Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-08-2021 Council PacketAgenda Council Meeting Monday, February 8, 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 January 25, 2021 2. Council Work Session Minutes of January 25, 2021 3. City Council Minutes of January 11, 2021 Amend to add Public Hearing for Body Worn Cameras 4. Claims/Bills 5. Approval of Amendment to 2021 Annual Appointments – Resolution 6. Approval of Hennepin County Assessor’s 2-Year Contract 7. Walters Port Water Main Replacement Project – Award 8. Building Services Contract Agreement 9. LA20-000073 – All Energy Solar o/b/o Brian O’Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, Variance – Resolution 10. LA20-000076 – Chris Moe, 2425 Thoroughbred Lane, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution 11. LA20-000077 – Premium Construction LLC, 2967 Casco Point Road, Variance – Resolution 12. LA21-000001 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Appeals 13. LA21-000002 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Dry Buildable Definition 14. LA20-000001 – Neil Weber o/b/o Orono Apartments LLC, 2475 Kelley Parkway, Master Development Plan Extension 15. Replacement of Bobcat Skid Steer Unit #452 16. Parks and Golf Course Superintendent Recruitment 17. Replacement of Trailer Unit #482 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. Police Department Report 18. Body Camera Policy – Public Comment Planning Department Report 19. LA20-000048 – Timothy Whitten o/b/o I. Jacobs/A. Jacobs Revocable Trust, 1700 Shoreline Drive, Preliminary Plat – Resolution Agenda Council Meeting Monday, February 8, 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 Mayor/Council Report City Administrator Report City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2021 02-15-21 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 02-16-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. (Matthew Johnson) 02-22-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 02-22-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 03-01-21 Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 03-08-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 03-08-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 03-15-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Dennis Walsh) 03-29-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 03-29-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 11 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards and Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2021 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2021 3. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 11, 2021 4. CLAIMS/BILLS 5. APPROVAL OF TOBACCO LICENSE 2021 RENEWALS 6. APPROVAL OF KENNEL LICENSE 2021 RENEWALS 7. FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT 8. SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS – RESOLUTION 9. SMITH AVENUE TRAIL MARKING 10. GOLF COURSE IRRIGATION POND DREDGING (21-029) 11. INTERIM BUILDING SERVICES Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. PRESENTATION 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE Sheriff David Hutchinson thanked the Chief of Police and his staff and said Orono’s police department is one of the best in the County. The Chief is always very responsive with water rescues and they are lucky to have him; he makes the Sheriff’s job easier. Sheriff Hutchinson said it has been a challenging year with the death of George Floyd, the civil unrest, and COVID. He has been busy and does not think he has had a day off in six months or more. A priority of his was to come to every City Council meeting for every city in the County and he did not accomplish that last year due to COVID; he hopes to get to all 36+ cities. Most importantly in this region is the water patrol and Lieutenant Magnuson is here, was just promoted to Captain, and has led the water patrol for the past few years and will still be overseeing it. He MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 11 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE – Continued noted they patrol 104 lakes and 3 rivers in Hennepin County, with Lake Minnetonka being the most active, busy, and most political, as well. Their water patrol is one of the largest inland in the United States with a large contingent of water craft. He pointed out that any water-related deaths in Hennepin County, even if one were to perish in a hot tub, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s office is actually responsible. He noted people forget that water patrol does not just drive around in boats and give tickets, they are investigating as well and is again one of the best in the nation. Sheriff Hutchinson said they are in the process of trying to sell some boats to a friend of his who is a Sheriff in Massachusetts; he said even they know that Hennepin County’s older stuff is better than most agencies. They spent about 470 hours this year, most of them were through the water patrol on January 1, 2020 through January 1, 2021 they had 41 requests fulfilled by Orono Police Department; 4 different work ups, 16 subject work ups for the Orono officer assigned to the West Metro Drug Task Force, and the Northwest Crime Collaborative. He noted they have a good relationship with all the cities around the lake and Sheriff Hutchinson thinks Orono has always been there for the Sheriff’s department when they need them and vice versa. He introduced the Lieutenant-now-Captain and noted they have two other sergeants out there; they have 8 licensed deputies, about 62 volunteer special deputies, and 13 explorers. Sheriff Hutchinson stated they have a lot of people and are staffed about 20 hours a day, but of course can respond 24/7 if needed. They have 9 boats, 4 on Lake Minnetonka, a rescue boat, 3 air boats, 8 snowmobiles and the side ski which helps recover bodies; he noted they go throughout the whole state using their technology and the skills of the Lieutenant and his crew. Since Sheriff Hutchinson has been in office, through the community outreach division they are getting more deputy involvement in the community. The Councilmembers may have seen them giving ice cream to kids throughout the County, many bike giveaways, and – especially now with some of the negative connotations of law enforcement – they are trying to get people to realize that they are the good guys, 99% of them do the right thing 99% of the time. Unfortunately, the mistakes are what make the media. Mental health is important to the Sheriff and he started the Tri Wellness program which is focused on mind, body, and spirit. They are trying to get better gym facilities, they have a full-time mental health professional for the agency which is the first in Minnesota, and they have chaplains. He shared they are also getting young deputies some financial advice because it all causes stress and if they have financial trauma, they have to work more overtime and then get burned out, which affects their mental health; working overtime or many hours at a job, people feel the strain, and they are human beings. With the Minneapolis unrest that happened in summer of 2020 and the concerns coming up with the trial on March 8, 2020, he stated the Sheriff’s Department supports protests but they do not support people breaking their stuff, hurting people, and damaging livelihood in Minneapolis or any city within Hennepin County. They will not tolerate it this time, and he knows the last time there was some communication with some politicians regarding when to act. He noted they have a metro-wide task force now and Minneapolis, Hennepin County, State Patrol, and several others are on this Board so they make decisions as a unified command; therefore, there are no politics that play a role if something were to happen after the trial. He wants people to know from Orono to Rogers to North side that they are organized and this time they will be successful and are not going to let their City burn. He noted he has said that multiple times: if you come to Hennepin County, Minneapolis, or Orono and cause problems, they have a spot for you in jail. They will do that repeatedly until they maintain some order. Protesters are allowed to be peaceful and let their feelings be known, but his office is not going to tolerate what they had last summer. He noted they are still recovering from that and they have a good system in place and he was just briefed today. With the unified command - they have enough staff and could use a few more officers on staff - the City is going to be secure, they will win this time and the people of Orono and all communities in Hennepin County should know that they will not play games anymore. He noted he can answer questions, concerns, or comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 11 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE – Continued Mayor Walsh said the biggest event going on regarding Orono is on the 4th of July over on Big Island; over the years they have had a lot of issues and have gotten better with a lot of patrol enforcing them and have drive-lanes so they can get in there when there is a problem. He cannot recall anything that happened last year. He is hoping it continues because anything that happens is just a blight on their reputation on Lake Minnetonka and obviously, they want it as safe as possible. Mayor Walsh thinks the Sheriff’s Department did a great job last year. Minneapolis is obviously far away and they have great faith in the Police Department and the Police Chief in Orono does a great job and is always prepared. Mayor Walsh hopes they take care of their action in Minneapolis as well so nothing comes out Orono’s way, but hopefully the patrol with the new people in charge will continue the great job they are doing, especially on the 4th of July. Sheriff Hutchinson said he was actually out there on the 4th of July for probably 10 hours and COVID had a little to do with it but those drive-lanes did make a difference. They had the DNR and every single deputy available and it is the same thing, he wants people to go have fun but as soon as someone does something that is going to damage property or hurt somebody. He stated there was civil unrest last year but people did not hear about it because it was lawful, had good arrests and noted that the deputies got in a foot chase with one individual who was eventually caught. Again, he said they are out there and said for people to have fun, legally, and noted once they cross that line, Captain Magnuson and his team will take them. Crosby appreciates Sheriff Hutchinson’s comments tonight and stated this community supports law enforcement and they thank them; he knows they put their lives on the line for the residents’ safety and it is truly appreciated. What happened last year was horrific – God-willing, with prayers and the right tactics – they will not be going down that path again and he appreciates the Sheriff’s words on that tonight. Regarding the water patrol, he has to throw something out there as it is a pet peeve of his as a boater: he sees too many kids riding boat rails on cruisers, etcetera. Crosby said they need to start writing more tickets for that, he thinks that would be terrific. Obviously, the biggest problem on any lake and probably in boating and cars is boating under the influence and is what causes the havoc on Big Island; after ten years on the Fire Department, he would say 90% of the calls were booze related. Crosby reiterated they appreciate everything the Sheriff’s Department does, the water patrol guys are awesome, and it amazes him on a hot day how they can be in that uniform. Sheriff Hutchinson said the water patrol does do a great job and reiterated they are one of the best in the country, not because of the Sheriff but because of the long tradition and dedicated men and women that work out there. He said if one is a 20-some year-old deputy, the water patrol is probably the best beat to have. He said if they could have 50 deputies out there, they would, but there is always a little funding stick, especially now with the anti-police, defund stuff. It is hard for them County-wide but he thinks the City needs to hold the County Board to their word, and they need to spend their money better. He stated if law enforcement wants to make the strides that everybody wants from Orono to the North side, to wherever, they must give more money to modernize, have better training, hire better people. Sheriff Hutchinson said when people start talking about police reform, he says yes, that is great…but expect to start paying new cops what we are paying doctors, because if they are asking everybody to do all this with making zero mistakes, they must start paying a lot more money, especially as they are at a 25 year low of applicants. In talking about police reform – they do need to do better – but to get better people, they must start paying them better. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 11 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE – Continued Crosby stated they cannot defund the police and a lot of what happened in Minneapolis was because it was already defunded. They need to add funding, they need to help with training, support, and that is the way they get there. However, it is never going to be 100% perfect – police are human beings just like the Councilmembers are. Sheriff Hutchinson always tells people that the police are just like everyone else and 98% or more wake up and do their jobs to make their communities better. He noted every day he tries to do something to make this agency better for when that time is over. This is an honorable profession, most of them are out there to do good, they want to help people, and sometimes they get a little jaded with politics and some media. However, the majority of men and women who serve in these uniforms – he especially thinks the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office is the best agency – but the rest, no matter what the naysayers say, 95% of people support them. It is the 5% that are loud mouths and those 5% eventually quiet down and the police and Sheriff will always win because they are the good guys. No matter what people say, they will always be the good guys. Seals is very excited that he just drew the line in the sand today and said “we’re not going to let that happen” because she thinks it was really hard to watch Minneapolis burn and wonder when is it going to come here next. She appreciates that and said this Council and the City supports the Sheriff’s Department, the Orono Police Chief and department. Seals has been able to listen to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) calls and said Sheriff Hutchinson has great, practical, pragmatic advice and she appreciates that. She noted they had some crazy ideas on there and the Sheriff was able to reel them back in to reality, for example, it is a lake and they cannot have kayaking from 2-4 on Mondays and think that they can actually monitor that in a logical way. Seals said as a boat owner, one thing that drives her nuts is that she sees a lot of families towing their little kids under Arcola with their towables. She said it only takes one slip and that kid is off and someone has run over them. Coming from a family that has had a child get run over – one of her cousins – it is not good. She does not know what it looks like to educate the community because every time she has talked to someone, they are completely clueless saying “what do you mean we can’t tow this through that channel?” Seals tries to explain the rationale and then people agree that makes sense. She stated people have no control and then they have a six-year-old on it; if they fall off and there is someone who is drinking in the boat next to them, and they run over the child…what are they going to do? Sheriff Hutchinson stated that is important and they cannot be everywhere so people like Seals should speak out – hopefully it is not confrontational – but if people see something they should say “hey, that is not safe” and more than likely those people do not live on the lake. Seals said no, most of them do not and they just don’t know. Crosby noted sometimes they get the Jersey salute and asked if they know what that means. Seals noted education it is a huge thing. Sheriff Hutchinson introduced Jim who does their relations, puts all this together, and said if the Councilmembers have any issues or complaints politically, they can always email him. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 11 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE – Continued Printup thanked the Sheriff for what he has done, and noted he mentioned the stress and trauma, which is wildly important and has been for many years but is now getting a spotlight. He stated the feedback he has heard from officers, both in corrections which is Printup’s field, and law enforcement it is very positive. Sheriff Hutchinson said that was one of his top 3 goals coming in; he noted his predecessor did a good job but they are just a little different as far as leadership tactics. He went in and asked “what can we do to make you comfortable? What direction do you need from us?” He noted a lot of the time from the Sheriff down to the detention deputies there are 50 people giving different advice, so they went in and talked; they need more comfortable uniforms, they got more uniforms, if they need help, they can go to a therapist and call her on the phone 24/7, they can go work out if they need to. Sheriff Hutchinson said if they had better deputies and better CO’s most people will be less likely to have insurance claims, heart problems, etcetera, but the main thing is when they deal with someone in the public, in prison, or in jail, the deputies will treat them better because they are taken care of. He stated if they treat their staff like “crap” they will perform like that. Again, they are not perfect at it but they are getting better and it is important to him because he has lost a lot of his friends in law enforcement to suicide. He started the peer support at his other agency with another sergeant and just the peer-to-peer support makes their day. If someone is a rookie up to a 20-year vet, sometimes people have different life skills and it either helps the old-timer or helps the young cop have a good career. He said they need to start treating their people better. Johnson thanked the Sheriff for coming and congratulated Captain Magnuson on the promotion and said he also follows the LMCD and he is doing a great job there. He noted they are expanding Big Island so they will have a couple bathrooms and a trail out there and he does not know who enforces that. Mayor Walsh thinks the only complaint at Big Island is that there is a dock out there and is supposed to be for drop-off and pick-ups only but people have been parking there all day long and no one else can get on the Island. He noted that just needs to be patrolled more now that it will be opened up with new trails and bathrooms, etcetera. Johnson said the idea behind that change is that is owned by Orono and if they are going to have it out there, they want to allow more people to use it, not just tying it up, but to have some use in the park and trials. He noted they are ADA compliant and let the Sheriff know that is in the works. The Sheriff said that is a good job for the special deputies to sit in the area and shoo them out. Johnson stated Tanager Bridge will start soon and the first task is to remove the biggest mound of dirt in the area which will be a huge job. He understands that bridge will be a little taller, also, as he knows there have been some issues with getting water patrol through there. That will be good as there have been some problems getting response into Tanager because of the height of the bridge. Sheriff Hutchinson noted their new boats are low on the top half. Captain Magnuson said they will hopefully have less bridge issues as they have a different style of boat coming so they will be able to get into all of those places. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 11 12. HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF UPDATE – Continued Johnson thinks Lake Minnetonka was exceptionally busy this year with COVID and they had a very successful year on the lake given the amount of activity. He noted during the week it was like a weekend for most of the year. Mayor Walsh thanked the Sheriff again for coming. PUBLIC HEARING DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 13. BIG ISLAND PARK ADA TRAIL PROJECT (19-033) - INTERPRETIVE SIGNAGE PLANNING Edwards said they have an opportunity, with the recent allotment of bonding bill money coming to the City, for Big Island to the tune of $300,000. In previous actions, the Council has approved everything that was left on the original project to include the second bathroom, the picnic area, etcetera. After that is done and taken care of, they are projecting about $59,000 to remain from that $300,000. The Parks Commission and the Big Island Legacy group have been looking at ideas. When they put in the bonding application which was on last meeting’s agenda, it allocated all $300,000 so three items in that application were a potential extension of trail, additional interpretive signs, and odds and ends such as a few additional sitting stones. Tonight, Edwards is bringing forward the beginning of additional interpretive signage on the Island. On screen, he showed some examples of existing interpretive signage done last year and noted the interpretive signage currently out there is all inside the Visitor Center. They have created but not yet installed two directional signs with park rules at the dock and where the trailhead from the beach is. He noted the group wanted to look at getting some planning done by a professional; Mr. Rick Carter is here and they found a gentleman who does things for the Arboretum and some other areas around the state on interpretive signage. Tonight, Edwards has an attached proposal from his company to do an interpretive sign concept plan for $10,000 which would be the beginning of some of the other estimates on the rest of the project, assuming 10 signs which would be in the neighborhood of $39,000. Rick Carter, 2780 Shady Road, is a Park Commissioner (although not the Chair) but he is the Chair of the Big Island Legacy and thinks Edwards really shared everything. The project is going amazingly well, he appreciates all of the support, and Edwards has done an amazing job. When they get the last $15,000 – which they will – and max out the match from the DNR they will probably have a project of around $730,000 with only $130,000 from the City. He thanked the City for the $130,000 and noted they are in the home stretch and are talking about a couple of details such as a trail extension, some stones, and what Mr. Carter thinks could be the star of it, the interpretive signage. He said if the Councilmembers have not been there, they can go into the building and look at the panels, most amazingly they have been untouched. He noted they went to the Arboretum and they have really well-done interpretive signs with foundations, steel posts, and really rigorous panels that will survive just about anything. The idea is to put 8-12 panels located around the island on the trails that interpret things have been there in the past. He noted this guy really knows what he is doing and this would just be for the master plan and once that is done it will come back to the Commission and the Board and they will hopefully proceed with the work this summer. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 11 Mayor Walsh said for example, one place where a cabin used to be, rather than digging up the entire thing to show everyone what is there, they would have an interpretive sign that tells what was there and what it used to look like. Mr. Carter answered yes, and they have some amazing resources and one of the studies done by the company that does the Maritime Non-profit; they literally have some of these scanned images of every foundation of every building that was built out on the Island as they are still there underground. He noted one could be standing in a place where a building was and see a framed view with a picture of the building and the scan of the foundation that is still there. Mr. Carter mentioned he has been out at Big Island the last couple of weekends and Sunday was unbelievable as there was six inches of snow and he always sees a dozen or more people hiking, snowshoeing, skiing, the eagles are up in the nest, he sees coyotes and deer, and it is just amazing. Mayor Walsh noted it is helpful to have the signage that shows what things actually looked like and obviously they want the signs to be as bulletproof as possible. Mr. Carter said in interviewing Jim, the two things that most impressed him were his understanding of how durable things needed to be and the idea that they would tell this story as though one was there. Edwards wants to point out a couple of other things that may be coming to the Council in the near future. He noted a highlighted green trail on screen and said that is one of the priorities; the other is down on the far south and they are looking at putting a couple more sitting stones there. He stated they originally had the picnic shelter templated right there onscreen, but there were a bunch of small archaeological finds that were found there and the picnic shelter had to be moved further north away from the overlook. Printup asked what the archaeological finds were. Edwards is not sure exactly but as they did the pre-construction archaeological survey there was some flint from pre-contact era, and most of the things found were small pieces of glass bottles, pieces of tile or clay, brick from the structures that were out there, etcetera. When it was an amusement park, there were all kind of streetlight structures and they found many things underground for the streetlight base. Mayor Walsh said that is amazing. Printup said the native history would be depicted and for example, the flint, would be shown as things actually found on the Island. Mr. Carter said there is not much left and his understanding is when they built the park, they scraped 3-4 feet off the entire area, put the footings in, built the foundations, and then filled it. He noted they had help from the Mdewakanton Sioux to help tell the story of what happened there over the time preceding settlement. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to accept the proposal from Jim Roe at Museum Planning for interpretive sign concept plan site for $10,000. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Seals asked Edwards when they put up the signs pointing out what is there (flint, etcetera), she does not know how they do it, but there will be people who will go out there and dig it up, as people are already out there with metal detectors. She asked if on the entry point, they will have clear signage stating this is MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 11 not an area to dig and perhaps adding some cameras so when people do dig, they can ask to get those things back. Edwards said the entryway signs do have excavation and removing of artifacts as prohibited activities. They have periodically had to put temporary signs out there for the same thing. He noted there were instances when archaeologists were out there doing the preconstruction surveys running across people digging holes, such as metal detectorists, etcetera. Seals remembered there was a line underwater going out to Big Island. Edwards said there is a man who comes out every couple of years trying to find underground copper cables that he wants to salvage. Mayor Walsh said the good news is copper does not have a whole lot of value these days. Edwards noted this man is known to the City, the DNR, the Watershed District, and the Sheriff’s patrol, also. Crosby asked if some of that stuff is live. Edwards said no, these were old cables from the amusement park era, he believes; although there is some live stuff out there as the residential portion of the island does have electrical. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals reported that Rick Perry, a local resident and former fireman and pancake hero has passed away. She knows a lot of residents are hurting and her heart and thoughts go out to his family. Printup was going to mention the same thing, he is longtime friends of the family and Rick was a true servant-leader so condolences go out to the Perry family. Printup believes Mr. Perry gave him his first job. Printup has gotten a few positive comments and many “thank-yous” regarding the Dakota Trail for having it cleared off when it can be which is a win-win for everyone. Crosby read some words that Kelly Shaughnessy from Long Lake Fire had jotted down regarding Rick Perry. Mr. Perry joined Long Lake Fire at the age of 17 in 1967, served for 43 years, was ranked as high as Chief and was also an assistant Chief. He was responsible for two life saves, worked at Perry’s with his dad Minnow and now with his son Rick in Long Lake. Regarding pancakes, he designed and built the rotating grills that everyone loves that could literally serve over 1,000 people in a day. Mr. Perry loved his family, his community, and Long Lake Fire. Crosby said it was an honor to work with Mr. Perry and learn under him, he is truly an icon to the City of Long Lake, the City of Orono, and the entire community and will be deeply missed. Johnson said the trail is great and is cleared from Wayzata; it would be best if Three Rivers did it but they will get there with all the support of people. Mayor Walsh gave his condolences to the Perry family. He noted kids will be going back to school (hybrid) on February 2, which will be another change and something to get used to. He thinks it is good for the kids to get back out there socially and seeing their friends regardless of how much they like MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 11 staying home in their pajamas. He hopes they will see things opening up with restaurants and Mayor Walsh knows many of the restaurants are hanging on by their coattails at this point. He prays the restaurants they have will continue going forward. He noted his kids they have gymnastics, horse riding, and dance, and it is nice to get them back into those things as well. Mayor Walsh said if someone is sick or taking a test as they think they might have COVID…please stay home and don’t ruin it for everybody else, as they do not want to put families and businesses in jeopardy. Printup agreed it is not fair to the businesses because they are then required to close things off. INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR/FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT 14. COVID-19 PAY EXTENSION AND OUTDOOR SEATING RESOLUTION Olson noted the COVID-19 sick pay was mandated by the federal government and for those who used it between June and November 15, 2020, that was part of the big grant money the City received from the federal government. People who used it after November 15 through the end of the year – the City still had to offer it but there was no reimbursement for it. He said Staff was talking on Tuesday morning and there are a couple people who may need it or have to stay home because their kids are sick, and perhaps they would like to continue that part of it. Then if someone has a sick kid in 2021, they are being treated the same way as someone who had it in December of 2020. Based on the experience since June, it would probably cost about $15,000 in sick leave paid out; the true cost is if everyone who benefited from the COVID pay stayed here for at least 12 years, when they leave or retire, they would get 15% of their sick leave paid out. Olson clarified that is where the $7,500 figure comes from in the memo. Mayor Walsh said the extra sick leave they are talking about is paid sick leave. Olson said that is correct. Mayor Walsh’s only question is what kind of precedent are they setting that this starts inching its way into becoming the norm. He noted in union negotiations, it becomes “now that we have done it, now we are doing it unilaterally” does this just become a norm because technically all flus are COVID viruses and he looked at the City Attorney to ask how they protect the City from that becoming another line item moving forward on a union negotiation. Olson stated the difference on this one is they have the State of Emergency that the Governor claimed and the City also has to have a State of Emergency. That is why both pieces of this memo tie it towards whenever that City State of Emergency ends, rather than putting a specific date on it. Attorney Mattick does not think it would be precedent setting, although he supposes someone could argue that. The City, through their personnel policy has negotiated time off things that have been negotiated into contracts. This policy is going to be explicitly outside the contract, so it is implemented by the City unilaterally they can end it unilaterally and it is not a negotiated item. He supposed they could bring it up as an idea to try to negotiate further but they are under no obligation to continue it. Mayor Walsh thinks it is a great idea in general because he doesn’t want to say “at the end of the year, there is no more COVID stuff.” If people are out, he thinks it is good that they are taking care of their children, and if they can tie it to the State of Emergency or something that differentiates it and they are not stuck with it moving forward, he is all for it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 11 Printup said rather than thinking of it in terms of “sick leave” it is “COVID leave.” Mayor Walsh assumes whenever the Governor ends his emergency powers, the City would follow that lead and that policy would end. They could always revisit it if they want to but tying it to that puts an end on it. Printup said in 2021 the federal government does not fund COVID leave anymore but asked if the State government does. Olson does not believe there is anything on the State government at this point. Attorney Mattick said one thing to note about the COVID leave is for those who have exposure who are not allowed to come back, they really have gone to a lot of remote working. So, it is not always necessary that someone uses sick time because the City can offer them the opportunity to work remotely. That does not work for law enforcement or many of the public works, but for office staff. Olson said without naming names, the Council is aware of someone who was in close contact with someone who tested positive and clarified that person is working from home this week. Mayor Walsh noticed the resolution says “until the City’s Peacetime Emergency is declared over” so that will cover it. He stated the customer service is essentially the same thing, they are continuing that. Olson replied yes, and it is probably not a big issue in January but perhaps they have an early spring and in March people want to sit outside again. Mayor Walsh noted that is an easy one, too, to revisit if they want to keep it going for these people even after the Peacetime Emergency is over. Olson said it is a very inexpensive way for the City to support these businesses. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to amend the policy for temporary outdoor customer services areas and a motion to approve the attached resolution extending the COVID-19 sick pay. Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. CLOSED SESSION Mayor Walsh moved, Crosby seconded, to close the City Council meeting at 6:53 p.m. to go into closed session. Ayes 5, Nays 0. The meeting will be closed as permitted by section 13D.03 to discuss the City's labor negotiation strategy related to the City's negotiations with International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 49 and Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 12 unions. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 5, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 11 ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Mayor Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, January 25, 2021 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 2 PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals, Aaron Printup and Matt Johnson. Staff members present were Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson, and Police Chief Correy Farniok. 1. Deer Hunting Police Chief Correy Farniok mentioned back in November the City received concerns about deer hunting within the city and those concerns have led to review of our current ordinance. Currently the ordinance allows deer hunting during hunting season with a permit. The permit allows discharge of a BB gun and or bow and there are parameters such as a 5 acre minimum and it also includes additional provisions like discharge cannot take place within 100 feet of the property and boundaries and so on. If the City were to change up or eliminate deer hunting it should consider other concerns about what it would do to control the population of deer and/or other adverse effects. Mayor Dennis Walsh noted that he had not even heard that this was an issue until now and added that he himself is not an avid hunter so he questioned if this is a current issues as of now but if we continue to have growth with smaller properties coming in we may want to revisit it at that time. Council Member Matt Johnson mentioned that he had been a hunter and he feels that bow hunting is relatively safe. The range of a bow is fairly small and deer can travel a fairly considerable distance once hit but it doesn’t seem reasonable to eliminate hunting altogether. There was discussion among the council about hunting and the benefits of keeping the ordinance as it is. A resident briefly spoke in favor of allowing hunting within the city. It’s healthy and reduces the population and it should be encouraged. 2. City Administrator Update Council Member Victoria Seals gave an update to the Council about where we are in the process. She mentioned we currently have 11 candidates. The deadline for applicants is Monday, February 8th. Meeting Adjourned: 5:25 p.m. CITY OF ORONO: ATTEST: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, January 25, 2021 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 2 of 2 _________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 12 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 Shana Conklin, and Finance Director Ron Olson. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. OATH OF OFFICE • Mayor Dennis Walsh Printup led Dennis Walsh in the Mayoral Oath of Office: I, Dennis Walsh do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of Mayor of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. • Council Member Victoria Seals Mayor Walsh led Victoria Seals in the Orono City Council Oath of Office: I, Victoria Seals do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of City Council Member of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. • Council Member Richard F. Crosby II Mayor Walsh led Richard F. Crosby II in the Orono City Council Oath of Office: I, Richard F. Crosby II do solemnly swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Minnesota, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of City Council Member of the City of Orono in the County of Hennepin, the State of Minnesota, to the best of my judgment and ability. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2020 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 5. CITY ADMINISTRATOR JOB DESCRIPTION REVISION 6. BIG ISLAND PARK DEED GRANT APPLICATION – RESOLUTION MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 CONSENT AGENDA – Continued 7. RESOLUTION OF APPRECIATION OF CHRISTINE MATTSON 8. ADOPT STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 9. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – WILLIAM AND ANASTASIA HOEFT 10. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE 2021 SQUAD CARS Crosby would like to pull item No. 8 from the discussion and have the Police Chief discuss it. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Walsh noted they will move item No. 8 to after the Swearing in of the Junior Cadets. Walsh stated they would hold a public hearing regarding the Orono Police Department consideration of the purchase of body-worn cameras for the Police Officers. The City is providing an opportunity for the public to comment on this subject. Walsh opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Staff noted they received two emails notifying that they could not attend in person. Angela Hennessey wrote to support the police department in purchasing body cameras and thinks they are a necessity in our times for the protection of citizens and officers; she is surprised they do not have them already. Another email is from Pat Hennessey, who is strongly in favor of the police department wearing body cameras and feels they should already have been wearing them. He asked the Council to do what needs to be done ASAP to get cameras on the police. Walsh asked if anyone was present who would like to make a public comment and asked them to approach the podium and state their name and address for the record. Seeing none, Walsh closed the public hearing at 6:08 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING The Orono Police Department is considering the purchase of Body Worn Cameras for the police officer and is providing an opportunity for public to comment on this topic Walsh opened the public hearing at 6:07 p.m. Police Chief Correy Farniok noted that there may not be anyone in the public audience tonight but we did receive two emails providing public comment on Body Worn Cameras. One email was received from Angela Hennessey indicating support of the Police department to purchase body worn cameras and that she thinks they are important to the safety especially in times like these and she is surprised that our department does not have them already. The other email is from Pat Hennessey also indicating support for body worn MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 PUBLIC HEARING – Continued cameras and he too was surprised the department did not already have them also he would like to see the city get them ASAP. Walsh closed the Public Hearing at 6:08 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, wants to thank the Council for his appointment again to the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and noted he has put his name in for Treasurer. He has some ideas on how to go forward and the Council will be his guinea pigs. Walsh thanked Mr. Anderson for all his time and effort in working on that and said the Council appreciate it. PRESENTATION Swearing in of Junior Cadets Mayor Walsh read the oath for Ashley Gabrielsen and Matthew Condon I, Ashley and Matthew do solemnly swear under oath that I will support and work with the City of Orono and the Orono Police Department, that I will follow the direction of its employees and support the duties of the office of Police Cadet in the City of Orono, in the County of Hennepin, to the best of my judgment and ability, so help me God. Ashley Gabrielsen and Matthew Condon both said “I Do.” Walsh congratulated them both. Police Chief Correy Farniok asked Alex Oladoyin, one of the team coaches and organizers, to explain what the Growth Through Opportunity (GTO) program is. He noted this is the second year of the GTO program, they have had great success with it and hope to continue it in the future. Ms. Oladoyin stated she used to work for Orono and that is when the police partnership started. She noted GTO stands for Growth Through Opportunity and is a partnership between community members and the police force. The intention of the program is for participants to gain public safety experience, and also job experience and resume building; it also allows the Police Department to learn more about working with members of the community who have disabilities. It has been a really awesome partnership so far and they had two clients in the program last summer and are very excited to do it again. Ms. Oladoyin owns a company called Empower Inclusion and Paul, one of her employees will be job coaching and hanging out with Matthew and Ashley. 