%)** *The submitted hardcover calculations do not separate the hardcover located within the 75-foot setback. Most of the improved areas are within the 75-foot setback. **The submitted “proposed” calculations have been edited by staff as the 100 square foot pervious pavement/deck exclusion was incorrectly applied. Applicable Regulations: Hardcover Variances (Code Sections 78-1680 and 78-1700) The current hardcover level does not exceed the overall allowance of 25%, however most of the hardcover on the property is within the 75-foot setback where hardcover is not permitted and is therefore nonconforming. Staff estimates that only approximately 540 square feet of the property’s hardcover is not within the 75-foot setback. The hardcover additions are all within the 75-foot setback. FILE #LA21-000016 15 March 2021 Page 3 of 5 Rear/Street Setback Variance (Code Section 78-330) The subject property is only approximately 152 feet at the deepest location; the lot is triangular in shape narrowing as it runs to the southwest. The application of the 30-foot rear street setback is restrictive. When coupled with the 75-foot setback, the two setbacks overlap eliminating the buildable area creating a practical difficulty for development. However, the existing house has an approximate 2,000 square foot footprint which results in reasonable use. The addition proposed on the southwest side of the home is minimal, however results in additional encroachments in both the rear and lake setback areas, and adds to the nonconforming hardcover on the property. 75-foot Lake Setback Variance (Code Section 78-1279) The house is located as close at 29 feet from the OHWL the applicant’s proposal is to construct a deck as close as 23 feet to the OHWL. As stated previously the application of the lake and rear street setbacks result in no buildable area on the property. The applicant is requesting approval to add a ±500 square foot deck and 125 square foot addition to the existing nonconforming structure. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Code Section 78-1279) The neighboring home to the north determines the average lakeshore setback applied to the subject property. That home is located approximately 30 feet from the OHWL. The applicant’s proposal results in additional encroachments with the deck proposed at 23 feet and the addition to the home as close as 45 feet to the lake. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties 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 variance is not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. While the substandard lot has difficulties in its shape, small size and depth, and proximity to the lake, the property has reasonable use with the existing home. FILE #LA21-000016 15 March 2021 Page 4 of 5 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances support additional development within the lake yard and into the average lake shore setback, all inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The hardcover variance is requested to alleviate a poor home design identified by the applicant and facilitate the creation of more private outdoor space The variance requests to allow expansion of the hardcover and building within setbacks is unreasonable and is not supported by the practical difficulties. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The configuration and shape of the lot were not created by the owners. Variances were granted in 2000 to construct a new home on the property (Resol. No. 4430 attached as Exhibit However the uniqueness found in the shape, size, and proximity to the lake are not difficulties which support granting of additional variances to further expand the nonconformities on the property; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The setback and hardcover variances requested will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and when the property is viewed from the lake. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The lot shape, and depth, and the home’s proximity to the lake are particular to this property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The setbacks of adjacent homes in this neighborhood are somewhat similar to this lot. The conditions specifically impacting this property (lot depth and shape, home proximity to the lake, and the street frontage on two sides do not generally apply to the other properties in the LR-1B district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The owners indicate that granting the variances are necessary for the preservation of their property right. However, their property right is established by home and existing improvements on this substandard lot. FILE #LA21-000016 15 March 2021 Page 5 of 5 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 variances to allow construction of an addition and deck is not likely to impair health, safety, and comfort however permitting expansion of the nonconformities in this circumstance is contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. All of the practical difficulties have not been met to justify supporting the requested variances. The granting of the variances would serve as a convenience. This criterion is not met. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial of the variances as proposed. 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. Site Photos Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit G. Aerial Photo Exhibit H. Resolution No. 4430 Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a permit to place a private dock on city right-of-way on Big Island. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on February 8th and considered to be complete on February 16th. Therefore the initial 60-day review timeline has been extended, and the review period now expires on June 16, 2021. 3. Background. The applicants own 480 Big Island, a non-lakeshore property on Big Island. Pursuant to City Code Section 78-567, the applicants request approval to place a private dock on the right-of-way (Bay Place). Big Island is zoned RS, which is the only district where a non-lakeshore property is permitted access to the lake; the city may issue a permit for a dock in the right of way, or the property owner may obtain an easement over private property. 4. Summary. The layout of Big Island includes a system of platted, undeveloped city rights-of-way including some that terminate at the lake shore. The rights-of-way are utilized for pedestrian access throughout the island, for access to inland properties, and for property owners to receive delivery of materials and services where access from the lake is challenging (i.e. septic pumping and installation). The city does not maintain the rights-of-way and the clearing of vegetation beyond what is necessary to support pedestrian access is not supported or permitted. The majority of properties owned on the island are lakeshore properties or, if inland, are owned in kind with a lakeshore property. The Code provides for those limited number of non-lakeshore, inland lots to gain access via a private dock installed on a city right-of-way via a permit issued by the City Council. Historically, only two dock permits have been issued: Resolution 4456 attributed to and shared by 220 and 130 Big Island granted in 2000; and Resolution 2038 attributed to 230 Big Island granted in 1986 (both attached as Exhibit D). Until the current application, no other requests have been approved to staff’s knowledge. Council may recall, in 2019, a request for a dock on right-of-way was made on the western portion of Big Island (#LA19-000086). That property owner had been historically utilizing an informal easement over a neighboring lakeshore property. As a result of this request, the City proceeded with a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 82) to facilitate the creation of a legal lake access easement only in the RS District; this was added to the Code in 2020. The text amendment resolved the access issue and that right-of-way permit request was withdrawn. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 15, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. During the public hearing a number of comments were provided by the public. The Commission felt there were a number of outstanding issues requiring further research and discussed tabling the request. However, following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5-1-1 [5 in favor, 1 opposed (Ressler), 1 abstain (Bollis)] on a motion to deny the application. 6. Public Comment. Written comments from the public are attached as Exhibit F. Several members of the public attended the public hearing. Some of their concerns are summarized below. Council should reference the draft Planning Commission minutes (Exhibit E) and the video from the public hearing to review the public comments in their entirety. Item No.: 17 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000017 – Joseph & Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, Permit for Dock on City ROW (Bay Place) Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: Identified Concerns during the Hearing: • Lot of Record/Buildability: Prior to 2011, the City considered lots which were significantly substandard in area/width to be unbuildable. A property owner could apply for a variance but our standards for approval were different and more stringent than they are currently as guided by the State Statue. In or around 2011, the State updated the statutes regarding nonconforming properties as far as buildability was concerned, particularly in the Shoreland. The Statute revisions outlined minimum guidelines for determining buildability and when/if a variance would be required from local zoning standards. Following the Statute updates the City’s code was updated to be in line with the revised allowances and standards. • Tree removal: A number of the public comments referenced tree removals in the right-of- way. The applicants have not proposed removal of any trees within the walking path from the proposed dock location to their lot. If trees become a concern, the applicants understand that the City requires permits and approvals for any tree removals within the 75-foot setback and within the City’s right-of-way. • Wetland: Comments were made that the intended dock location is a Key Conservation area, as determined by the MCWD. The MCWD mapping indicates that a majority of Big Island is classified as a Key Conservation Area. Pending confirmation from the MCWD, Staff notes that there do not seem to be specific regulations regarding the Key Conservation Areas. • Island Access for Construction/Contractors: The applicants chosen location is not what is considered the common/primary access for deliveries of materials, septic and well drilling contractors, etc., that location is the improved right-of-way situated between 450 and 460 Big Island. A dock in this location would block this historical access. • Permit 2038 revocation: The wording in Resolution 2038 is clear. “Should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked…” although not the applicants’ intent, their request to install a dock on this location triggers this revocation. The applicants’ amended request to install a dock and share the use of the dock with the owners of 230 Big Island appears to provide a solution, though when pressed by the Commission, the owner of 230 Big Island does not wish to share. • Winter Dock Storage: Most property owners store their private docks on their lakeshore properties. In keeping with the spirit of this practice, the applicants have proposed a storage location on this right-of-way, on the south side of the corridor, out of the way of any winter access needs. • Other inland properties: There are only two additional interior lots on this portion of the island (490 and 500 Big Island) without lake access who may, in the future, request a permit for a dock on right-of-way. The other remaining inland properties on the east side are in common ownership with a lakeshore property, thus providing the opportunity for a dock. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a dock to be shared by the applicants and the owners of 230 Big Island, with the following conditions: a) The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the City Administrator. b) The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: the anniversary date. c) The approval should identify which properties have rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. d) The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. e) Dock sections shall not exceed 6-feet in width. f) No canopy shall be erected. Note, this approval, if granted, can be reviewed and adjusted on an annual or as-needed basis. Should the City undergo a study to evaluate a more suitable or long-range solution such as a city-installed dock to be shared for use by the interior lots, for example, the permit can be reevaluated. Further, as part of this solution, staff recommends the City survey and delineate this right-of-way corridor to prevent any unintended trespassing or encroachments. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED 1. Staff requests the following: Direct staff to draft a resolution of approval based on the conditions above, or denial. If denial, the Council should state reasons. 2. Direct staff to explore a more comprehensive solution for interior lot access on Big Island. 3. Direct staff to solicit cost estimates to delineate right-of-way corridors. Exhibits A. Applicants’ Revised Narrative B. City Code Section: 78-72 Lots of Record C. City Code Section: 78-567 Permit for private improvements within public rights-of-way D. Resolution Nos. 2038 and 4456 – Dock Permits E. Draft PC Minutes F. All Public Comments Received G. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits of 03/15/2021 A. Application B. Applicant’s Narrative & Maps C. Aerial Photo D. City Code Sections E. Resol 2038 F. Resol 4456 G. Hennepin County Half-Section Map H. Big Island Record Lot Maps I. Public Comment J. Property Owners List K. Plat Map L. New information from applicant submitted Thursday 3/11 afternoon 480 Big Island Conditional Use Permit: Dock Permit Request & Background Joe & Sara Thull Application Summary Points •Our intention is to develop our lot, starting with a shed that has been permitted by the city and then plan for a cabin. •We have accessed our lot more recently by anchoring, swimming and hiking to the property, but this is now become impractical as we move forward and invest inour property. •We have aging parents and kids and we are seeking a more permanent and practical way to access our site long-term. •We have sought out multiple easements to secure a dock and our requests have either been denied or declined. Application Summary Points •There is precedent to grant permitted docks to other interior lot owners. We are seeking the same access granted and afforded to other interior lot owners via a conditional use permit for a dock. •There is also precedent for two interior lot owners to share a dock, I am open and would support this type of resolution if a better solution is not found for both parties. •What we are really asking for is the use of half the side of a dock that has been already permitted for this location. •Current impact, I am personally building the permitted 10x12 shed offsite and it is already becoming a logistical challenge to access the site to do simple measurements and layouts in complying with the site planning process, build and future inspections We Identified 4 Potential Locations This right-of-way/street stops short preventing a dock from being permittedhere Best Site Location 1 Site 1 Was The Best Location Based On: ▪City Planning Office Feedback ▪Level Terrain ▪Low Impact To Right-of-Way ▪Proximity to Our Property ▪Not Used As Primary Access Point On & Off The Island ▪Minimal Lakeshore Disruption FAQ Impact to trees in Right-of-Way?I would be using the Right -of-Way to access the dock as a walking path. No trees will be cleared as it is simply a walking path to the dock. I don’t see any need to walk on private property to access the dock. Any construction traffic would use the main access point on the island . Crossing over private property?I don’t see any need to walk on private property to access the dock give how big the right-of-way is and that it goes to the main road. Impact to shoreline?Since there has been an existing permit to put a dock at this location, I would work to minimize the impact to trees, the topography is flat hence why is was already identified as a good place to put a dock. Property Lines Right-of-way Area Right-of-Way Access Is Straight Forward Impact to Ms. Farnes & Mr. Brunjten Owners of 230 Big Island I support Ms. Farnes & Mr. Brunjten right to maintain access to their property via sharing a dock. While this scenario is far from perfect, I believe it balances the needs of both parties and I welcome working with them. Two Requests Should This CUP Be Permitted #1 Should This CUP Be Approved I am requesting that in the new permit, the previous permit be noted, as it signifies that this site has historically been designated as an access point for over 25+and unofficially longer for the residents of Big Island. #2 I Would Also Seek A Reasonable and Agreed Upon Location To Place The Dock During The Off Season Similar To How Lots #130 & #220 Do It Today. Property Lines Right-of-way Area Proposed DockStorage •You Will Find Other Docks Stored On Right-of-Ways LMCD CODE OF ORDINANCES #3 LMCD Compliance Does This Site Comply? LMCD Recognizes Unique Circumstances and Makes Provisions For Granting Variances In Situations Just Like This If Required Pre-existing conditions which are permitted to continue Practical difficulties, one or more unique conditions to the property Side setback variances Many of the LMCD guidelines are set to ensure docks are not stacked on top of each other. Docks To The Left Facing Out Right Side Docks Docks To The RightFacing Out Unusual configuration of shorelineor extended lot lines, which cause conflict The proposed use is reasonable under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirt and intent of the code Use of Variances If Required I would imagine the LMCD in 99% of the cases, deals with how homeowners or businesses accesses the lake, in this case, on Big Island, this is about how we access our property. Based on the language in the Code and given the highly unique challenges, it would seem reasonable that the LMCD would approve this –or it be grandfathered in. Questions / Clarification •There is a reference to a requirement in seek approval from the Public Works Director? What does that entail? What is the process? •Questions For Me? Thank you Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 1 of 3 Sec. 78-72. Lots of record. (a) A lot of record is any lot for which a deed or registered land survey has been recorded in the office of the register of deeds or the registrar of titles for Hennepin County prior to January 1, 1975, and after approval by the council if required. (b) A lot of record located within an R (Residential) or RR (Rural Residential) district but not within the Shoreland Overlay district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, or any of the LR-Lakeshore Residential districts, which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width may be utilized for a single-family detached dwelling purpose, provided that in the judgment of the council or administrative approval by the planning director, such use does not adversely affect public health or safety and the following requirements are met: (1) In R districts of one acre or less and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record existing upon January 1, 1975, in any R district of the city of up to and including one acre, which lot is serviced by public sanitary sewer and which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only, may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval if all other requirements of the underlying zoning district are met, including but not limited to required yards, setbacks, lot coverage by structures, hardcover, etc. However, the lot of record shall not be more intensely developed unless combined with one or more abutting lots or portions so as to create a lot meeting the requirements of this chapter. (2) In R or RR districts of greater than one acre and served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R or RR district in the city in excess of one acre which does not meet the requirements of this chapter as to area or width only may be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes by administrative approval if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: a. It is at least one acre in size, and the average width of the lot is at least 100 feet; b. It is served by public sanitary sewer; and c. It otherwise meets the requirements of this chapter or other applicable Code provisions. (3) In R or RR districts not served by public sanitary sewer. A lot of record in any R or RR district in the city not served by public sanitary sewer must meet the area and width requirements of this chapter and shall not be utilized for single-family detached dwelling purposes without council approval. Administrative approval may be granted for a lot of record not meeting the lot area and width requirements if the planning director finds that the following conditions are met: a. The lot area and lot width each meet at least 50 percent of the district standard. b. Suitable primary and alternate septic sites are identified on the property and are protected from future development by execution of a covenant. c. All other zoning ordinance requirements must be met, including but not limited to the following: 1. Setbacks. 2. Hardcover. 3. Lot coverage by structures. 4. Accessory structure requirements. (c) A lot of record located in any shoreland district, including the Shoreland Overlay district, RS Seasonal Recreational district, and any of the LR- Lakeshore Residential districts, that does not meet the requirements of this chapter for lot size or lot width shall be subject to the following regulations: Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 2 of 3 (1) A nonconforming single lot of record may be allowed as a building site without variances from lot size and width requirements, provided that: a. All setback requirements can be met; b. 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 c. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. d. All other zoning district standards can be met. (2) In a group of two or more contiguous lots of record under a common ownership, an individual lot must be considered as a separate parcel of land for the purpose of sale or development, if it meets the following requirements: a. The lot must be at least 66 percent of the dimensional standard for lot width and lot size for the shoreland classification consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 6120; b. The lot must be connected to a public sewer, if available, or must be suitable for the installation of a Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, and local government controls; and c. Impervious surface coverage must meet all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover must not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area; and d. Development of the lot must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. (3) A lot subject to either subsections 78-72(c)(1) or (2) remains subject to the hardcover restrictions of this chapter, as follows: a. Where the hardcover square footage allotment as calculated based on the assigned tier exceeds 25 percent of the entire lot area, hardcover shall be limited to 25 percent of the entire lot area. b. No portion of the impervious surface square footage allowed shall be placed within in 75 feet of a lake OHWL or tributary bank, except for those items normally allowed in such location as regulated elsewhere in this chapter. (4) A lot subject to subsection 78-72(c)(2) not meeting the requirements of subsection 78-72(c)(2) must be combined with the one or more contiguous lots so they equal one or more conforming lots as much as possible. (5) Notwithstanding subsection 78-72(c)(2), contiguous nonconforming lots of record in shoreland areas under a common ownership must be able to be sold or purchased individually if each lot contained a habitable residential dwelling at the time the lots came under common ownership and the lots are suitable for, or served by, a sewage treatment system consistent with the requirements of Minn. Stat. § 115.55 and Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, or connected to a public sewer. (6) In all variance requests, zoning and building permit applications or conditional use requests, the property owner shall address, when determined as appropriate by the city engineer or city staff, stormwater runoff management, reduction of impervious surfaces, setback increases, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and water supply capabilities, and other conservation- designed actions. Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:16 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 3 of 3 (7) A portion of a conforming lot may be separated from an existing parcel as long as the remainder of the existing parcel meets the lot size and sewage treatment requirements of the zoning district for a new lot and the newly created parcel is combined with an adjacent parcel. (Code 1984, § 10.03(6)(A); Ord. No. 9 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004; Ord. No. 92 3rd series, § 1, 3-26-2012; Ord. No. 95 3rd series, § 1, 10-8-2012; Ord. No. 108 3rd series, § 1, 7-8-2013) LA21-000017 Exhibit D Created: 2021-02-27 04:26:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 1 of 2 Sec. 78-567. Permit for private improvements within public rights-of-way. It is unlawful for any person to alter, improve or use for private purposes in any RS district any platted public right-of-way, any platted public park, or any other property owned by the city without first obtaining a permit from the council, as follows: (1) Inland property access. Persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right-of-way for such purpose. The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the council shall find that there is no reasonable alternative access available, and that the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way. The council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration of adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location. Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access. (2) Land alterations. Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council. The permit applicant shall provide a detailed land survey of the right-of-way and appropriate engineering drawings sufficient to identify the full extent of all proposed work. Permit approval shall be subject to obtaining a grading permit from city staff; and land alterations involving filling and grading shall be performed with only clean fill, and all other permits as may be required by other agencies having jurisdiction. Public rights-of-way so improved shall be maintained by the licensee. (3) Dockage on right-of-way. Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council. Not more than one seasonal dock will be approved for access to any one property. In review and approval or denial of such permit, the council shall consider the width and topography of the right-of-way, the number of property owners requesting dockage at that location, the plan of the proposed dock, and conformance with city and Lake Minnetonka Conservation District dock regulations. The council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit. (4) Encroachments prohibited. No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of- way, within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the city except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this section. (5) Permit exceptions. No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land. No permit shall be required for any person whose property abuts a platted public right-of-way or a platted public park to control weeds or brush, seed, sod, mow or otherwise maintain the right-of-way or park in a neat and presentable manner. Persons whose record lot established by section 78-568 consists of tax parcels divided by platted, unopened public right-of-way may incorporate and use such right-of-way as part of their yard without a permit, provided no permanent structures are erected or maintained within the right-of-way. Created: 2021-02-27 04:26:46 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 1) Page 2 of 2 (6)Public use limited. Any permit issued under this section shall be deemed to open the platted public right-of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees. (7)Permit limitations. A permit issued under this section shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements. Permits issued under this section shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. (8)Hold harmless. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicant shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the city from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees. (9)Permit hearing and notice. The planning commission or the council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit as required by section 78-48. (Code 1984, § 10.31(5); Ord. No. 210 3rd series, § 12, 6-25-2018) yW 5 B;NJ Cit o ORONOrn,t x• • rP,' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL r 2038 r . NO. A R$SOLIITION PERMITTINGi;:..,.,.t`.ci, A FRIVATE DOCR ON PLATT$D DNIMPROVED RIGHT-OF-WAY BAY PLACE, BIG ISLAND WHER$AS, the City of Orono has received a request for a private dock on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island to serve as access to inland property; and WH$REAS, as per Section 10.31, Subdivision 3 of the Orono City Code al lows for the instal lation of a private dock on unimproved platted right-of-way on Big Island to serve as access for inland properties. NOW, TH$REFOR$, BE IT RESOLVED that a private dock is permitted on platted unimproved right-of-way known as Bay Place on Big Island to serve inland proper y to Lots 19 & 20, P.I.D. No. 23-117-23 23 0033, with the following conditions: 1. The installation of the dock length not to exceed 100 feet 2. Setback from extended lot lines: 0-50 feet in length 10 ' 51-100 feet in length 15' 3. Dock sections not to exceed 6 ' in width 4. One boat per dock for residential use only (LMCD regulations) The permittee agrees to maintain the area in a neat and presentable manner at all times and agrees . to hold the City harmless for- ever from any and all claims resulting from actions as a result of the issuance of this permit, use of the right-of-way, or use of the dock while this permit is in force. Should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for he installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked. This permit may be revoked by the City at any time for any reason in the future upon review and revocation by the Orono Counci 1. The property owners agree to remove all structures within 30 days of permit revocation or termination and if no removal, agree to an assessment of the cost against Lots 19 and 20 of Big Island. The City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for anytireason as deemed appropriate. Adopted-by,,the City Council of the City of Orono on the 25th day of gust, 1986. ATT T: D thy M. 11in, City Clerk Tim Adams, Acting Mayor e/ nertv Owner s) r O_ I O O b. C ITY of ORONO G' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL L SH Sc' NO. 3 4.:;. A RESOLUTION PERMITTING A PRIVATE DOCK ON PLATTED UNIMPROVED RIGHT—OF—WAY BETWEEN LOTS 38 AND 39 MORSE ISLAND PARK BIG ISLAND Metro Leg i '_ `FILE #2 49 Box 4' WHEREAS, the City of Orono has received a request by David Lovelace (the applicant")for a private dock on platted unimproved right-of way located between Lots 38 and 39, Morse Island Park on Big Island to serve as access to inland property located at 220 Bia lsland(also known as Big Island Record Lot#8) and legally described as follows: y E chibit A attached); Also described as: PINS #23-1 17-23 23 0028 hereinafter "the property"); and WHEREAS,Section 10.31,Subdivision 5 of the Orono Zoning Code allows owners of inland properties to request approval of a permit for the installation of a pri ate dock on unimproved platted right-of-way on Big Island to serve as access for said inland properties; and WHEREAS,the City Council is authorized to approve,deny or place restrictions on such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations. NOW,THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that a private seasonal dock is pernutted on platted unimproved right-of-way located between Lots 38 and 39,Morse Island Park to serve the property, with the following conditions: 1.Length of installed dock extended from the shoreline shall not exceed 100'. 