8. ADOPT STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT Police Chief Farniok said this is a five-year renewal to continue a Joint Power Agreement (JPA) as well as a Court Data Services amendment to the CJD End Subscriber Agreement, and the Resolution adopting this. He noted this is a formality, it is to allow the City to access the Criminal Bureau of Apprehension data MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 8. ADOPT STATE OF MINNESOTA JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF ORONO ON BEHALF OF ITS CITY ATTORNEY AND POLICE DEPARTMENT – Continued services and also to allow the Prosecuting Attorney Steve Tallen to access those records for court purposes. The agreement is very similar to what was passed five years ago with just minor changes but it is no different than what other cities across Minnesota are doing. Crosby asked if there are any significant changes in this agreement compared to the old one. Chief Farniok said it is continuing and the only change is if they were ever to change the Prosecuting Attorney from Steve Tallen to a different firm, they would most likely need to pass another Resolution accepting that. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to adopt the State Of Minnesota Joint Powers Agreements With The City Of Orono. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 12. INTERIM BUILDING SERVICES Barnhart said the Building Services Committee is working through the review of the responses received to the Building Services Request for Proposal (RFP); they have received three RFPs and the Committee is reviewing those right now. He is asking for authorization for the Committee to choose the interim Building Official and interim Building Inspector without having to come back to the City Council. He has provided the information regarding anticipated interim costs. When the Building Official and Building Inspector job posting closes in early February, the same Committee will likely be interviewing the candidates and will provide recommendation to the City Council. Walsh noted one RFP was from out of state, and another was MNSPECT who have 18 cities or more nearby and they have higher standard for technology. He clarified they did not ordinarily work under an hourly wage, but rather a percentage of fee, but because Orono’s values are so much different it did not make sense. The City essentially rejected the proposals and asked them to come back with an hourly proposal, which they have done. Walsh and Johnson spoke about it and Johnson was going to talk to MNSPECT and negotiate a bit on the fees as this is new for the City, as well. Once the City receives that feedback they can march this forward and get it in place. At that point they can start to figure out what they will hire internally, whether it is a Chief Inspector or just an Inspector; or a Chief Inspector and an Inspector, as the City roughly spends approximately $215,000 per year. Walsh said they could easily employ two people and perhaps handle it all themselves, but even if they have that they will need back up if someone is on vacation or they get overloaded. Johnson said in the search there are good, viable candidates for the City and that is good news. He said the fine-tuning should be wrapped up by the end of the week and they just need Council permission to make that commitment on behalf of the Council so they do not have to wait to get it done. Barnhart clarified he is asking for authorization for the interim contract or interim agreement. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to authorize the Committee to hire a contractor on behalf of the City Council. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 13. LA20-75 – BRIAN HUISMAN, SALE OF A PORTION OF LAND ADJACENT TO 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE Barnhart clarified the Council saw this last June and at that time it was a request for a boundary line adjustment because there is some land in the middle of the lake. He said the exhibit is what he provided in June and there is also an attached survey; the survey shows the City actually owns some land, landward of the ordinary high water line and they cannot just give that land away, they must sell it as it is an asset for the City. The property owner came back with a proposal to buy it for $100 which is the value the County has put on the land two lots to the north as it is about the same amount of land, although it is a much bigger parcel because 7/8ths of it is in the lake. That is how the property owner arrived at the fair market value which seems reasonable. Walsh said back in June the Council said it sounded completely reasonable, whatever the fair price was but the property owner also had to pay the costs. He clarified they are just bringing back the value at this point. Johnson said that is the one component he wonders about; personally he does not think they can do a straight vacation of this, so the City Attorney wants there to be a sale. Walsh said it is because there is nothing to vacate, it is actually owned land. Johnson said the Applicant’s methodology of $100 is based on the County’s assessment to a property that is ultimately non-taxable. Johnson thinks there will be more of these in this bay as they want to get things cleaned up, and he would like to see the Council avoid the value component and when it is just a straight “land that is in the way,” it usually conveys as a dollar. He would like to think about standardizing this when they see these chunks that make no sense so when someone else comes before the Council they do not get into the debate of value. Walsh thinks that is a good point, especially if it is just a true “clean up.” Johnson noted the caveat is that the Applicant incurs all of the expenses from generating the new legal description, the exhibit, the City’s legal review, etcetera. If the Applicant is doing all that, what is traditional in his real estate business is that just conveys at a dollar, they are not getting into a value. Walsh said it is like a quick claim issue and he is good with that methodology as well. Crosby said it makes sense. Printup noted there could be more of these in that area, and so that it does not translate into the right-of- ways, the fire lanes, where people all of a sudden hear this and it turns into an assumption. Johnson asked if they could define this in a bucket as to what they are trying to do here. Printup stated word will travel fast, and he does not want it to become an assumption. Barnhart noted the Council will see both sides of that coin going forward because the adjacent property owner is going through the vacation process for the adjacent alleyway. He clarified there is a distinction between platted right-of-way or easements and land. He thinks they can easily make that distinction. Attorney Conklin said an easement vacation or right-of-way vacation is very different and they typically would not be seeking compensation for that. However, for parcels of land like this that the City is just MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 12 13. LA20-75 – BRIAN HUISMAN, SALE OF A PORTION OF LAND ADJACENT TO 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE – Continued conveying as part of a clean-up process, it would not be an issue in assigning a minimal amount of value to it and asking the applicant to pick up the costs. Johnson asked if they want to keep it at $100. Walsh has no problem with $1.00 as that would be the standard for these types of situations. Johnson said there is no value so the City is conveying the land. Crosby agrees that $1.00 is correct. Barnhart clarified the motion would be to accept the offer with a counter-offer of $1.00. He noted he would continue the formal process to sale, the Attorney will do the work, and the City will hold a public hearing in February and the Council will get it back in March. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded to accept the offer with a counter-offer of $1.00. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS 14. Discuss Interim City Administrator Compensation Seals said in looking back whenever Staff had stepped into a role for another employee, they have always had some kind of interim compensation. What the City quickly realized is that it is written into their union contracts. Walsh clarified it is not for direct reports or department heads. Seals said currently the City Administrator position is compensated at a Grade 19 Step 6 and she proposed that they compensate the interim position at a Grade 19 Step 4; it ends up being about $10,000/year and would be prorated depending on how fast the City can fill that position. Based on what the City has spent historically, she thinks it is a pretty minimal. Walsh said it makes complete sense as someone is stepping into a role, doing additional duties, and they should be compensated for that. They already looked at what the code says and it is completely appropriate to step into this. Seals moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the temporary compensation increase for Ronald Olson while he acts as interim City Administrator from a Grade 16 Step 7 ($114,005) to a Grade 19 Step 4 which is $125,272.94). VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Walsh asked the Councilmembers for their reports. Johnson congratulated the team but otherwise had nothing to report. Crosby had a wonderful Christmas with family and hopes everyone did. He looks forward to good work ahead of them. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS – Continued Printup echoed congratulations to Walsh, Seals, and Crosby. Seals welcomed everyone back, noting restaurants are back open and she is excited for that. She shared that her team is based around the country and she has one employee who has been traveling all over the south for four months without getting COVID-19; in the end, he contracted COVID-19 by hanging out with his family. She stated some of the things they are doing just does not make sense, for example closing schools. She shakes her head because it is not bounded in logic. She hopes schools open soon and stay open. Johnson added that people are using the trails and it is nice to see that. The Luce Line is not plowed and the difference of activity level is enormous, but it gets cross-country skiers. He noted over by Stubbs Bay they paved it and the amount of snowmobile trailers has increased and people are actually using it. Seals said at Bederwood, and she is not complaining, kids had taken their parents Gaters and had tow-ropes with skis and snowboards. It was very entertaining to see it being used. Johnson said the other activity Orono is providing is the golf course. He said the place was packed and thought about talking to Public Works about plowing the entrance to the golf course because the golf course parking lot does not get plowed. He said everyone was parked along the road which is not good as it is not a wide road; he saw a citizen with their own plow open it up for everyone. Walsh noted there were cars a couple of weeks ago that were stuck in the parking lot and helping each other out. Crosby suggested getting that on the list. Walsh said he was at the last Parks Commission work session and one item that came up was the golf course and perhaps getting some lighting at night because it is so packed and gets dark at 4:00 p.m. in December. Seals noted Medina actually has a snowmaker, so if they need snow on the hill that is dirt now, they could talk to them. The Council discussed the various areas around the City where the public has been having outdoor fun and recreation. Seals said she heard again over the weekend, it keeps coming up, why the City’s rates went up. After she explained, they said “it sucks, but I get it.” She thinks they still need to push more communication out on that; she said what was missing in the letter that just went out was that it did not mention anything about the Metropolitan Council. Instead Orono took the hit on everything as it looks like the City raised the rates. Printup said the newspaper press release did, but the letter that went to homes did not. Johnson noted it was not on letterhead, either. Olson asked to clarify that it was not on letterhead and apologized. Walsh said they better back down to Step 6 and the Councilmembers laughed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORTS – Continued Johnson said the Council should talk about the sewer inspection, he sent two clients through beforehand and had one go through the City (the City did the inspection), and the other did a private party. He said if people do not want the City going in to their house they can hire their own person. He stated it is important to get that data to the City, as they need the video to watch it and approve if it is okay or not. He said Staff is working with the IT Department to see if they could create a portal to upload the videos as email does not work because the files are too big. Seals asked if they have tried WeTransfer as it is free. Johnson said they are open to all safe options. He noted they ended up putting it on YouTube so the City could watch it. The process online and application is good, but he cautioned that word is not out yet, and there will be last minute things – he just received a call from a realtor today who did not know about the sewer inspection process. Olson stated “IT Dave” as the Staff calls him was discussing this the previous week and Olson believes he had checked out WeTransfer and was double-checking to make sure it is an acceptable platform. He hopes they will have that done quickly and carefully as they are uploading a video file into the City’s network. Printup likes the trial runs they did. Johnson said it is interesting because they have done approximately 10 of them. Seals asked about the results and if they are finding problems. Johnson said it is 0-for-2 on his; he noted part of what they are trying to prove to the Met Council is whether they are really right in what they are charging Orono. Seals wondered that, also, if there are really problems or not. Johnson thinks in a dozen they have done, there was one that needed some correction. Olson said ironically, he was told it was the very first one. Walsh noted there will always be hiccups or glitches that they must solve and at least they are relatively easy to solve and getting through the process helped them figure things out. He said as they were speaking of restaurants being open, he went to Redstone which is near his office in Maple Grove and the waitress said he was the first person to sit at the bar and order in three months and noted it was nice to see someone eating at the bar. Walsh reported it was great to eat somewhere other than his desk. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT 15. UPDATE ON PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD Walsh noted the City owns it and he wants to talk about the second phase. He wants to get organized with Edwards to get whatever they need to get done and get the bids to bring sewer and water out there. He said at that point they would have marketable land no matter what happens; when they approve the bids the next step will be to get some architectural services to design a general building framework to find out where MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 15. UPDATE ON PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ON OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD – Continued they stand. Obviously Public Works needs to do something and that is either now or when this Council is gone but something needs to be done either way. Printup asked if there is any action they need to take. Walsh said no, this is just telling them to get whatever they need drawn up so they can go get the bids. Olson does not know if they caught it in the memo, but Barnhart has contacted the Met Council and Orono will need to do a Comprehensive Plan amendment because that parcel is not within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA). Johnson stated they will need to rezone that. Olson said they may need to rezone it and Barnhart was going to check, as it appears that there may be an exception for public buildings under current zoning. Walsh said they could change it to “institutional,” noting they added that in the last Comprehensive Plan. Olson noted that would also make sense if they put sewer and water out there and have a marketable lot no matter what. Then the zoning would fit for that. 16. AUTHORIZATION TO ACCEPT DONATION OF DENNIS WALSH AND RICHARD F. CROSBY II Walsh clarified this was in lieu of the City forgiving former City Administrator Dustin Rief of his $3,500 in moving expenses. Walsh and Crosby decided they would like to pitch in for that as they thought it was the right thing to do for Rief’s years of service in Orono; especially knowing that Rief had family issues come up and he must uproot his family and move back to Nebraska. Walsh moved, Crosby seconded, to accept the donation of Dennis Walsh and Richard F. Crosby II in lieu of Dustin Rief’s reimbursement of moving expenses to the City. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Walsh asked if there is anything else anyone wanted to talk about before adjournment. Printup noted they have passionate people in Orono and he received a concern on Tonkawa Road, there is signage popping up and being taken down, popping up again. He does not know if City Staff needs to go look at it, noting it is political signage, therefore one person likes it and another does not so it becomes a game. Printup said he would bring it up at the City Council meeting and look at if it was too close to the road, but told the concerned party they would look at specifics. Seals said it is tough on Tonkawa as it is a narrow road. Printup stated it has been an issue in the past and wants to throw the caution out there that people need to, perhaps chill out. Seals said maybe they should leave people’s stuff on their lots alone. Printup said exactly but if it is too close to the road, the complaints come in and he does not know how Staff wants to handle it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 Crosby asked if it is blocking sightlines or anything like that. Printup does not know but asked what the code says. Crosby said if it is not blocking sightlines, just leave it alone. Printup does not know if that is the message that needs to be put out. Walsh stated he was at the work session for the Parks Commission and getting everyone reinvigorated on all the parks and things they would like to do. He knows that Commissioner Hudson is very excited about trying to do new things in Crystal Bay as he is coming from a standpoint where if there is open air sitting there, they should start making use of it before someone else decides what to do there and then there is something there the City does not want. Therefore he brought up equipment for older kids, a bigger basketball court, and all kinds of things because people are using that. Walsh knows there have been some long-term issues at the post office where there is not a lot of parking and the people using the trails are filling up the parking lot and the postal person cannot even get in there, and also saw a woman running across and almost get hit by a car. Printup noted that is why Three Rivers does not like people the crossing the road. Walsh said they have had some of those issues and if they expand the basketball court more people will come and need places to park. He asked how they patrol it from those who are using the trails. He noted Printup brought up the man who lives next door and is perhaps somewhat of a hermit, and at some point may want to get his house also, to expand part of the parking lot. Walsh said this is just food for thought as Commissioner Hudson was thoughtful in talking about some of the things he’d like to do over there. He noted everyone has great thoughts about all the parks with everything else going on. Printup added in regards to the park equipment, he sent Walsh a photo from many years ago (10-12 years), of the brand new equipment. Walsh noted there is not any other “big kids” equipment and there is so much land there, there are plenty of things they could do to use that. Seals asked if they confirmed that Minnetonka Beach was offered a large sum, perhaps $150,000 (don’t quote her), donated to improving their park. The last time she heard, they were not going to accept it, so Orono was going to reach out and see if they could find out who was willing to donate it. Walsh clarified that was related to someone who died and wanted the park named after their late husband. Minnetonka Beach decided they did not want to get into naming parks after people because of a donation and he believes that was the contentious issue. He reported is the Planning Commission is doing a great job, they have learned a lot, and Chair Ressler has learned a lot and now his two years are up and Walsh told Ressler he would like to rotate that position every couple of years to give everyone a chance to learn more about how to Chair meetings. Scott Kirchner said he would love to jump in and try to take on that role and many of the Commissioners agreed as he is young and eventually they will need some upward mobility in people that understand the process. Walsh is sharing those conversations as it comes up at the end of March and they will make the recommendations for the new Chair; Ressler does not know if he wants to continue on as a Planning Commissioner and Walsh told him he would really like to see him MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 continue now that he has learned all this stuff. The older Commissioners would like to get some of the younger guys some more experience in running meetings and learning the language. Johnson asked regarding a gravel spot across from the post office, is that a trail head. Walsh said that is just people running over it and making it a place to park. Johnson wondered if Three Rivers would pay to pave that section. Printup stated years ago they talked about it, and he did not like the idea at the time because then it becomes a trail head or destination. Johnson said it already seems to be. Printup told the Council years ago the thought was to lay down boulders and plant there, but then people just park along the road, as they still do now. He said back then the Navarre municipal parking lot was looked at for an actual trailhead, but there is not a sidewalk. Walsh said the sidewalk should be coming in 2021 or 2022. He noted it is hard to police it because the people are not at their cars. Printup said it is County. Walsh just wanted to bring it up so everyone can think about it and perhaps come up with some ideas, as he said it is known, it is a trailhead whether they want it to be or not. Crosby said getting cars away from the road is important. Walsh agreed and noted the problem is that Crystal Bay does not want the City to start eating into the land in their open area for cars. Printup stated in the past there was a discussion regarding parking stickers; for example, Wayzata residents have parking stickers and if someone outside the City wants a sticker, they pay a fee. This could go for any type of parking in the City, on or off street. Walsh said the post office people are yelling at the police and the police tell them to talk to the City Council. Printup also had a story from years ago; the sidewalk in front of the door was smaller, he thinks the same person was saying the sidewalk needs to be bigger because of plowing. Then the same person said they need different striping in the parking lot so people know how to park. He said they need to be careful when people have concerns and have a “great idea,” sometimes they get what they wish for and they do not like it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, January 11, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:04 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: MLU Approved By: RJO 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 115753 to 115851, totaling $1,467,093.56. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #115775-115776 Bond Trust Services $1,102,684.39 Payment for 2010A, 2014A and 2016A debt service bonds. #115778 Carmen Bay LID $16,345.19 Payment for the 2nd half of the Carman Bay Lake Improvement District Levy. This was collected with the prior year’s tax levy. #115826 Orono Wood Apt $37,074.96 Payment to Orono Woods for 2nd half of 2020 Tax Increment Financing. This was collected with the prior year’s tax levy. 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.: 4 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Maggie Ung Acting Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ROBERTSON, JENNIFER L.L.02/04/2021 115317 110320 101-41410-104 2020 GENERAL ELECTION Elections 178.75- Total 115317:178.75- MINNEAPOLIS CLUB 01/27/2021 115753 012021 101-42110-580 NEW TREADMILL Police Department 1,000.00 Total 115753:1,000.00 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 01/29/2021 115754 01282021 101-21705 457 - 01/28/2021 1,691.00 Total 115754:1,691.00 International Union Local #49 01/29/2021 115755 01282021 101-21707 LOCAL 49 DUES - 1/2021 315.00 Total 115755:315.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 01/29/2021 115756 01282021 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 168 1/2021 317.50 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 01/29/2021 115756 01282021 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 40 1/2021 1,302.48 Total 115756:1,619.98 MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-01/29/2021 115757 01282021 101-21718 PEHSCP - 1/28/2021 8,347.57 Total 115757:8,347.57 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 01/29/2021 115758 01282021RO 101-21705 ROTH - 01/28/2021 200.00 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 01/29/2021 115758 01282021US 101-21705 457 - 01/28/2021 845.00 Total 115758:1,045.00 OPEIU - LOCAL 12 01/29/2021 115759 01282021 101-21707 UNION DUES - LOCAL 12 1/2021 547.50 Total 115759:547.50 ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 01/29/2021 115760 01282021 101-21705 457 - 01/29/2021 1,720.00 Total 115760:1,720.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 01/29/2021 115761 01282021 101-21704 PERA 1/11/21-01/24/21 38,567.40 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115761:38,567.40 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 01/29/2021 115762 012921 601-49400-322 1/21 UTILITY BILLS Water 348.70 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 01/29/2021 115762 012921 602-49450-322 1/21 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 348.70 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 01/29/2021 115762 012921 651-49910-322 1/21 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 348.70 Total 115762:1,046.10 MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATIO 02/01/2021 115763 641924 101-43000-437 TRAINING (SIGN) FOR CLINT Public Works Department 100.00 Total 115763:100.00 ROBERTSON, JENNIFER L.L.02/04/2021 115764 110320 101-41410-104 2020 GENERAL ELECTION Elections 178.75 Total 115764:178.75 ABDO EICK & MEYERS LLP 02/08/2021 115765 438876 101-41900-301 2019 AUDIT Central Services 6,000.00 Total 115765:6,000.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/08/2021 115766 434646766 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 01/20/21-02/20/21 121.76 Total 115766:121.76 AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LL 02/08/2021 115767 438883 101-41500-301 FINANCE ASSISTANCE Finance Department 658.75 Total 115767:658.75 ALLSTREAM 02/08/2021 115768 17301624 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 1/23/21-2/22/21 Central Services 444.79 ALLSTREAM 02/08/2021 115768 17301624 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 1/23/21-2/22/21 Police Department 317.71 ALLSTREAM 02/08/2021 115768 17301624 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 1/23/21-2/22/21 Water 74.13 ALLSTREAM 02/08/2021 115768 17301624 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 1/23/21-2/22/21 Sewer 169.44 ALLSTREAM 02/08/2021 115768 17301624 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 1/23/21-2/22/21 Golf Course 52.95 Total 115768:1,059.02 APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 02/08/2021 115769 377881 101-42110-580 SQUAD SETUPS Police Department 953.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115769:953.00 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 02/08/2021 115770 10225590 701-49800-221 SNOWPLOW UNDERBODY REPAIR PARTS 854.13 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 02/08/2021 115770 10225604 701-49800-221 SNOWPLOW UNDERBODY REPAIR 1,028.28 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 02/08/2021 115770 10225866 701-49800-222 MUD FLAPS 64.36 Total 115770:1,946.77 AZAD, ALISHAH 02/08/2021 115771 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000101 200 BEDERWO 555.00 Total 115771:555.00 BARNUM GATE SERVICES INC 02/08/2021 115772 28932 101-42110-404 BIULDING MAINTENANCE Police Department 472.97 Total 115772:472.97 BERGERSON CASWELL INC 02/08/2021 115773 020321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA21-000005 4125 HIGHWOO 700.00 BERGERSON CASWELL INC 02/08/2021 115773 020321 101-34420 VARIANCE APP REFUND LA21-000005 4125 HIG 275.00 Total 115773:975.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263919 101-43280-304 PENCE LANE Special Services 248.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263922 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 632.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263922 651-49910-305 GIS MAINTENANCE STORM SEWER Storm Water 517.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263922 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 747.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263924 602-16500 2020 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 20-014 3,777.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263925 435-48973-304 2020 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 20-001 2020 Street Improvements 1,395.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263926 651-16500 21-026 2021 DRAINING IMPROVEMENTS 6,593.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263927 602-16500 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN REP 4,128.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263928 101-43170-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING 1/2020 Engineering 509.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263930 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 21-001 19,972.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263931 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 21-001 11,019.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263932 225-45200-304 BEDERWOOD PARK IMPROVEMENT 19-032 63.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263933 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 2,517.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263934 225-45200-304 EAST LONG LAKE TRAIL 20-029 178.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263935 601-16500 WALTERS POINT MAIN REPLACEMENT 6,854.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263936 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 375.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263936 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 250.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/08/2021 115774 0263936 651-49910-305 GIS MAINTENANCE STORM SEWER Storm Water 550.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115774:60,326.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 02/08/2021 115775 60938 321-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2010A 220,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 02/08/2021 115775 60938 321-47000-611 INTEREST 2010A 24,896.88 BOND TRUST SERVICES 02/08/2021 115775 60940 323-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2016A 495,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 02/08/2021 115775 60940 323-47000-611 INTEREST 2016A 15,200.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 02/08/2021 115775 61869 322-47000-620 SERIES 2014A AGENT FEE 475.00 Total 115775:755,571.88 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 02/08/2021 115776 020121 322-47000-611 INTEREST 2014A 37,112.51 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 02/08/2021 115776 020121 322-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2014A 310,000.00 Total 115776:347,112.51 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 012021 101-42110-402 CAR WASH #261 Police Department 15.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 012721 101-42110-201 DVD - POLICE RECORDINGS Police Department 94.62 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 012721-1 101-42110-439 RETIREMENT PHOTO PERSELL Police Department 7.04 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 012721-2 101-42110-439 ZOOM ACCOUNT 2021 Police Department 161.18 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 020221 651-49910-437 ASSET MANAGEMENT TRAINING Storm Water 499.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 020221-1 101-42110-437 SEARCH WARRANT CLASS - BECK Police Department 75.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 020321 614-49840-221 CAMERA - HYBRID MEETINGS Cable Franchise 429.02 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 020321-1 101-42110-433 WESTONKA COMMUNITY AND COMMERCE 2021 Police Department 65.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/08/2021 115777 020321-2 710-49970-416 MALWAREBYTES RENEWAL 1,322.70 Total 115777:2,668.56 Carmen Bay Lake Improvement D 02/08/2021 115778 123120 239-25694-489 2ND HALF CBLID PAYMENT 16,345.19 Total 115778:16,345.19 CECE S SIGNS 02/08/2021 115779 8585 701-49800-221 GRAPHICS - DUMP BOX - UNIT 424/426 210.00 CECE S SIGNS 02/08/2021 115779 8587 701-49800-221 GRAPHICS - DUMP BOX - UNIT 431 80.00 Total 115779:290.00 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/08/2021 115780 012521 602-49450-381 1302 SHORELINE - GAS 12/18/20 -1/21/21 Sewer 22.82 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115780:22.82 CENTRAL HYDRAULICS 02/08/2021 115781 67454-freight 701-49800-221 HYDRAULIC MOTOR - 426 SALT SPINNER 22.00 Total 115781:22.00 Century Link 02/08/2021 115782 011921 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 1/19/2021-2/18/2021 Golf Course 235.35 Total 115782:235.35 CHUCK'S EXCAVATING 02/08/2021 115783 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D18-000022 1525 BAY RIDGE 1,000.00 CHUCK'S EXCAVATING 02/08/2021 115783 020121 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND D18-000022 1525 BAY RIDGE 30.00- Total 115783:970.00 CITY OF MINNETONKA 02/08/2021 115784 202101191 101-42110-221 TACTICAL GEAR - SILTALA & SCHOENHERR Police Department 80.00 Total 115784:80.00 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 02/08/2021 115785 20141554 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000101 - APPLY TO INV 145.00 Total 115785:145.00 City of Orono Utilities 02/08/2021 115786 012721 CH P 101-41900-382 JANUARY 2021 UB - CH Central Services 74.36 City of Orono Utilities 02/08/2021 115786 012721 CH P 101-42110-382 JANUARY 2021 UB - PD Police Department 74.36 City of Orono Utilities 02/08/2021 115786 012721 PO 101-41900-382 JANUARY 2021 UB - PO Central Services 84.56 City of Orono Utilities 02/08/2021 115786 012721 PW 101-41900-382 JANUARY 2021 UB - PW Central Services 117.60 City of Orono Utilities 02/08/2021 115786 012721 WP 601-49400-382 JANUARY 2021 UB - WATER PLANT Water 145.54 Total 115786:496.42 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/08/2021 115787 020221 601-49400-387 JANUARY 2021 WATER Water 2,042.85 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/08/2021 115787 020221 602-49450-387 JANUARY 2021 SEWER Sewer 4,118.30 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/08/2021 115787 020221-1 601-49400-387 2020 WATER Water 239.25 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/08/2021 115787 020221-1 602-49450-387 2020 SEWER Sewer 515.20 Total 115787:6,915.60 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 02/08/2021 115788 734453 101-43000-224 NON TREATED ROAD SALT Public Works Department 5,037.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115788:5,037.25 CONSTRUCTION RESULTS CO 02/08/2021 115789 101 101-41900-404 REPAIRS TO PD FACILITY Central Services 1,228.26 CONSTRUCTION RESULTS CO 02/08/2021 115789 102 101-41900-404 RECEPTION AREA REPAIR Central Services 838.75 Total 115789:2,067.01 DELTA DENTAL 02/08/2021 115790 RIS0003287 101-21709 482413001 FEBRUARY 2021 DENTAL 3,619.90 DELTA DENTAL 02/08/2021 115790 RIS0003287 101-15998 482413001 FEBRUARY 2021 DENTAL 34.37 Total 115790:3,654.27 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/08/2021 115791 815139 101-41300-340 CITY ADMINISTRATOR SEACH Administration 290.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/08/2021 115791 816035 101-41300-340 CITY ADMINISTRATOR AD Administration 120.00 Total 115791:410.00 ECO REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS 02/08/2021 115792 020121 999-10015 OVERPAYMENT 1060 N SHORE 5.38 Total 115792:5.38 Emergency Medical Products Inc 02/08/2021 115793 2230350 101-42110-221 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 56.84 Total 115793:56.84 ENGER, MARK 02/08/2021 115794 020321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA20-000058 2697 CASCO P 700.00 Total 115794:700.00 GOPHER ACE 02/08/2021 115795 4870/1 601-49400-201 MISC SUPPLIES Water 28.73 GOPHER ACE 02/08/2021 115795 4875/1 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 29.98 GOPHER ACE 02/08/2021 115795 4877/1 701-49800-221 ELECTRICAL SUPLLIES 7.98 GOPHER ACE 02/08/2021 115795 4913/1 701-49800-221 BRINE TANK REPAIR 427 5.17 Total 115795:71.86 GRAINGER INC 02/08/2021 115796 9780191772 701-49800-240 SHAFT / BEARING PULLER 206.43 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115796:206.43 GROUP HEALTH INC 02/08/2021 115797 W818230 101-42110-135 EAP HEALTH FOR 12/2020 Police Department 12.00 Total 115797:12.00 GROUP HEALTH INC 02/08/2021 115798 W817967 101-42110-135 EAP HEALTH FOR 10/2020 Police Department 12.00 GROUP HEALTH INC 02/08/2021 115798 W818098 101-42110-135 EAP HEALTH FOR 11/2020 Police Department 12.00 Total 115798:24.00 HEALTH PARTNERS 02/08/2021 115799 102609093 101-42110-135 HEALTH INS 2/2021 - POLICE CONT Police Department 717.47 HEALTH PARTNERS 02/08/2021 115799 102609093 101-15998 COBRA HEALTH INS 2/2021 5,486.37 HEALTH PARTNERS 02/08/2021 115799 102609093 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 2/2021 54,150.08 Total 115799:60,353.92 Henn county Community Correcti 02/08/2021 115800 1000157699 101-45200-404 STS PARKS 2020 Parks 7,570.60 Total 115800:7,570.60 HILLEGASS, JAMES 02/08/2021 115801 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND SE20-000023 2465 FRENCH L 1,000.00 Total 115801:1,000.00 IN CONTROL INC.02/08/2021 115802 21028NA01 601-49400-405 SCADA SERVICE Water 648.00 Total 115802:648.00 JAY MCCOY 02/08/2021 115803 011221 101-42110-226 CLOTHING REIMBURSEMENT - MCCOY Police Department 32.99 Total 115803:32.99 JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE I 02/08/2021 115804 64012 101-42110-404 PD GARAGE DOOR REPAIR Police Department 744.07 Total 115804:744.07 KELLY, DANIEL 02/08/2021 115805 020121 999-10015 UB REFUND 83.47 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115805:83.47 KENNETH BECK 02/08/2021 115806 011621 101-42110-226 UNIFORM REIMBURSEMENT Police Department 274.91 KENNETH BECK 02/08/2021 115806 012221 101-42110-437 TRAINING MEAL REIMBURSEMENT Police Department 24.45 Total 115806:299.36 KLINGSPOR 02/08/2021 115807 4045653 101-43000-224 GRINDER BLADES Public Works Department 116.43 Total 115807:116.43 KYLE KIRSCHNER 02/08/2021 115808 011421 101-42110-437 TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT Police Department 48.76 Total 115808:48.76 LANO EQUIPMENT 02/08/2021 115809 03-810942 701-49800-403 REPAIR 452 TASK # 51382 439.24 Total 115809:439.24 LeadsOnline 02/08/2021 115810 259318 101-42110-311 INVESTIGATION SYSTEM SERVICE Police Department 3,021.00 Total 115810:3,021.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 02/08/2021 115811 6343 703-49960-379 DEDUCTIBLE - JETTING BACK UP 2,500.00 Total 115811:2,500.00 Lecy Bros Homes & Remodeling 02/08/2021 115812 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000148 185 BAYSIDE 10,000.00 Total 115812:10,000.00 Legacy Sorbents LLC 02/08/2021 115813 3108 701-49800-212 OIL DRIP / SPILL CLEAN UP PADS 61.28 Total 115813:61.28 Lieberman, Samuel 02/08/2021 115814 012421 101-42110-319 COMPLIANCE CHECKS Police Department 37.50 Total 115814:37.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Lube Tech & Partners LLC 02/08/2021 115815 2528589 701-49800-212 DIESAL FUEL NOZZLE 96.83 Lube Tech & Partners LLC 02/08/2021 115815 2531545 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL ADDITIVE 151.69 Total 115815:248.52 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/08/2021 115816 22179065 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 2,012.27 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/08/2021 115816 22179066 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,360.95 Total 115816:4,373.22 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 02/08/2021 115817 2701 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES DEC 2020 Building & Zoning 10,937.25 Total 115817:10,937.25 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/08/2021 115818 00071610 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 38.04 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/08/2021 115818 00071611 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 63.40 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/08/2021 115818 00071612 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 9.58 Total 115818:111.02 MUNSELL, BRYAN 02/08/2021 115819 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS20-000032 1130 HUNTER 1,000.00 Total 115819:1,000.00 NAGORSKE, PAMELA 02/08/2021 115820 012921 101-39610 POINT-OF-SALE INSPECTION REFUND 1040 TO 150.00 Total 115820:150.