2.Setback from the extended right-of-way boundary lines: a. 0-50' from shoreline: 10' minimum b. 0-100' from shoreline: 15' minimum c. Final location subject to approval of Public Services Director. 3.Dock sections not to exceed 6' in width. 4.One boat slip only, allowed for applicant's use only. Page 1 of 3 0,. O O CITY of ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL l v SHo4 ruo. _,. 6, 5.A lateral dock section at the shoreline may be installed to facilitate pedestrian access over/around the existing ice ridge at the shoreline. 6.The owner of the adjacent inland lot at 130 Big Island (Record Lot#10) may also share in the use of said dock(one boat slip only for 130 Big Island) as long as such use is acceptable to the applicant. At such future time that the owner of 130 Big Island requests that the City Council approve a separate dock to serve said 130 Big Island independently from the dock serving 220 Big Island,it is the intent of this City Council to allow a second dock at this same location between said Lots 38 and 39 to serve 130 Big Island. 7.No dock canopy shall be erected over said dock. The permittee agrees to maintain the area in a neat and presentable manner at all times and agrees to hold the City harmless forever from any and all claims resultina from actions as a result of the issuance of this permit,use of the right-of-way,or use of the dock«-hile this permit is in force. Should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to serve their properties,this permit is subject to revie t-and or revocation at the discretion of the City Council. Further,this permit may be revoked by the City any time for any reason in the future upon review and revocation by the Orono City Council. The City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. The applicant agrees to remove all structures within 30 days of permit revocation or termination and if no removal occurs, agrees to an assessment of the costs of removal against the property. This permit runs with the property,not with the owner,subject to all conditions and restrictions noted herein. The undersigned applicant has read,understood and hereby agrees to the terms of this resolution and on behalf of himself,his heirs,successors and assigns,hereby agrzes to the recording of this resolution in the chain of title of the property. Page 2 of 3 O,. O O CITY of ORONO ti RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII kE H 4' G N O. t; S Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of April, 2000. ATTEST: G Li a S. V ee, City Clerk Gabn 1 Jabbour, Mayor Pr Owner(s) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this 24th day of April, 2000, by Gabriel Jabbour&Linda S. Vee, Mayor& City Clerk of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation and said instrument was executed on behalf of the Cit. 1CAROLEk. t-f:5EI IN il ir e /. .-t,.J NOTARY PU9UC-MiNNESpTqaA'tm i`sion Expires Jan.3 Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) On this '"day of t. 2000 before me a Notary Public within and for said county,personally appeared /-I,: d n-/Y,,.nn r r:c known to me to be the person(s) described in and who executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he(they) executed the same as his (their) free act and deed. CAROLE A.tiqSEM,qNNOTARYP/g_M N TA N y pUBLIC aess Jan.31,2pp5 Page 3 of 3 RESOLUTION#4456 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION That part of Lot B, Morse Island Park, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of a line running from a point on the west line thereof a distance of 554 feet south of the northwest corner thereof,to the northwest corner of Lot 38, Morse Island Park RESOLUTION# 4456 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) CITY OF ORONO I, Linda S. Vee, City Clerk of the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota, do hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Orono with the original record of such resolution in the Minutes of the proceedings of said City Council at a meeting of said City Council held on April 24, 2000 and that the same is a true and correct copy of said resolution duly adopted by said City Council at said meeting. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 24th day of July 2000. C u - .- Linda S. Vee, City Clerk SEAL) r ..J t.. s CFFICE Gt CCU'TY KECOP.GER HENNCPIIS CDUNTY.MINNE50TA CERTiF1E FILf011N0 OR R:CuR'-1 J C' ao auc -s a s 46 3348 9 C0.REC.t.us.'/ - 1..51— DEPUT Y puplicace Filin9 Ce rficate MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 2. LA21-000017 JOE THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, DOCK PERMIT ON ROW (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Joe and Sara Thull, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants own 480 Big Island which is a non- lakeshore property on the eastern portion of the island. They have owned the property for a number of years and it is located between two platted, undeveloped rights-of-way which connect to the Bay Place right-of-way and connects to the lake on the eastern side of the island. There are many interconnecting undeveloped rights-of-way which are accessible to the public but no developed roads on Big Island and non are open for vehicular traffic. Code section 78-567 provides a mechanism for inland or off-lake property owners to request a permit to install or construct private improvements, such as a dock, on public rights-of-way. A dock would provide access to the Applicant’s property and this provision only exists within the RS district which consists of Big Island and Deering Island. Pursuant to this code the Applicants seek a permit to place a seasonal dock on City right-of-way. Two dock permits have been issued in the past 20+ years. Resolution 4465 attributed to 220 and 130 Big Island granted in 2000. Resolution 2038, referred in the Staff report as Permit 2038, attributed to 230 Big Island granted in 1986. 230 Big Island is an inland lot and that permit was for a dock that existed on the property on that location in the right-of-way since approximately the 1950’s. It was granted subject to a number of conditions including the following verbiage: “should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked.” Permit 2038 appears to have remained in effect since that time, and has been transferred to the subsequent owners (Fred Brunjten/Nancy Farnes). Ms. Farnes has provided comment on this request, which was emailed to the Commissioners and placed at their seats, in addition to other comments received after publication of the packet. Staff finds the Applicants’ request generally meets the criteria outlined in the code for approval. Knowing the subdivision code has recently been changed to allow for easement access as another option for inland lots in the RS district only, the Applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to secure a private easement from neighbors including Three Rivers Park District as detailed in the submittal. They made the permit request in February. As a result of the request and based on the language in the resolution for Permit 2038, it should be considered to be revoked. Staff has concerns that the holder of this permit continues to desire dock access. There are two additional interior lots on the east side of the island, both just to the east of the Applicant’s property – they do not have lake access and may in the future request a permit for dock on the right-of-way as well. The City should anticipate requests from these property owners at some point. The other remaining properties on the east side are either lakeshore properties or in common ownership with a lakeshore property, thus providing the opportunity for a dock. Staff recommends the dock access question for inland lots be looked at comprehensively by the City. A number of public comments were received and included in the packet as Exhibit I; most of the comments received oppose the dock. Staff recommends approval of a dock with the following conditions: 1. The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. 3. The approval should identify which property(ies) has rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. 5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6‐feet in width. 6. No canopy shall be erected Curtis noted most of those comments are from the code section that allows the permit. Staff further recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. After the packet was finalized last week, Staff received an updated request and narrative from the Applicant in which he addresses some of the comments he received. His updated request includes an alternative to share a dock with the current permit holder for 2038. The Applicant can speak to his request. Kirchner said in reference to Permit 2038, he asked Curtis to note where that dock is situated on screen. Curtis pointed it out and said at the subject location. Ressler noted the way the City’s existing permit that is currently granted becomes revoked in the event that another request is made. Curtis replied upon request from another property owner it is automatically revoked. Ressler asked if Staff understands why they would have such language in that approval. Is it because they are trying to be sure they revisit the whole situation all over again rather than an addition of another permit. He asked what it is that they typically see in those situations for such language? Ressler understands he may be asking Curtis to speculate. Curtis noted she cannot speculate. Curtis said they do not typically see that kind of language. The language in the 2000 permit – although it mirrored some similar code-required conditions – did not include this. So, a permit that was issued after resolution 2038 did not include that automatic revocation language. Curtis could speculate a lot of things but she would rather not. Ressler stated it is a landlocked lot so the only access right now is by right-of-way and trails? Curtis replied that is correct. They are pedestrian access but there is no dock access. She thinks the Applicant can better describe the situation but she thinks they have been anchoring and swimming to shore as they have used the property over the years. Ressler commented he knows there is a lot of interest based on the feedback the Commission has seen and there are a lot of voices that want to be heard. He said in the essence of time they want those voices to be heard, but at the same time the Commission requests in the public comment section that people try to limit their comments to 5 minutes or less if they can. If one is in agreement with a previously stated comment, he asked if they could just state that they support the previous comment instead of restating the comment in different words. He noted they appreciate any consideration on that. Joe and Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, showed a few slides on screen to give more context. Ressler is right there has been a lot of feedback and comments regarding his application and he hopes to add a little more color to that. He noted he has owned the property for over 12 years and the intention was always to build a cabin out there. They have approached the City and have a permitted shed and have started construction MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ on that off-site in a modular way and will move that out to the location. Mr. Thull reiterated the intention is to eventually put a cabin out there. As mentioned, they have primarily accessed the location by anchoring near the lot, swimming, and then hiking across the Three Rivers location that abuts the property. Mr. Thull noted they have been members of the Power Squadron in the past but that is probably 8x the distance and really not feasible. He said they have aging parents and kids and they want to find a more permanent way to access the property as they invest in it. They are not developers or property flippers, and have sought multiplied easements, one with Three Rivers, noting that roadway comes just short of the lakeshore and unfortunately Three Rivers denied that. The Applicant has also pursued easements with neighboring properties and has not found a path forward on that. He looks at the property rights and does not think they are asking for what other interior lot property owners have been provided underneath the code. They are seeking, basically, those same rights afforded to others and there is some precedent in terms of the spirit of multiple lot owners collaborating and sharing an access point to create a feasible solution for those interior lot owners. He showed a few sites they identified in working with the City – some are better than others – and they identified the site they felt was most feasible. Some criteria was feedback from the City Planning office regarding location 1, also the site in terms of its level terrain and the low impact in terms of the right- of-way, really the walking path, proximity to the property and that the Applicant is not looking to use the site as a construction access point as that will all be done through the primary access point on the other side of the island. He noted they are really looking at minimal lakeshore disruption and that was the criteria they looked at. Two additional requests if this would be approved. No 1) if a new permit is granted that the previous permit be noted in that document to show the continuity of this site being used as an access point for many, many years, and he thinks officially a lot longer than that. He asks that it be noted as he thinks there are questions as far as the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) as far as the access and the rights-of-way. No 2) he asked for a reasonable spot to put a seasonal dock in the winter months within and around the right-of-way. He thinks there is probably a similar thing granted for the other property owners that are not hauling their docks. In looking across the various easements, there are various uses of those to store things currently across Big Island. Mr. Thull noted there was a lot of feedback and addressed a couple of points within his application. Regarding the impact to Ms. Farnes and Mr. Brunjten as owners of 230 Big Island, Mr. Thull supports that they should not have something taken away, and thinks that language created a win/lose scenario and that is not fair. As a property owner, he believes their rights need to be withheld within that. Although sharing a dock is not a perfect scenario in a perfect world, this is a unique situation and they are trying to balance each other’s rights. Mr. Thull noted there was a question of the use of turning the right-of-way into construction and taking out trees and vegetation. He clarified he has no intent to do that and that would be less convenient. They are looking for a walkway path from the dock up to the inner road that leads to the property through the right-of-way. He stated there have also been some questions about the LMCD and compliance. Does the site comply, should it be grandfathered in? He thinks that is a question for that group. In looking through the code, there are many points within the code itself that lay out different ways that unique situations are addressed. Whether it is pre-existing conditions for permitted use, practical difficulties, a unique situation, setback variances provided. He thinks one of the main points of that is so that docks are not stacked up on top of each other. At this access point, looking to the left, he showed a photo on screen of the neighboring location; in another photo he showed the neighbor’s dock and location. Mr. Thull said the use of variances are obviously sprinkled throughout the LMCD documentation so if this property is not grandfathered in, he thinks given the unique situation he would imagine 99% of the issues they deal with are ultimately how one accesses the lake versus this situation which is how one accesses their property. Substantially different in terms of how they are trying to use this going forward. He said it would seem reasonable as it states, reasonable in terms of under the circumstances and in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code. In conclusion, Mr. Thull thinks his application fits the code, there is already a permitted dock there for a single dock so no material change in MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ terms of should a dock or can a dock be placed there. He is in favor of sharing the dock and also believes the site may qualify as either grandfathered in or a variance as part of that. Mr. Thull noted they have had a long-term dream of building a cabin out there and are now in the position to actually move forward with that. Mr. Thull has one question in regards to the information about the Public Works Director and what it entails getting approval from them. Curtis believes the Public Works Director, being that it is a City right-of-way, would want to have approval of the dock location should it change, or in addition to the dock that is there, and where that storage location would be in the winter. Bollis thinks the Applicant has done a good job of answering the neighborhood questions and asked if they would be interested in adding those as additional conditions to the permit if the Commission gets that far. Such as no modification to the platted rights-of-way, Bollis assumes the Applicant is not using this dock for recreation but just for access, that type of conditions. Mr. Thull said sure. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. Jud and Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (next door), live at 2643 Thoroughbred Lane. He thanked the Staff and Commissioners for doing all this and noted he is kind of surprised that his neighbors Freddy and Nancy are not here, but Freddy has had some health problems the past couple of years and Mr. Champlin guesses the snow storm kept them away. As Curtis will attest, there are very deep feelings going back from them and their belief as to how that dock should be allocated. Mr. Champlin said this is a tough thing because by filing this it automatically takes away Freddy’s dock access. He noted it is a very kind thing of Mr. Thull to offer some alternatives and at the same time it gives this quite valuable piece of property to Mr. Thull – Mr. Champlin can certainly understand the predicament. In his reading of the City code, one of the requirements for granting this access is that there are no reasonable alternatives. Mr. Champlin thinks there are reasonable alternatives and they have not really explored them all. Other than being asked for an easement, this is the first he has heard about it and he thinks if they went around the island, usually people team up and help each other and it is generally a pretty good community. It is when this sort of thing starts happening is when some heads get butting. One thing Mr. Thull said is that the primary access point is down next to 460 Big Island and in an email to Mr. Champlin, Mr. Thull also said that is the most convenient access way. One does not have to put a dock there to get access; the requirement of the City’s code is not that one access a dock, it is that one has reasonable alternative access. It is very easy to nose a pontoon boat in there, even at the end of the Power Squadron property that is very close. There are other dock locations that could be looked at as well. Having trouble putting in a septic system, a shower, and running water might be good reason to renew the membership to the Minnetonka Power Squadron and as a past commander he can say that would be very good. Mr. Champlin thinks if the Commission went around and asked neighbors, they would find a lot of people helping out. There is a reason that Freddy does not have a dock there: he does not want that in front of his house. This pretty much shows there are reasonable alternative ways to access property on the island. Freddy does not have a dock. He asks his neighbors to dock there, and can use Mr. Champlin’s dock any time, he pulls his pontoon boat right up in front and walks right through. Mr. Champlin’s other concern is the pathway through the woods – right now it is all wooded – there has not been a survey done recently so he is not quite sure where the boundaries are but he thinks it will either be going over Mr. Champlin’s property or Freddy’s property or through the woods. If they are familiar with the island it is a big effort to increase ground cover and leave things as natural as possible and MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Champlin would hate to see those woods come down. He understands the intent is not to do anything bad there but intent is very hard to put into a permit. Once people start walking up there, who knows what will happen? As another alternative, Mr. Thull is welcome to use Mr. Champlin’s dock up to 10 days a year, just shoot him a text and let him know, don’t bump the boat into it too hard, but he welcomes that and is pretty sure he would find a lot of other people that would support Mr. Thull as well. They like people on the island and like them doing good things on the island. He appreciates all they have done for Big Island. Aleya Champlin agrees with her husband’s comments and asked to go to Exhibit I to show the pictures that were taken on Big Island on March 6. This is what the shoreline currently looks like and they think there is a property marker with a stake in the ground for 260 Big Island. The rectangle is where the Champlin’s think the proposed dock is going to go and there are a lot of trees and native growth there that would have to go and she just does not want to see all those trees gone. Dave Saari, 21035 Oak Lane, Greenwood, along with his brother, owns the property at 260 Big Island. The family has been cutting the grass on the City’s public property for probably the last 50 years and their grandparents built the cabin that Fred Brunjten now owns. He noted they have been on that property for a while and appreciate the fact that it has not been developed and it is a fine piece of property. The Commissioners heard from the neighbors their enthusiasm for that. He suspects there will be a larger conversation about the use of those access points regarding the interior lots. In his notes to the City (he apologizes for them arriving late) there are east and there are west bay alternatives and he thinks it is a bigger story than simply accessing the lake via one particular location. To that end, there are a couple of access points on the west bay, four on the east bay and asked how is this all going to look? They certainly do not want to have a marina next to their property and if that becomes the access point for all inland properties on the island, that would be a significant concern. He thinks what would be fair is west going to the west and east going to the east. From a larger standpoint they then discuss the strategy of all the inland owners as opposed to simply one. Suzy and Peter Thiss, 270 Big Island, have thoughts of one land owner, one boat, one slip. She does not understand the wording that Fred and Nancy’s dock permit can be revoked; does that mean Fred and Nancy can revoke it from the Thull family next year? Ressler noted that is one of his questions, as well. Again, they have to speculate because it was several years ago that it was issued, but he ventures a guess that the reason it is worded that way is because they want the opportunity to revisit that permit at the same time of issuing another one; and that is the trigger for the event. If there is another application for a dock, they want to be able to change the approval or the use of that – that is the only speculation he might have. It will probably come up in the discussion among the Commissioners. Ressler does not think it is a black and white situation where now there has been an application, one loses their rights to a dock. He thinks it becomes more of a situation where it is revisited because of the trigger. Ms. Thiss noted it is a very passive, quiet place with deer, foxes, and all kinds of things in that meadow. She noted everyone enjoys it, and so does nature. The whole idea of making it a multiple dock or dock sharing, Ms. Thiss does not think it is a marina and thinks that the Power Squadron is a super viable option for someone who needs to get to their place, use a bathroom, take a shower, as all those facilities are there. She stated the whole idea that someone can put up a cabin and not cut down trees and make more paths…this past year there were ATVs going around the island with chain saws at night and there were people cutting paths and running the camouflaged 4-wheelers like crazy. She noted that is the kind of stuff she would hate MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ to see because there is so little land in the City, it is important to preserve Big Island and to look 10-15 years down the road and keep it that way. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, said his parents have owned the property since 1968 and he got it about 10 years ago. He would be a little concerned about having some access in the future. He lived over in Greenwood until about a year ago so it was mostly just winter ski access for him with a tent platform and a teepee. He noted it would be great to get out there and visit some more – they do not have a family cabin which used to be on the south side of all this for years. He would ask that some kind of solution might be figured out for some kind of dock access. He noted one comment mentioned a piece of land where Three Rivers is – he asked if that would ever be up for imminent domain. Curtis clarified the piece of land that is blocking the right-of-way continuation used to be all one little sliver. Mr. Hanna sees that those pieces are now deeded to the adjacent landowners. Curtis replied that is right and this one is owned by Three Rivers and they have declined – she believes one of those reasons is the funding source that they used to purchase the property prohibits granting an easement or selling it for any of those uses. Mr. Hanna asked the Thulls if they have thought about using something down on that side. He noted he may be in front of the Commission in the future to try to figure something out, as well. Nancy Farnes, 230 Big Island, approached the podium with an eleventh-hour package she is delivering, but she only brought five and can get more for the following day. She noted her property is directly affected by this application. In the exhibits, she showed that it started off with 7 inside lots back in 1980-something. This application is revoked and given to 484 Meadow because he transferred over about 4-5 different private properties. It also adds five additional inside lots to the three that he says are remaining. So now they are kind of over – going backwards – in 35 years, using this as a solution. Ms. Farnes feels that history dictates there is just not lakeside for accommodation to 3 or 7 inside lots. Furthermore, they bought the cabin with the value included at $45,000. If this is taken from them and revoked, that value in 35 years of maintenance, taxes, appreciation, just tanked to possibly $20,000 with a property they cannot use. She noted they have spent substantial time improving it, maintaining it, and in the last ten years they have endured several emergency and physical health crises that have deferred them from enjoying the island as they always have with three generations of family. During that time period, which they are still winding down, their kind neighbors have allowed them to use their dock, have helped maintain the area, and in goodwill have even cut the grass and maintained the permit without Ms. Farnes even asking. They have even offered to bring the family out there as time has only allowed for them to go out about twice a year, and that is basically to rake leaves, clean up inside and out, and go home. This is while everyone else is out in June and July on the boat, in swimsuits, enjoying life. She sees an end to this in about a year or two and she finds this is the first time in 35 years anybody has tossed out the words “revoke our permit” and it is very, very disturbing, unsettling, and emotional. Ms. Farnes does not find any precedence to do that. Perhaps they revisit the wording on the two existing permits so they do not have to go through this grueling, tumultuous, and emotional process, because there just simply aren’t enough and everything has been exhausted, in her opinion, by the City. She will happily work with Ms. Curtis and has boxes of records she can help assist with for clarity to the recommendation of this Board, if necessary and required, if they still feel it warrants a recommendation instead of a permanent solution. Ms. Farnes has one final thought: it is assessed at $165 [$165,000?] with no lakeshore but the permit. The 480 application bought his property just ten years ago, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ there was precedence, and it was valued at $9,000. Ms. Farnes stated it makes it unsellable, and their investment in real estate, and their retirement, is now gone over one dock permit that was properly secured through the proper channels that had a boat since 1942 with that cabin. Initially it was a handshake on the family to the owners. When Ms. Farnes’ family bought it, it converted to this permit. The only permit they created for this unique property and unique situation. Ressler thinks it will be difficult to read through the handout on the fly. Curtis believes the materials Ms. Farnes has provided were emailed to the Commissioners this afternoon. Ms. Farnes said [off microphone] there are photos. Ressler clarified for those watching online, the comments were that the handout included some photos reiterating the difficulty of being inclusive of adding more dockage. Chris Bollis, 470 Big Island, is just adjacent to the Applicant’s property. He only wants to comment about access on the west side of the island. There is a road right-of-way that comes in – he does not know if it has a name – it is just by 460 Big Island. Curtis pointed it out on screen. Mr. Bollis said that is probably the only vehicle access on Big Island where one can drive from the ice or from a barge right up on there. He noted they have used that for septic pumping, well drilling, and in 2005 (he thinks) there was a big fire on the south end of the island and they hauled in fire departments, pumps, food, bobcats, and it was a big problem. He wants to say that the access by 460 Big Island should not be considered as a dockage area because it is the only spot one can get on the island with any size of a vehicle to do the service work that is required. Ted Hanna, 480 Big Island, said that however many years ago this thing was platted out – the spirit of the whole plat to allow people access to their interior lots – he thinks that is something that should be considered for future use, as well. As Ms. Farnes said, they combined a bunch of lots so it cut it down but there could have been a bunch more people there asking for it. He thinks that was the spirit of the whole thing, to have roads and not just for fire access. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Ressler noted this is a tough one. Kirchner said first and foremost from what they have heard at the public hearing, he does not believe that there is ill-intent upon the Applicant to revoke the existing permit 2038. He does not believe that was the intent but is just an unfortunate wording. Regarding the permit, he noted Staff, City Council, and City Attorney could have further discussion on this - he does see at the bottom it states that the City of Orono further reserves the right to review this permit for any reason as deemed appropriate. Kirchner would say this would qualify as a reason to review it rather than to automatically revoke it. Therefore, that may give some leeway and some time. He agrees with Ressler’s remarks that this is not a black and white, just because there has been an application there should be a revocation of this permit. With that said, he appreciates the Applicant’s due diligence in exploring options, speaking with City Staff, evaluating those MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ options, asking for easements, and speaking with the Three Rivers Park District. Where Kirchner struggles with this application is that he feels this could potentially create a bit of a ripple effect, in that if the City will allow this for one lot, will it produce other similar applications. In that case, he believes that perhaps there needs to be a larger scale approach to this, to find a solution if a dock is deemed appropriate, rather than try to band-aid this several times over the next many years. That is Kirchner’s biggest hang-up, and he is concerned that by allowing one parcel this, it merely kicks the can down the road. He thinks there needs to be a larger evaluation of this to find any potential solutions and work at it on a larger scale. Libby said there was quite a bit of material given to the Commission fairly late in the game so it took him a while to actually read through some of this and it was very interesting. As they were listening to the cases of the property owners, there seems to be a reason for him to ask Staff a question. He noted there was a submission by Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island, which is very detailed. Having had many, many years working with LMCD and MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed District), he is quite familiar with their authority and functionality. He does not know how to ask this any other way than to ask Staff if they have known that whether one of the MCWD functional assessments of wetlands has actually been performed on this public access they are talking about. Curtis brought up Hennepin County’s wetland map. Libby stated the information provided to the Planning Commission is quite well-delineated and is very specific in the categorical classification. He said he is bringing this up as a point of information. He has about 30 years of living on the lakeshore and having the blessing of having a dock and owning lakeshore, so he is familiar with properties that have riparian rights where they actually have lakeshore and a lot and are allowed to put it up. He noted the circumstances of these permits are quite unique, pretty much in Orono, Mound, and surrounding municipalities there are common areas and permits that can be lotteried and assigned. However, when there is a landlocked property without any access to the lake, he can see why this is a very sought-after commodity and why it is a point of discussion. He thinks when they see in the City of Orono – particularly within the auspices of the LMCD – one cannot really even have a dock on property that is owned even if they have riparian rights, unless there is a structure there. Libby said this is a different situation because they have landlocked properties that do not have access. If in fact MCWD has delineated this area and has conservation and wetland attributes, he wonders if it could have been an oversight by the City over these many years that people are talking about. He feels it would be prudent before a decision is made by this body to find out whether or not this type of a survey has actually been done by the MCWD because it could actually be appropriate from a conservation standpoint. Curtis does not believe the area identified on the map indicates a wetland. She believes it indicates what the commenter has written here, that it is noted as a MCWD conservation area but not a wetland. Libby said it is a conservation area but does not need to be a wetland to be a conservation area. Curtis noted they do not have any specific protective requirements over that and if there are other regulatory bodies that have input on this application, they will not purport to assume what they will decide. She clarified they have to talk about the City issues. If this issue moves forward, she thinks the Applicant would need to inquire with the Watershed District and the LMCD what regulations and rules they need to follow. The location they are talking about has had a dock so that is what the Applicant is asking for as well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Libby said that answered his question. The idea was that they do not want to overlook anything, many circumstances when talking about variances or applications they have other authority that they have to wait on. If this is something that had perhaps been overlooked, the initiative that the property owner took to put this together and bring it to the Commissioners attention was of great value. Ressler asked to clarify that the existing permit in place and others alike all share something in common which is they are either lakeshore property themselves or common ownership in lakeshore property. Curtis asked Ressler to restate the question. Ressler asked if the existing dock permits have been issued. Curtis replied they are for inland lots. Ressler said for all of those that have been issued. Curtis clarified they are for inland lots and they have two permits. Ressler restated a different way: regarding both inland lot dock permits, do they both share these two things in common. They are either owners of lakeshore property as well or have a common ownership. Curtis replied no. Any of the other inland owners that they have not identified in addition to the Applicants and the two adjacent are the only ones that are not connected to a lakeshore lot, in ownership or actual lakeshore. Bollis stated the Commission has to look at what is in front of them and the code allows provision for inland lots to apply for a dock as long as it does not affect the neighboring properties. The first thing this does is affect the neighbor at 230 Big Island because it revokes their dock permit. He thinks any solution they come up with should really consider 230 Big Island and make sure it is an equitable solution for both. He does not know that they can find a comprehensive solution tonight for all of the inland lots, he thinks they have to look at the permit requests the Commission has in front of them and design the permit so that it is similar to what they did with the original one 2038 and have some language in there that if additional people apply, then that permit gets revisited and looked at again. He knows as a permit holder it is not fun, but it seems like it could be an easy solution right now and the Applicant is being neighborly about this and agreeing to additional conditions on the permit to appease the neighbors. He noted there are endless conditions they could put on it so the neighbors feel comfortable he will use the dock for the purpose he wants to use it for. McCutcheon said he did not hear from Ms. Farnes about what she thought of the shared dock solution. Ms. Farnes said the information delivered to her was late on Friday and she has spent 24 hours a day trying to pull something together. She said absolutely not. In the packet she delivered, it is not even feasible and the space does not even allow for two boats with one dock and/or two docks. Bollis stated it appears that it would require a variance from LMCD for that dock. Ms. Farnes noted all the traffic, the drainage area that has been tampered with, it is full trees there on both sides which she showed pictures in her packet. There will have to be surveys, trees cut down, damage to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the island, and it just seems a bit much when there are still so many other empty lots. For 35 years there has been the same amount of empty, vacant lots. Perhaps a lottery when somebody turns it in to amend the language. Bollis clarified Ms. Farnes’ short answer is no, she does not like it. Ressler is not entirely in disagreement and thinks what the Commission has ahead of them is addressing how the City would like to grant access to all of these inland lots. It is not going to stop here and he thinks there are other considerations here. If they take out the water and were looking at this as if it were a road accessed lot, it would also be difficult to figure out how to provide access because there is no road there. Ressler thinks it is prudent for the City to decide how they want to handle all of these inland lots. One of the public comments was about a fire – the more structure they have out there besides the fact that it would take away trees which the City is generally opposed to – they are also creating a fire hazard with the more habitation and structure there is, the less ability there is to extinguish that structure and the greater risk of losing that structure as well as the rest of the island. These are his concerns as they talk about developing these inland lots which are generally not even accessible and that is probably one of the reasons why the price tag is what it is. He said of course the property owned by Three Rivers would be a great alternative to provide some dockage for inland docks and he understands that Three Rivers is not in support of providing an easement for that. He does not know if that resonates something on its own. Ressler said before they make it easier to access these inland lots, they need to address the additional use and access of the inland lots. He does not know that they will be able to decipher that tonight. Once they get through that, then they have to talk about lot sizes and what the building envelope is. Being able to provide private sewer and septic or well becomes a concern, they have minimum setback requirements, reasonable access requirements, and there is a lot to unpack. He personally feels this is an issue they need to figure out but he is not sure they can figure it all out today. He noted they rarely do this but he would almost rather table this so they can have a City work session. Curtis noted that is an option. There has been a lot of feedback and public comment tonight and she still believes the City Council is the decision maker and should be holding that conversation between themselves and the issue. She said if the Commission is going to table it, she thinks they need to have a good reason to table it, and a direction to go. Otherwise, Curtis thinks they can provide their feedback and comments and move it forward to the Council for their analysis. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is. Gettman moved so as to move it along and have the City Council then send it back to the Commission or have a workshop. Barnhart thinks it would be appropriate that the Commission recommend that the Council direct Staff to examine a more comprehensive solution that could be reviewed. Gettman amended his motion. Gettman moved, Libby seconded, to deny the application as is, including Barnhart’s additional comments and the feedback that has been provided. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Erickson is in favor of tabling. The subject matter demands a comprehensive approach and he can think of more things to avoid than to positively strive for at this particular moment. It is a conflict subject, and they have many property owners here, each with their own view. One thing the Commission needs to remember is at the top of the pyramid of priorities for land use is the Comprehensive Plan; in looking at the Plan and many portions of the ordinances as well, the phrase “preservation of property value” comes up over and over and over again. It is a very basic part of the code. Part of that overall, they want to make sure they are not doing or suggesting anything that would detract from someone’s value, so the Commission needs to preserve whatever they can. Also, there is often a chance for improvement where property values can be improved. He said they need to be very careful how they do that, keeping in mind that there are some changes and many people are resistant to any change. However, the City is involved in some very positive changes on the east end of Big Island in improving trails, access for the handicapped, and so on. From what Erickson is hearing about these trails, one has to be pretty athletic in order to get there and as one is there they may not even know if they are on the trail or on someone else’s property. If some modest improvements were made to mark the trails and some minor grading done to make it more walkable, that would be an improvement to him but perhaps not to everyone. He thinks tabling is important. Ressler noted that was his perspective as well, this one is a little more complex and has a lot more moving parts and he is generally opposed to tabling as well. If they table, that gets them back together as a Commission before going to the City Council. Because there is a motion to deny on the table, if that passes, it would go straight to the City Council. If the Commissioners are comfortable with that, they should vote as such and if they are not, they would need to table it. McCutcheon thinks City Council wants to know as that is the Planning Commission’s job. He thinks they are all on the same page in needing to look at this holistically and where they want to go. He does not know the entire history of the island and at first glance there is a property owner who needs access to their lot, he understands that people do not want new docks in front of their lots, some of these lots are very small, and what can one really do with them. There is a history of all the different access points, and it needs to be looked at holistically to find a long-term vision of where this will be 20-30 years from now so residents do not need to keep going through the emotional – they saw what happened today – there is a lot to unpack here, the Commission should tread lightly and be cautious, and get all the data. McCutcheon would support denying it just to get it in front of the Council and go from there. Ressler asked Staff if the Council decides they want the Planning Commission to weigh in further on the issue, do they have the right or ability to do so. Curtis replied yes. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 1 (Ressler), Abstain 1 (Bollis). Date Application Received: 02/08/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/16/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/17/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 15 March 2021 Subject: #LA21-000017, Joseph & Sara Thull, 480 Big Island, Permit for Dock on City ROW (Bay Place) Public Hearing Background The applicants own 480 Big Island, a non-lakeshore property on the eastern portion of Big Island. They purchased the property in 2010. The applicants’ property is sandwiched between the platted, undeveloped 33-foot wide right-of-way named Anawan Avenue and Lawn Avenue which, via Bay Street, connects to the Bay Place right-of-way (see Exhibit G). Bay Place connects to the lake on the eastern side of the island. There are no developed roads on Big Island. Recognizing no other options for boat dockage, thus safe access to the property, the applicants seek a permit to place a seasonal dock on city right of way, pursuant to the Code Section 78-567. Two dock permits have been issued in the past 20+ years: Resolution 4465 attributed to 220 and 130 Big Island (attached as Exhibit F) granted in 2000; and Resolution 2038 attributed to 230 Big Island (Exhibit E) granted in 1986. **New information submitted 03/11/2021** Please see attached Exhibit L: Staff received an updated request and narrative on Thursday afternoon from the applicant in which he addresses some of the comments he has received. Applicable Regulations: Permit for Private Improvements within Public Rights-of-Way (Section 78-567) Section 78-567 provides a mechanism for an inland/off-lake property owner to request a permit to install or construct private improvements on public rights-of-way. A dock would allow access to the applicants’ property. This provision only exists within the RS District (Big Island and Deering Island). (Section 78-567 has been abbreviated for analysis below, the entire section is attached as Exhibit D): 1. Inland property access, persons desiring access to property located inland and not abutting the shoreline may apply for a permit to privately use and/or improve platted public right-of-way for such purpose. The permit applicant shall demonstrate and the council shall find: Application Summary: The applicants are requesting a permit to install a dock on City right- of-way to access their non-lakeshore, interior property on Big Island. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department recommends approval as detailed on page 4. FILE # LA21-000017 15 March 2021 Page 2 of 4 That there is no reasonable alternative access available. The applicants’ property does not abut the lake or a public dock access. That the proposed improvements and/or type of use would not unreasonably affect other properties abutting the right-of-way. The right-of-way appears to be approximately 38 feet wide at the lake and widens to the west. There are two abutting lakeshore properties: 210 Big Island (owned by Jud and Alyea Champlin) which contains a seasonal dwelling; and 260 Big Island (owned by David Saari - KW Saari et al) which is vacant. Both property owners have reached out to staff regarding this request; to date, of the owners abutting the right-of-way, only the Champlins have provided written comment (included as Exhibit I). There is one existing permit for a dock on this same Bay Place right-of-way granted via Resolution 2038 (hereinafter “Permit 2038”) which is attached as Exhibit E. Permit 2038 is attributed to the property at 230 Big Island. Permit 2038 was issued to Ms. Elsie Hales in 1986 as her family had historically been using the Bay Place right-of-way for dock purposes through an informal agreement with the City for approximately 50 years. Upon Ms. Hales’ decision to sell the property she requested a permit for the existing dock to assure access for a buyer. Permit 2038 was granted, subject to a number of conditions, including the following: “should there be any other requests from inland property owners to use this site for the installation of a dock to their properties, this permit is automatically revoked.” Permit 2038 appears to have remained in effect since that time, and has been transferred to the subsequent owners (Fred Bruntjen/Nancy Farnes). Ms. Farnes has provided comment on this request, included with Exhibit I. The council may approve, deny or place restrictions on any such permit based upon public health, safety and welfare considerations, including without limitation the configuration of adjoining record lots, the location, width, topography, drainage and vegetation on the right-of-way and the number of existing or future property owners who may require access at the same location. Any land alterations or improvements approved shall be the minimum amount necessary to provide reasonable inland access. 2. Land alterations. “Grading or physical alteration of any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such work has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council...” 3. Dockage on right-of-way. “Installing, maintaining, keeping or using a private dock on any platted public right-of-way for any purpose, including inland property access, is prohibited except when such dock has been specifically authorized as part of a permit issued by the council… The council may establish reasonable standards or requirements in approving any such dock permit.” 4. Encroachments prohibited. “No private property, buildings, structures, fences, boats, vehicles, dock parts, junk or debris shall be built, stored, parked or kept at any time within any platted public right-of-way, within any platted public park, or on any other property owned by the city except as specifically authorized by a permit issued under this section.” 5. Permit exceptions. “No permit shall be required for any person to walk on or over any platted public right-of-way or any platted public park when such use is made without altering the natural state of the land…” FILE # LA21-000017 15 March 2021 Page 3 of 4 6. Public use limited. “Any permit issued under this section shall be deemed to open the platted public right-of-way only to the extent necessary as established in the permit, and for the limited use of the permittee and his invitees.” 7. Permit limitations. “A permit issued under this section shall not grant or vest any property rights to use of the public right-of-way or other public property, or in any improvements. Permits issued under this section shall be valid for one year, shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date.” 8. Hold harmless…“As a condition of issuance of any permit, the applicant shall in writing release, indemnify and hold harmless the city from any and all claims or causes of action arising out of the use or alteration of the platted right-of-way by applicant or his invitees.” 9. Permit hearing and notice. “The planning commission or the council shall hold a public hearing or hearings on each application for a permit…” Discussion: Staff finds the request generally meets the criteria outlined in Section 78-567 for approval. In 2019, a request for a dock on right-of-way was made on the western portion of Big Island (#LA19-000086). That property owner, Ms. Fieger, had been utilizing an informal easement over a neighboring, lakeshore property. The City Council upon review of the details, directed staff to explore a text amendment to the Subdivision Regulations (Chapter 82) to facilitate the creation of a legal lake access easement only in the RS District; this was added to the Code in 2020 (included in Exhibit D). The text amendment resolved the access issue for Ms. Fieger and her permit request was withdrawn. Knowing this provision was now available to them, the applicants have attempted unsuccessfully to secure a private easements from neighbors (including Three Rivers Park District) as detailed in their submittal. They decided, with the boating season fast approaching, to begin the City permitting process. Their submittal included their reasoning for selecting this site. As a result of the applicants’ request and based on the resolution language, at this time Permit 2038 should be considered to be revoked; Staff has confirmed that the holder of Permit 2038 continues to desire dock access. While formally revoked, if the Commission/Council feel a dock is appropriate, staff suggests that some compromise or coordination occur to maintain access for both parties. With the exception of the Permit 2038 for 230 Big Island and its automatic revocation condition, the applicants’ dock request should not unreasonably impact the other properties on this side of the island. There are two additional interior lots on the east side of the island (490 and 500 Big Island) without lake access who may, in the future, request a permit for a dock on right-of-way. The City should anticipate requests from 490 and 500 Big Island at some time. The other remaining properties on the east side are either lakeshore properties or in common ownership with a lakeshore property, thus providing the opportunity for a dock. Staff recommends the dock access question for inland lots be looked at comprehensively. Public Comments A public hearing notice was sent out to the property owners within 500-feet of the applicants’ property notifying about the Planning Commission public hearing. In order to ensure transparency and to solicit additional comments for City Council use, staff has developed a second notice will be sent on March 31st to the owners within 500 feet of the proposed dock site. A number of public comments have been received and they are attached as Exhibit I. Most comments oppose the dock. FILE # LA21-000017 15 March 2021 Page 4 of 4 Issues for Consideration/Discussion 1. The Permit 2038 approved by the City Council permitted a dock in favor of property located at 230 Big Island in 1986. A condition of approval was any other requests for docking at the Bay Place site would cause the permit to be automatically revoked. Does the Commission wish to explore a solution to this unique condition? 2. Does the Commission wish to explore comprehensive solutions for inland lot access? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested permit(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the dock, with the following conditions: 1. The location of the installed dock shall be approved by the LMCD, and shall be approved by the Public Works Director. 2. The permit issued shall be valid for one year, and shall be subject to change, alteration or revocation for cause by the council at any time, and shall be automatically renewable on the anniversary of the date of issuance except upon written notice from the city to the permittee at least 30 days prior to the anniversary date. 3. The approval should identify which property(ies) has rights to use the dock, and each owner shall be permitted one boat slip for use by the owner of the property exclusively. 4. The dock shall be removed for the winter season. A winter storage location should be identified and approved by staff. 5. Dock sections shall not exceed 6-feet in width. 6. No canopy shall be erected. Staff further recommends that a comprehensive solution to the dock access question be considered. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Applicant’s Narrative & Maps Exhibit C. Aerial Photo Exhibit D. City Code Sections Exhibit E. Resol 2038 Exhibit F. Resol 4465 Exhibit G. Hennepin County Half-Section Map Exhibit H. Big Island Record Lot Maps Exhibit I. Public Comment Exhibit J. Property Owners List Exhibit K. Plat Map Exhibit L. New information from applicant submitted Thursday 3/11 afternoon AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. Consider and provide non-binding feedback on a proposed RPUD zone change. 2. Background. The applicant is proposing a project that would redevelop the property into high density residential; originally, the property received approvals for an office condominium type project, in 2005. In 2017, a day care center was approved for an existing building on site. The day care center will remain. 3. Proposal. The property owner proposes building a 3 story market rate apartment building. In addition to the 3 levels of residential housing, there will be one level of underground parking. Access to the site will remain as is, one shared driveway off of Wayzata Blvd. The existing parking lot will remain, and supplement the parking provided by the underground level. The apartment building will include 48 apartment units, exterior siding materials include brick, exposed concrete, and siding. Final details of the building design and floor plans have not yet been determined. The attached staff report to the Planning Commission provides additional analysis on the project. The property is likely to be redeveloped as an RPUD, which is one of the few zoning districts that supports the densities proposed. The Council is asked for feedback on the following items: a. Site size. The site is 2.48 acres, and while 5 acres is the minimum, the Ordinance allows for the Council to consider the development as a transition between land uses (gas station on the west, and high density residential to the east, and low density residential to the north). b. Building Height. The building is taller than the 30 foot limit that Council has consistently applied to residential projects in recent years. Applying the grades observed today, the building’s defined height is 41 feet. Applying the grades observed prior to development*, the building is 35 feet. c. Roof style. The RPUD requires a residential style peaked roof. The proposed building is a flat roof. In certain situations, a flat roof may be more appropriate. A flat roof may appear less massive due to the reduction of visible shingles and roof planes. d. Setbacks. If the building is considered 41 feet, the setbacks will need to increase to be 41 feet from the side and rear, or a waiver granted. e. Recreational space. As proposed, the project will not require a subdivision, and therefore, no park dedication will be collected. The RPUD regulations include a requirement of 10% of the land to be preserved for private recreation. The proposal includes space for a roof top deck, but not a lot of detail. The Council may support all, or none, of the preceding waiver requests. *Height analysis for any new building in Orono includes the “highest existing ground level”. Using this term strictly, the building height would be 41 feet. Consideration of alternatives could be considered appropriate due to the RPUD zoning classification and because the site was graded to accommodate the walkout style office buildings. Item No.: 18 Date: April 12, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000053 – Dale Richardson o/b/o CBS MN Properties, LLC 2060 Wayzata Blvd – Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 15th, the Planning Commission reviewed the project. Most members of the Commission were generally comfortable with the additional height, if a flat roof was utilized (less massing). Members questioned the private recreation options, and screening. Minutes of the PC meeting are attached as Exhibit B. 5. Public Comment. To date, no public comments have been received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff requests feedback on the 5 main issues identified, or any other comments the Council may have. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the project and provide feedback. Exhibits A. Plans/ Elevations B. PC Minutes C. PC Staff Report D. Applicants Narrative References PC Exhibits 3-15-21 L A 2 0 - 5 3 C o u n c i l E x h i b i t A MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 7 9. LA20-000053 DALE RICHARDSON O/B/O CBS MN PROPERTIES, LLC, 2060 WAYZATA BLVD W, CONCEPT PLAN (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Dale Richardson, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This is a sketch plan or concept plan review for a propose 40-unit apartment building located at 2060 Wayzata Boulevard. In 2005 this property was the subject of a proposed office condominium/townhome project. At the time there were 5 townhome office buildings. One was built in 2008 and a foundation for another was poured. The existing building was the subject of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a daycare center and was the first activity in this project area since 2008. The property owner purchased the property in 2017 and is looking to develop a 3-story apartment structure with 40 units. The property is guided for high density residential and used to be guided for commercial; in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan the property was re-guided to high density residential (20-25 units/acre). The Applicant is working under that guidance from the Comp Plan. The building will be 4 stories including one level of underground parking with 66 stalls plus three above ground apartment floors proposed. The project is being proposed as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) and the Commission may recall last month that they do not have a zoning district for high density residential; most come through as an RPUD of which this is a permitted use. They are operating under that from a guidance standpoint in terms of the final zoning district. Barnhart’s memo included analysis of the RPUD zoning regulations. Regarding elevations, he showed on screen access to the underground parking in the south portion of the building and noted there are three levels exposed on the back and a little bit of the fourth story adjacent to the parking garage is shown exposed. The project is proposed as a flat roof building. In Barnhart’s analysis of the RPUD zoning district it requires a five-acre minimum lot size for an RPUD zone – this property is at 2.48 and is calculated based on the remnants of the original project less the existing daycare center building at the northwest corner. The Council may find this project conforms to this exception under C; the zoning ordinance has certain exceptions where the Commission or Council can support a re-zoning. The exception here that would apply is the property is located in an area where it is a transition between commercial and existing residential. On the west side of the property is a fertilizer warehouse and gas station and on the east side is a senior housing project. It would meet with that condition in terms of a transition. To the north is single family residential. Barnhart noted the main issues are the roof style, the height of the building, and the private recreational areas. The RPUD zoning district requires 10% of the gross land area of a project to be private recreation. The City has allowed a range of uses for the private recreation. Orono Crossing last month had a tot lot and some open space in the center of that project, and for a senior housing project they had a walking path and a pavilion area, they have also had an outdoor deck for other uses. This plan shows a rooftop deck over the southern portion of the project which could meet some of the private recreation area. He would appreciate any comment the Commission has regarding the private recreation area. Perhaps the biggest issue that Staff and Applicant are looking for is feedback on the building height. Historically the City has kept to a 30-foot maximum limit for building height and there is a mechanism to define that different height. This is a unique situation because the property developed in 2005 and grading occurred for that project so the building is set up for walkout basements and office buildings. Obviously, this project is not that so there is some redevelopment as part of the grading proposal. In both situations, the building is more than 30 feet high. The shortest, most generous way to review it is a 35-foot-tall building and based on existing conditions it is defined as a 41-foot-tall building because of some challenges in terms of fitting within the 30-foot limit. The setbacks are based on a minimum of 35 foot for side yard and rear yard, but also there is a clause that the setback should not be less than the height of the building. If the height is measured at 41 feet the setback should be 41 feet from the side and rear and obviously this project does not do that. The roof is a flat roof and the RPUD regulation specifies residential character by LA20-53 Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 7 incorporating pitched or hipped roof. Barnhart does not know what was predominant in 2002 or whenever the RPUD was created but he thinks the intent with a residential hipped roof is something with a residential- type scale. He looks for feedback from the Commission and noted the challenge is when adding a gable, they add a pitched roof to the building and the height only increases unless they shorten the number of stories. Staff is looking for feedback on this project, primarily site size, building height, and the roof style. Bollis asked if there have been any projects where they have used previous grade to establish the height versus the grade that is there. Barnhart cannot remember any specifically and certainly not with an 18-year difference between them. He noted across the street they did an apartment building and used the grade that is there today, not what it was before it was mass-graded for Stone Bay. He does not want to say they have never done it. Kirchner said it notes a 750 square foot deck on the third floor as well as the 2nd and 3rd floor perhaps have some recreational space. He asked what the overall square footage of amenity space is. Barnhart does not know what amenity means, it could be the lobby and not the recreation space. He is looking for feedback of what the Commission expects out of a project of this scale and they can go forward from there. Kirchner clarified they do not yet know if the 10% recreational area is met. Barnhart replied they do not know. Dale Richardson purchased the property in 2015, did the first development in 2017 and the road construction put a halt on the second building project. On the first level there is an exercise room, and the community room will be on the top deck area, also. It will be a rental for parties or a guest suite; he noted there is a little more footage than what they are explaining. They would fill in the back area back in so it will butt up to the original grade that it was at and will actually be lower t han what the original was as it was physically cutout to accommodate walkouts because that site was originally a hill. He noted they are just trying to make it work with what they have and this is the minimum number that makes it financially feasible to do the project. The green area from the corner of the building around to the back will be a nice level area and they will use the stone they have to do retaining walls around the property. Gettman said for marketing, what ranges do they have for the different sized units, the 860 all the way up to 2,300. Mr. Richardson said the 2,300 will be a three-bedroom unit and will be a market rate for local families living on the lake who want to keep a presence in the area but do not want to maintain a home. It will be a nicer unit, post-tension concrete construction. Gettman asked if it will be $200,000-$300,000 or $400,000-$600,000 range. Mr. Richardson said bare bones construction on post-tension, the cheapest they can do is about $250,000 a unit. He noted they are not selling but renting these and to keep the style of the building that compact, the price goes way up. Gettman clarified this is an apartment and not condos to sell. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 7 Mr. Richardson said that is right, it will be built like a condo, everyone will have their own heat and air conditioning unit and water heater. It will be set up like a condo–style system and metered individually, but will be a market rate apartment. Gettman asked what rates they are anticipating the different sizes. Mr. Richardson noted they have not fully determined that yet but will be comparable to a project off 394 and 494 – they range from $2,800/unit for the three bedrooms and charge for parking on top of that. Gettman said the one bedrooms would be what. Mr. Richardson said one bedrooms would be around $1,500-$1,800. Gettman asked with respect to the recreation that it will be geared more towards families. Mr. Richardson said it will be open to anybody; if someone is getting divorced and wants to live in Orono next to the schools, or if someone is moving out of their home, anyone that wants to live there. It is not 55 or older, but they are keeping it to the market rate. Gettman clarified the target numbers are based on the 48 units and he knows City Council has pushed back quite a bit on the 3 versus 4 story scenario. Mr. Richardson noted they are basically a 3-story building but they have underground parking. He thinks when they are fully landscaped it will not look like the extra story underneath which would have originally been underground anyways. Gettman asked if they have run numbers to make this still feasible in having two levels of apartments. Mr. Richardson said they would not even consider it; it is not possible. Libby said the ceiling heights can also be a constructive way of dealing with building height and asked if the top floors are any higher ceiling-wise than the lower. Mr. Richardson replied they are trying to keep them uniform at close to 9-foot ceilings, but there are structural beams, sprinklers, electrical, lots of stuff to get in there. Libby said from the grade and elevations, is it conceivable in order to bring the overall building height to a 30-foot maximum, can they do garden levels on the main level and still be able to have the density, rental income, and cash flow they need to do that. Garden level apartments right now are renting for over a thousand dollars a month. Mr. Richardson understands where Libby is coming from. He does not want to make it feel like one is half underground on the main level. He noted the codes have just recently changed to that 30-foot level – they have always been 35 or 36 feet. He said they are not trying to exceed the old code but they were not able to do this project until this point because of the road construction project. He noted he has been in a lawsuit with Hennepin County since 2016 on it and have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to development, but he could not develop it when he was having problems with the County. If he MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 7 could have done this right from the get-go and rolled right into it; the neighboring building Orono Woods is 45-50 feet. He is not asking for the max, but they just want 35. He thinks it is a very reasonable number to ask for, it is not in a high residential area, but right on the end of Orono and the site was elevated another 10 feet as a hill was cut out of there. If they had gone with the original plan and grading, which he did not own at the time, he does not think they would even have had an issue because they are hauling dirt out in massive quantity to get the grade into the hill that was originally there. Ressler wants to clarify the height by definition is not cut and dry, it is not actual, it is how they measure it. He noted they have been 30 feet for at least ten years or perhaps longer. He asked Staff to clarify how they measure that height. Barnhart stated they measure height through a combination of the lowest floor and where the highest adjacent grade touches the footprint of the building and then on a flat roof structure, the top point of that flat roof. For a hipped roof structure, it is usually between the midpoint of the peak and the eave. In his memo, he included some arithmetic sheets and the Applicant also provided their math of how they get to the height. There are two buildings in town that he is aware of, that are more than 30 feet, one is the building next door that was approved in 2002 and that project also received City financial assistance because the Council at that time had certain goals in mind for that property. The other one is the Stone Bay project that was approved in 2002 or 2003; again, that was approved with RPUD and the Council had specific goals for that. With any of the requirements in the RPUD zoning district, the Council can waive certain requirements. In the 6 years Barnhart has been here and the 15 years before that, the Council has been pretty consistent of staying to that 30 feet. They can waive that but his advice to the Applicant and the Planning Commission is that the Council has pretty consistently held to that 30 feet and he is looking for feedback if they think it is appropriate to change that at this juncture. Libby said obviously the flat roof works in the Applicant’s favor and he is interested to hear him speak of runoff and drainage with a flat roof, especially drainage away from the building as it is a different dynamic with a flat roof. He asked if there are engineering designs that have worked well in the past. Mr. Richardson stated they are working with Lux Engineering and they did the original site development on this project and also on Orono Woods. They have the holding pond on Brown Road as part of this project and are working to redesign it so the roof drains will actually go right into the storm drain system, so they will not be any runoff from the roof, at all. Libby clarified storm drain to the ponding. Mr. Richardson replied yes, it will be all internal drainage so it won’t have any more impact than the five buildings they would have had. He thinks an apartment is needed here, there has not been market rate for an apartment in Orono for quite some time, he was told over 20 years but he does not know if that is correct or not. Libby noted there are somewhat limited setbacks for the building positioning and they will have limited ability to move that water away quickly, it will all have to be subterranean then. Mr. Richardson replied that is correct, and it is all there now, they have to rework it. All the infrastructure is already in…all the water and sewer. The Applicant is going to reconfigure it to their needs and take some of the surface drains out and put the roof drains right into catch basins. By making that back level, it will give quite a bit of flat area in the backyard. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 7 Libby noted there is a fair amount of grade. Mr. Richardson said it is higher behind the building right now, the hill actually goes uphill. Libby stated there is a fair amount of pitch away from the building. Mr. Richardson agreed and said it will still flow around the building and this is just a preliminary. Libby asked where the entrance to the underground parking will be. Mr. Richardson said it is from the existing parking lot, on the top right on screen. Kirchner asked if they plan to allow pets at this property. Mr. Richardson said they are not going to restrict pets, although they will not want Rottweilers in there. Kirchner understands they will have the standard pet addendum that limits breeds to some degree. His question is, looking at the structural and parking lot massing, in a complex this size, has there been any thought to a dog run or something like that. He is assuming they are going with somewhat of a luxurious market rate and building some of those amenities that typically come with. With the walls in the rear and the structural mass in the parking lot he is struggling to see where there might be that type of area. Mr. Richardson noted they have a partial wrought iron fence on the back of the property and they will probably just carry that around the property. Erickson asked if the existing daycare building is going to stay as is. Mr. Richardson answered yes, and the foundation that has not been built on they will remove. He was not aware that the restrictions were 30 feet, he has built homes in the past and was always told 36 feet. Barnhart thinks the difference is the defined height versus the actual top of the building. Mr. Richardson said from what he saw in the code he did not see it actually isolated. Barnhart clarified it has been there. Bollis said regarding the overall height, he knows they measure from the highest existing grade that there is today, to the top of the roof (because there is not a pitched roof). He said it would be fair to say if they can build a two-story building here with a third story underground with a pitched roof, it may actually measure higher than what he is proposing because this has a flat roof. The reason is because they measure a pitched roof to the midpoint of the pitched roof, so that could be 30 feet and there could be another 15 feet of roofing above that. Barnhart stated the City has approved buildings that have a bigger mass impact because of the pitch of the roof. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 7 Bollis said if they throw out the way they measure the code and they were to build these two buildings he just described side-by-side, the one that the code reads measures 30 feet with a pitched roof would actually measure taller than this building and look bigger. Barnhart clarified the peak height would be taller, yes. Bollis noted that is what a person sees driving down the road or standing there – that massing. The way it is proposed, he is okay with that height variance from what the code is just because of that. He clarified he would not be okay with it if it had a pitched roof and they were asking for 5 feet above code. Ressler’s only feedback is that it is a different design style, this is more of a contemporary look and they are not here to design it. Bollis makes a good point that the actual or affective height versus the peaked height and how it is being measured could arguably affect the massing and he would like to look a bit closer at that before he can weigh in on whether he would be agreeable to going above the height restrictions they have in place in the code. He knows they have been pretty reluctant to grant any sort of height variances for proposals like these, but it is a reasonable point of view to say that the actual massing is more favorable this way. It is whether or not the Commission feels that is not going to have as much of an impact. Erickson would like to support the existing guidelines that the City Council has acted on a number of times. He thinks they are trying to accomplish an architectural theme and it is a theme that runs the length of County 112 in Orono and includes a certain height restriction, a pitched roof, and setbacks equal to the height. He is comfortable in sticking with that. Ressler thinks there could be a project here that could be built without having to exceed that measurement and it would certainly be nice to see what that would look like in contrast. McCutcheon noted they should probably talk about the setbacks since it is not a five-acre property, it is much smaller. Is the Commission comfortable putting that much massing on a small lot. They may talk about where those people will walk their dogs, is there any kind of playground area, or anything the people there can enjoy. The rental space was mentioned but it needs to be rented. He would like to see a little more combination towards public space or common areas besides a parking lot. Ressler asked to go to page 9 of the cumulative concept, which shows a backset view of what the building looks like from afar. He thinks that was helpful for him based on setbacks to look at it from that setting. He noted there was a proposal last month and Ressler was very much against it due to the very mild setbacks…he thinks it was 10 feet. This one is proposed at 35 feet and asked if that is correct. Barnhart believes they met the requirements of 50 feet to Wayzata Boulevard and 35 feet to the rear and the side. The proposed plans show 82 feet to Wayzata Boulevard, 36 from the side, and 35 from the rear, so it meets the requirements from a setback perspective. He clarified it meets the prescribed minimum setbacks. There is also a clause in there that the setbacks should be at least the height of the building. If they use the existing grades and measure at 41 feet or so, then they are too close to the property line at 35 and 36 feet. Ressler stated if they were to grant a variance on height that would be an important part that they would need along with that. Kirchner agrees. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, March 15, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 7 Erickson pointed out that directly north of this property is the sugar woods neighborhood, a very high-level, professional neighborhood and years ago he saw homes listed in there for $800,000-$900,000 and he is sure they have gone up since then. The owners are professional people and as this moves forward, they will make themselves heard, he is sure. Kirchner said to McCutcheon’s point regarding the setbacks, he does have concern over how limited green space there is, with what appears to be potential drainage, manhole cover styles in the back and side yards. He would better like to understand the 10% of recreational space and how that is being accomplished. Todd Mohagen, Mohagen Hansen Architecture and Interiors, clarified they did not really think about the green space at this point. They were very concerned about the height limitation. He noted they have a surplus of parking because of what the design was previously, so they can take out parking stalls and make more greenspace. In the back, the manhole covers are just there to change the direction for the underground system and there are ways to deal with that, also. Mr. Mohagen said from a technical standpoint they can increase green space and deal with the amenity space in a very easy way. To the architects, the big thing is what Barnhart said…the height. With the sloped roof, in looking at the section that is at the bottom, he pointed out on screen the neighboring houses are to scale, it is setback, there is heavy green space in between this project and that. The scale is very appropriate for this type of lot in his experience. Libby noted they have looked at some similar projects that are different architecturally but have essentially a compound-type structure. He asked if the architect, in order to enhance the green space, to put something recreational, a family-oriented type area in. Mr. Mohagen said absolutely, yes. Libby asked if they have a future vision of screening and tree cover as this is Orono which is a very rural community. Mr. Mohagen said yes, and that is helpful for the project, to have landscaping around the project is imperative. Mr. Richardson said on the back side of the property there is a vacated easement for a future road that will not be going in because they sold Cliff Otten the one section of that road. He assumes they will eventually vacate that property. Barnhart would not make that assumption but said they can certainly look into it a little more. Mr. Richardson said it is about a 40-foot section and half would go to Orono Woods and have to this project. Barnhart said not necessarily and it is probably something they need to dig into a bit more. Ressler thanked the Applicant and hopes the feedback was useful to the project. To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: March 15, 2021 Subject: #20-53, CBS MN Properties, LLC, 2060 Wayzata Blvd, RPUD Concept Plan Review Background The subject property was originally developed as Amber Woods, a 10 unit office park condominium project in 2005. The site was graded, parking, and utilities installed, and in 2008 the first building was built. A second foundation was poured also, but no other development occurred on the property until 2017, when a Conditional Use Permit was granted and a day care center moved into the existing building. In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, the property was guided for high density residential, with a density of 20-25 units per acre. Previously, the guided land use was commercial. Proposal The property owner desires to replat and develop the remaining portions of the original Amber Woods development into a 48 unit apartment building. The building would be 4 stories, including one level of underground parking for 66 stalls. The building is L shaped, with the short end to the north. The existing parking lot will be retained. Access to the underground parking area will be at the south end of the building. Access to the site is via an existing entrance off of Wayzata Blvd that is shared with the property to the east. The building is proposed with a flat roof, with a roof top deck over the 2nd floor at the south end of the structure. Individual apartments will have a balcony. The building exterior is shown as brick and siding. Exposed facades of the underground parking suggest a rough textured concrete block, this should be confirmed. The table below provides analysis of the project based on the RPUD requirements for Attached Family structures. Application Summary: The applicant is proposing to develop the property as a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD); the first step is the review of a concept plan. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests non-binding feedback on the proposed RPUD development. LA20-53 Council Exhibit C FILE # LA20-53 March 15, 2021 Page 2 of 4 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section Standard Conforming? 1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or certain exceptions… The property to be platted is 2.48 acres. The Council may find that the project conforms to the exception under C: The property is located in an area where the proposed development provides a transition between a commercial or industrial area and an existing residential area or on an intermediate or principal arterial as defined in the comprehensive plan. 2 Uses. Multifamily residential uses are conforming. 3 Sewer availability Yes. 4 Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. Conforms to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 CMP guided the property from Commercial to high density residential. 5 Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. None requested. 6 Floor Ratio, up to 1.0 Calculated preliminarily at 0.98 (106,008 sq ft of floor area/ 108,028 sq ft of gross land). 7a Setbacks. Setbacks are 50’ to Wayzata Blvd, 35 to the rear and the side. Drive lanes 20’ from exterior property lines. The plans reflect a setback of 82 feet from the front property line, 36 feet from the side, and 35 feet from the rear property line. The regulation does require that “in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the structure.” 7b Height, stories, roof style Non-Conforming. The ordinance requires a residential character by incorporating pitched of hipped roof, the proposal is for Residential pitched roofs. The building exceeds the height limit of 30’. Depending on what is used as highest existing ground level, the building is 35 feet (based on predevelopment grades) or 41 feet (based on current grades). More analysis of the height follows. 7c Outside storage No. None proposed. 11 10% Private Recreational Area (Active and/or Passive) The floor plans show area labeled “amenity” on the 2nd and 3rd floor, and a 750 sq ft amenity deck on the third floor. 10 percent of the project is 10,800 sq ft. 12 Common Ownership Conforming. Association documents required. FILE # LA20-53 March 15, 2021 Page 3 of 4 13 Signage Signage located, plans not yet developed. 14 Landscaping Landscaping plans not yet developed. 15 Architectural Standards Elevations provided. 16 Flexibility from standards Requested. 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested. 18 Building Permits Expected. 19 General regulations applicability Expected. 20 Lighting Lighting plans not yet developed. 21 Trails Sidewalks and public walks proposed. Applicable Regulations: The RPUD regulations can be found in Division 11 of the zoning code, attached as Exhibit J. Analysis: The Planning Commission and City Council are asked to comment on this project generally, and on a couple of issues specifically. Site size. The property is not large enough to stand alone as a RPUD (requiring 5 acres), but the Commission could view it as a transition between commercial (to the west is a gas station) and residential (senior housing to the east, and single family residential to the north). In other areas, the Council has supported a RPUD for an undersized lot (Orono Apartment, Orono Crossings) when those projects were viewed as an architectural continuation of an adjacent RPUD development, Stonebay. This project is not viewed as a continuation of Orono Woods, an RPUD. Building Height. While there are two buildings taller than 30 feet in Orono (Orono Woods, built in 2002, and Stonebay condominium, built in 2006), the City Council has recently and consistently held firm on the building height issue, providing direction to applicants to stay within that height. The applicant has introduced a unique argument regarding the height, basing the height calculation on the site conditions found prior to grading for the Amber Woods development, where grading to support ‘walk-out’ style office buildings was completed. Even with this application of the site conditions, the building exceeds the design height by 5 feet. In the past, to accommodate height issues, the ceiling height and/ or lowest floor elevations have been manipulated. Roof style. The plan shows a flat roof, contradicting the requirement for a residential, pitched or hip roof style. While flat roofed residential structures are perhaps more common now than when the RPUD regulations were originally drafted, the Commission should comment on the roof design for this proposal along Wayzata Blvd. Setbacks. If the existing elevation is applied and the building is found to be 41 feet in defined height, flexibility from the setbacks relative to building height will be necessary. Private recreation. The plans does not show with any clarity the private recreation proposed. The FILE # LA20-53 March 15, 2021 Page 4 of 4 applicant should provide commentary on his plans. Engineer Comments Engineering comments have not been generated at this stage. Stormwater will need to be managed on site in accordance with stormwater regulations. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission support the additional height of the building? 2. Does the Commission support the waivers requested (roof style, setback)? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests commentary on the proposed concept plan. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibit C. Building Elevations Exhibit D. Floor Plans Exhibit E. Site Rendering Exhibit F. Narrative Exhibit G. Current Grades Exhibit H. Predevelopment Grades Exhibit I. Building Height arithmetic Exhibit J. RPUD Regulations Rezoning request 2060 West Wayzata Blvd Orono Mn 55356 CBS MN Properties, LLC is requesting a rezoning for this parcel from B to R8. The above parcel of land along Wayzata Blvd is a perfect fit for the proposed apartment building. This type of housing diversity is needed and is in balance with the surrounding area which includes senior housing, single family residential, townhomes and commercial. The proposed building is also compatible in design to surrounding structures and neighborhoods. In line with the city's Comprehensive plan, adding multi unit housing will help increase tax base for the city as well as increase traffic for local businesses. Strengthening local markets will also help attract new businesses to town. This type of housing and residential growth also expands the employment base for local industries. The proposed building will have a brick exterior and will include underground parking, indoor pool, fitness center and resident gathering area. This high quality architecture fits the character of the area and will offer a great opportunity to keep people in town and draw others from surrounding areas to the community. LA20-53 Council Exhibit D