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/08/2021 115821 329407 101-42110-240 TOWER FAN Police Department 19.99 Total 115821:19.99 NORTHERN LIGHTS DISPLAY 02/08/2021 115822 21-0019 101-43000-224 LIGHT BULBS LED WARM CHRISTMAS LIGHTS Public Works Department 45.00 Total 115822:45.00 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1479177330 101-41900-201 COIN ENV, MARKERS, BINDERS Central Services 91.94 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1479253090 101-41900-221 SPACE HEATER Central Services 44.99 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 14792531100 101-41900-201 CALENDAR Central Services 8.99 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1481835230 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 138.63 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1495068100 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 81.96 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1503282860 101-41900-201 WALL CLOCK Central Services 23.98 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1503663530 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 105.34 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 15041182300 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 15.49 OFFICE DEPOT 02/08/2021 115823 1514912930 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 154.42 Total 115823:665.74 OPG-3 INC 02/08/2021 115824 4534 710-49970-416 2021 IMAGING SUPPORT/LICENSING 6,348.00 Total 115824:6,348.00 OPTUM 02/08/2021 115825 9413128 101-41900-319 HSA MAINTENANCE FEE 4TH QTR 2020 Central Services 193.00 Total 115825:193.00 Orono Woods Apartments LLC 02/08/2021 115826 123120 235-45690-489 TIF PAYMENT 2ND HALF 2020 37,074.96 Total 115826:37,074.96 Precision Decks 02/08/2021 115827 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS20-000072 560 SANDHILL 1,000.00 Precision Decks 02/08/2021 115827 020121-1 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RAS20-000095 535 SANDHILL 1,000.00 Precision Decks 02/08/2021 115827 020121-1 101-20802 SURCHARGE FEE RAS20-000095 535 SANDHILL 3.24- Precision Decks 02/08/2021 115827 020121-1 101-32510 BUILDING PERMIT FEE RAS20-000095 535 SAND 146.80- Precision Decks 02/08/2021 115827 020121-1 101-34410 PLAN REVIEW RAS20-000095 535 SANDHILL DR 95.42- Total 115827:1,754.54 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/08/2021 115828 DECEMBER 101-45210-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 12/2020 Golf Course 58.39 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/08/2021 115828 JANUARY 20 101-41900-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 01/2021 Central Services 501.36 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/08/2021 115828 JANUARY 20 101-45200-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 01/2021 Parks 29.26 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 02/08/2021 115828 JANUARY 20 101-41900-489 GARBAGE SERVICE - 01/2021 Central Services .88 Total 115828:589.89 Riverside Design 02/08/2021 115829 2343 101-42110-352 PRINTING CRIME VICTIM CARDS Police Department 127.35 Total 115829:127.35 St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 02/08/2021 115830 22347-1-237 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 231.64 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115830:231.64 STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 02/08/2021 115831 00011335 101-41900-404 LOCK - POST OFFICE Central Services 387.60 Total 115831:387.60 STONEWOOD LLC 02/08/2021 115832 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000109 1525 BAY RID 10,000.00 Total 115832:10,000.00 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 02/08/2021 115833 130005375 101-42110-401 OFFICE EQUIPMENT Police Department 526.80 Total 115833:526.80 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/08/2021 115834 0221LIFE 101-15998 LIFE INS-COBRA FEB 2021 58.30 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/08/2021 115834 0221LIFE 101-21710 LIFE INS-FEB/2021 1,357.40 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/08/2021 115834 0221STD 101-21714 STD-FEB/2021 951.20 Total 115834:2,366.90 T W TUPY INC 02/08/2021 115835 122820 601-49400-227 ROCK FOR WATER MAIN BREAKS Water 2,557.17 Total 115835:2,557.17 T. SCHERBER DEMOLITION & E 02/08/2021 115836 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D18-000030 1905 CONCORDI 1,000.00 Total 115836:1,000.00 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 02/08/2021 115837 012921 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-01/2021 Law/Legal Services 2,945.03 Total 115837:2,945.03 THE HARTFORD 02/08/2021 115838 0221LTD 101-21713 LTD 02/2021 1,840.08 Total 115838:1,840.08 THE HOME DEPOT 02/08/2021 115839 1512375 701-49800-221 TUBING 31.19 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115839:31.19 TONY WHITE 02/08/2021 115840 011321 101-42110-437 MEAL - REIMB TRAINING Police Department 16.87 TONY WHITE 02/08/2021 115840 011321 101-42110-319 COVID TEST Police Department 95.00 Total 115840:111.87 TRIO INVESTMENTS 02/08/2021 115841 020121 999-10015 UB REFUND 3520 LIVINGSTON AVE 41.52 Total 115841:41.52 UNG, MARGARET 02/08/2021 115842 012821 101-41500-331 MILEAGE 12/23/20-1/28/20 Finance Department 37.29 Total 115842:37.29 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900598710 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900598710 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 2.90 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900598710 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 99.90 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900602693 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 93.93 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900602693 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 UNIFIRST CO 02/08/2021 115843 0900602693 101-41900-223 MATS - PW Central Services 19.50 Total 115843:241.43 US Bank Equipment Finance 02/08/2021 115844 434686192 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76 Total 115844:596.76 VAN BUREN, GREG 02/08/2021 115845 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND Z20-000039 525 HUNTER PAS 1,000.00 Total 115845:1,000.00 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 02/08/2021 115846 8528 701-49800-402 REPAIR 424 FRONT END TASK #51460 510.48 Total 115846:510.48 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-42110-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Police Department 1,731.14 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-41900-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Central Services 286.57 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-42400-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Building & Zoning 113.07 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 1/26/2021 - 2/8/2021 Feb 04, 2021 01:07PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-43000-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Public Works Department 34.41 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-45200-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Parks 34.41 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-45210-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Golf Course 191.35 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 101-45220-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Brush Site 103.23 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 601-49400-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Water 185.10 VERIZON WIRELESS 02/08/2021 115847 9870662027 602-49450-321 INTERNET 1/7/21-2/6/21 Sewer 185.09 Total 115847:2,864.37 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 02/08/2021 115848 876434 701-49800-402 TIRE REPLACEMENT UNIT 713 TASK #51622 4,337.96 Total 115848:4,337.96 WILGERS, JOHN 02/08/2021 115849 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000005 1905 CONCORD 700.00 WILGERS, JOHN 02/08/2021 115849 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND GLA19-000006 1905 CONCO 1,000.00 WILGERS, JOHN 02/08/2021 115849 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000016 1905 CONCO 1,000.00 WILGERS, JOHN 02/08/2021 115849 020121 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000016 1905 CONCO 30.00- Total 115849:2,670.00 WOODDALE BUILDERS 02/08/2021 115850 020121 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS18-000105 1130 HUNTER 10,000.00 Total 115850:10,000.00 XCEL ENERGY 02/08/2021 115851 717269940 101-45200-381 BEDERWOOD PARK 12/20/20-1/21/21 Parks 12.18 Total 115851:12.18 Grand Totals: 1,467,093.56 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A. Carlson Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO Purpose. The City Council adopted Resolution 7146 that set the annual appointments for 2021 at the December 7th meeting. Since the meeting we have had a few changes in staffing, which has created a need for an amendment to the adopted 2021 Annual Appointments. The attached draft resolution is provided for your consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Consider a motion to amend or adopt the attached amended resolution designating selected appointments for 2021. Exhibits A. Amended 2021 Annual Appointments Resolution Item No. Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Amendment to 2021 Annual Appointments Presenter: Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator/ Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7146 DESIGNATING SELECTED APPOINTMENTS FOR 2021 BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota that the appointments and designations for the year 2021 are as follows: APPOINTMENT/DESIGNATION Acting Mayor Aaron Printup Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Legislative Contact Dennis Walsh Association of Metropolitan Municipalities Representative City Administrator/Finance Director Attorney-City Lead (Civil) Soren Mattick Attorney-City Firm (Civil) Campbell, Knutson Attorney-Alternate Dorsey & Whitney Attorney-Lead Prosecuting Tallen & Baertschi Attorney-City Prosecuting Firm Tallen & Baertschi Auditor Abdo Eich & Meyers, LLP Code Review Committee Dennis Walsh Jeremy Barnhart Ben Goodwin Will Haack Matt Johnson Peter Lanpher Andy Johnsrud Sven Gustafson Communications Committee Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals City Administrator/Finance Director Anna Carlson Data Practices Compliance Official Anna Carlson Data Practices Compliance Official – Police Department Correy Farniok Development Review Committee Laura Oakden Melanie Curtis CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Jeremy Barnhart Emergency Preparedness Director Correy Farniok or designee Engineer-Lead Consulting David Martini Engineer-City Firm Bolton & Menk Fiscal Agents Ehlers & Associates Gillespie Center Dennis Walsh Hennepin Emergency Communications Organization Correy Farniok Highway 12 Safety Coalition Dennis Walsh Aaron Printup Correy Farniok Highway 12 Turnback Committee Dennis Walsh Mark McCutcheon Bob Erickson Adam Edwards City Administrator/Finance Director Housing and Redevelopment Authority Dennis Walsh, Chair Executive Director Richard Crosby Matt Johnson Aaron Printup Victoria Seals Ron Olson, Secretary Insurance Agent of Record Ronald Youngdahl, Northern Capital Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) Richard Anderson LOGIS Representative City Administrator Alternate, Finance Director Long Lake Fire Advisory Commission Aaron Printup Richard Crosby City Administrator/Finance Director Mayor's Association Dennis Walsh Official Newspaper The Laker & Pioneer CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Official Depositories/Investment Vendors 1st State Bank – DeQueen Ally Bank – Midvale, UT Belmont Savings Bk – Mass Berkshire Bank – Pittsfield, MA BMO Harris Bank Bridgewater Bank – Navarre, MN Cal Private Bank – La Jolla, CA Capital Bank – Little Rock, AR Capital One Bank NA – Glen Allen, VA CIT Bank – Pasadena, CA Citibank NA – Sioux Falls, SD Connectone Bank, Englewood, CO Discover Bank – Greenwood, DE Enerbank USA – SLC, UT Flagstar Bank – Troy, MI Goldman Sachs Bank – New York, NY Great Western Bank – Watertown, SD HSBC Bank – McClean, VA JP Morgan Chase - Lakeside Bank – Chicago, IL League of MN Cities – 4M Fund Lee Bank - MA Live Oak Bkg - Wilmington, NC Mercantil Commerce Bank, Coral Gables, FL Merrick Bank – UT MS Bank – SLC, UT MS Private Bank – NY Peoples Bank Codorus – York, PA RBC Wealth Management, Mpls RCB Bank - Claremore, OK Sallie Mae Bank – Salt Lake City, UT Silvergate Bank – La Jolla, CA Southpoint Bank – Birmingham, AL State Bank Chilton – Chilton, WI Sterns Bank – St Cloud, MN Suntrust Bank - Atlanta, GA Synchrony Bank – Draper, UT TBK Bank - Dallas, TX Tennessee State Bank – Pigeon Forge, TN Townebank – Portsmouth, VA Toyota Savings Bank – Henderson, NV Wells Fargo Bank NA – CA Wells Fargo Advisors, Minneapolis UBS Financial Services, Wayzata CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Organizational Development Committee Victoria Seals Aaron Printup City Administrator/Finance Director Orono Ice Arena Board Member Dennis Walsh Park Commission Chair Brian Roath Park Commission Representative Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals Planning Commission Chair Alternating Planning Commission Representative to Council Alternating Police Advisory Commission Dennis Walsh Matt Johnson City Administrator/Finance Director School District Committee Dennis Walsh Victoria Seals Correy Farniok City Administrator/Finance Director Suburban Rate Authority Adam Edwards Transportation Committee Adam Edwards Correy Farniok or designee Weed Inspector Dennis Walsh Weed Inspector-Assistant Parks/Golf Course Supervisor Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, at a regular meeting held February 8, 2021. ATTEST: ___________________________________ _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose: To gain approval to use Hennepin County Assessors for assessing city properties 2. Background: The City has contracted with Hennepin County for assessing services since August of 1998. The current four-year agreement expired on July 31, 2020. The proposed agreement covers assessing services from August 1, 2020 through July 31, 2022. The contract includes two one year extensions that can be executed for maximum term of four years. The County Assessor’s Office provides good customer service to our residents from experienced staff which is based on thorough knowledge about high quality properties in our area. Hennepin County also offers a broad spectrum of resources for the assessors including tax attorneys and specialists in exclusions/exemptions. 3. Funding: The City cost for 2021 services will be $208,000 and are budgeted under Assessing Services in the General Fund. 4. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends continuing the partnership with Hennepin County Assessor’s office to provide assessing services for city properties. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached Hennepin County Assessing Agreement Exhibits A. Hennepin County Assessing Agreement Item No.: 6 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Hennepin County Assessor’s 2-Year Contract Presenter: Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Contract No. A2010422 AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY", and the CITY OF “ORONO”, a political subdivision of the State of Minnesota, hereinafter referred to as "CITY"; WHEREAS, said CITY lies wholly within the COUNTY OF HENNEPIN and constitutes a separate assessment district; and WHEREAS, under such circumstances, the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 273.072 and Minnesota Statutes, Section 471.59 permit the County Assessor to provide for the assessment of property; and WHEREAS, said CITY desires the COUNTY to perform certain assessments on behalf of said CITY; and WHEREAS, the COUNTY is willing to cooperate with said CITY by completing the assessment in a proper manner; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, it is agreed as follows: 1. The COUNTY shall perform the 2021, and 2022, 2023, and 2024 property assessment for the CITY OF ORONO in accordance with property assessment procedures and practices established and observed by the COUNTY, the validity and reasonableness of which are hereby acknowledged and approved by the CITY. Any such practices and procedures may be changed from time to time, by the COUNTY in its sole judgment, when good and efficient assessment procedures so require. The property assessment by the COUNTY shall be composed of those assessment services (2) which are set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference, provided that the time frames set forth therein shall be considered to be approximate only. 2. All information, records, data, reports, etc. necessary to allow the COUNTY to carry out its herein responsibilities shall be furnished to the COUNTY without charge by the CITY, and the CITY agrees to cooperate in good faith with the COUNTY in carrying out the work under this Agreement. 3. The CITY agrees to furnish, without charge, secured office space needed by the COUNTY at appropriate places in the CITY's offices. Such office space shall be sufficient in size to accommodate reasonably two (2) appraiser and any furniture placed therein. The office space shall be available for the COUNTY's use at any and all times during typical business hours, and during all such hours the COUNTY shall be provided with levels of heat, air conditioning and ventilation as are appropriate for the seasons. 4. The CITY also agrees to provide appropriate desk and office furniture as necessary copying machines and fax machines and their respective supplies, and telephone and internet service to the COUNTY, all without charge to the COUNTY. 5. It shall be the responsibility of the CITY to have available at the CITY's offices, or via telephone or teleconference, a person who has the knowledge and skill to be able to answer routine questions pertaining to homesteads and property assessment matters. 6. In accordance with Hennepin County Affirmative Action Policy and the County Commissioners' policies against discrimination, no person shall be excluded from full employment rights or participation in or the benefits of any program, service or activity on the grounds of race, color, creed, religion, age, sex, disability, marital status, (3) sexual orientation, public assistance status, ex-offender status or national origin; and no person who is protected by applicable Federal or State laws, rules and regulations against discrimination shall be otherwise subjected to discrimination. 7. It is agreed that nothing herein contained is intended or should be construed in any manner as creating or establishing the relationship of joint venturers or co-partners between the parties hereto or as constituting the CITY as the agent, representative or employee of the COUNTY for any purpose or in any manner whatsoever. Any and all personnel of CITY or other persons, while engaged in the performance of any activity under this Agreement, shall have no contractual relationship with the COUNTY and shall not be considered employees of the COUNTY and any and all claims that may or might arise under the Workers' Compensation Act of the State of Minnesota on behalf of said personnel or other persons while so engaged, and any and all claims whatsoever on behalf of any such person or personnel arising out of employment or alleged employment including, without limitation, claims of discrimination against the CITY, its officers, agents, CITY or employees shall in no way be the responsibility of the COUNTY, and CITY shall defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from any and all such claims regardless of any determination of any pertinent tribunal, agency, board, commission or court. Such personnel or other persons shall not require nor be entitled to any compensation, rights or benefits of any kind whatsoever from the COUNTY, including, without limitation, tenure rights, medical and hospital care, sick and vacation leave, Workers' Compensation, Re-employment Compensation, disability, severance pay and retirement benefits. (4) 8. CITY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the COUNTY, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments, interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the CITY, its officers, agents, contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The CITY’s liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including common law. 9. COUNTY agrees that it will defend, indemnify and hold the CITY, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from any and all liability (statutory or otherwise) claims, suits, damages, judgments, interest, costs or expenses (including reasonable attorney’s fees, witness fees and disbursements incurred in the defense thereof) resulting from or caused by the negligent or intentional acts or omissions of the COUNTY, its officers, agents, contractors, employees or duly authorized volunteers in the performance of the responsibilities provided by this Agreement. The COUNTY’s liability shall be governed by Minn. Stat. Chapter 466 and other applicable law, rule and regulation, including common law. 10. The COUNTY shall endeavor to perform all services called for herein in an efficient manner. The sole and exclusive remedy for any breach of this Agreement by the COUNTY and for COUNTY's liability of any kind whatsoever, including but not limited to liability arising out of, resulting from or in any manner related to contract, tort, (5) warranty, statute or otherwise, shall be limited to correcting diligently any deficiency in said services as is reasonably possible under the pertinent circumstances. 11. Neither party hereto shall be deemed to be in default of any provision of this Agreement, or for delay or failure in performance, resulting from causes beyond the reasonable control of such party, which causes shall include, but are not limited to, acts of God, labor disputes, acts of civil or military authority, fire, civil disturbance, changes in laws, ordinances or regulations which materially affect the provisions hereof, or any other causes beyond the parties' reasonable control. 12. This Agreement shall commence on August 1, 2020 and shall terminate on July 31, 20242. Either party may initiate up to two (2) one (1) year an extensions of this Agreement for a term of four (4) years by giving the other written notice of its intent to so extend prior to March 1, 2024 2 and March 1, 2023. If the party who receives said notice of intent to extend gives written notice to the other party of its desire not to extend prior to, April 15, 20242 this Agreement shall terminate on July 31, 20242. Nothing herein shall preclude the parties, prior to the end of this Agreement, from agreeing to extend this contract for a term of four (4) years. Any extended term hereof shall be on the same terms and conditions set forth herein and shall commence on August 1, 2024.2 Either party may terminate this Agreement: 1) immediately for "just cause", as defined herein, or 2) for any reason, upon providing 120 days prior written notice to the other party. If the CITY should cancel this Agreement, as above provided, before the completion of the then current property assessment by the COUNTY, the CITY agrees to defend and hold the COUNTY, its officials, officers, agents, employees and duly authorized volunteers harmless from any liability that might ensue as a result of the non-completion of a property tax assessment, to the extent the non-completion was not directly caused by a material breach of (6) this agreement by the County. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "just cause" shall mean the failure of any party hereto reasonably to perform a material responsibility arising hereunder. 13.A. In consideration of said assessment services, the CITY agrees to pay the COUNTY the sum of Two Hundred Eight Thousand Dollars ($208,000) for each assessment, provided that any payment for the current year’s assessment may be increased or decreased by that amount which exceeds or is less than the COUNTY's estimated cost of appraising new construction and new parcels for the current year’s assessment. The amount of any increase or decrease shall be specified in the billing for the current year’s assessment. 13.B. Regarding each assessment, in addition to being subject to adjustment in the above manner, said assessment cost of $208,000 may also be increased by the COUNTY if: (1) The COUNTY determines that any cost to the COUNTY in carrying out any aspect of this Agreement has increased, including but not limited to the following types of costs: new construction and new parcel appraisals, mileage, postage, supplies, labor (including fringe benefits) and other types of costs, whether similar or dissimilar; and/or 2) The COUNTY reasonably determines that other costs should be included in the costs of assessment work. If the COUNTY desires to increase the assessment cost pursuant to this paragraph 13(B), it shall give written notice thereof by June 15 of any year and such increase shall apply to the assessment for the calendar year next following the current calendar year. Any such notification shall specifically set forth the amount of any new construction and new parcel appraisal charges. Notwithstanding any provisions herein to the contrary, if any such increase, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel (7) appraisals, exceeds seven and one half percent (7.5%) of the amount charged for the assessment for the then current calendar year, exclusive of any charge for the estimated costs of new construction and new parcel appraisals, the CITY may cancel this Agreement by giving to the COUNTY written notice thereof, provided that said cancellation notice must be received by the COUNTY not later than July 24 of the then current calendar year and said cancellation shall be effective no earlier than five (5) days after the receipt of said notice by the COUNTY and not later than July 31 of said next calendar year. Supportive records of the cost increase will be open to inspection by the CITY at such times as are mutually agreed upon by the COUNTY and CITY. Failure of the COUNTY to give the CITY a price-change notice by June 15 shall not preclude the COUNTY from giving CITY such notice after said date but prior to August1 of any year, provided that if such price increase exceeds said seven and one half percent (7.5%) - all as above set forth - the CITY may cancel this Agreement if the COUNTY receives notice thereof not later than thirty-nine (39) days from the date of receipt by the CITY of any said late price-change notice, provided further that any such cancellation shall be effective not earlier than five (5) days after COUNTY's receipt of said cancellation notice and not later than forty-six (46) days after the CITY's receipt of any said price-increase notice. Payment for each assessment shall be made in the following manner: Approximately one-half (1/2) of the cost of an assessment (the amount payable being set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later than the fifteenth (15th) day of the November which precedes the pertinent assessment year; and the remaining portion of said cost (the amount payable being set forth in a bill sent by the COUNTY to the CITY) shall be paid by the CITY no later than July 15 of the (8) pertinent year. The COUNTY may bill the CITY after the aforesaid dates and in each such case, the CITY shall pay such bill within thirty (30) days after receipt thereof. 14. Any notice or demand, which may or must be given or made by a party hereto, under the terms of this Agreement or any statute or ordinance, shall be in writing and shall be sent registered or certified mail to the other party addressed as follows: TO CITY: City Administrator City of Orono PO Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 TO COUNTY: Hennepin County Administrator 2300A Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 copies to: County Assessor Hennepin County 2103A Government Center Minneapolis, MN 55487 Any party may designate a different addressee or address at any time by giving written notice thereof as above provided. Any notice, if mailed, properly addressed, postage prepaid, registered or certified mail, shall be deemed dispatched on the registered date or that stamped on the certified mail receipt and shall be deemed received within the second business day thereafter or when it is actually received, whichever is sooner. Any notice delivered by hand shall be deemed received upon actual delivery. 15. It is expressly understood that the obligations of the respective parties under Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 12, and 13 hereof and the obligations of each party which, by their sense and context, are intended to survive the performance thereof by the same party, shall so survive the completion of performance, termination or cancellation of this Agreement. (9) THIS PORTION OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK (10) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officers and delivered on its behalf, this ______ day of _____________, 2020. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN STATE OF MINNESOTA Reviewed by County Attorney’s Office: By: Chair of the County Board ______________________ Date: _________________ And: Assistant/Deputy/County Administrator ATTEST: Deputy/Clerk of the County Board CITY OF ORONO By: Its And: Its City organized under: ______ Statutory ______Option A ______ Option B ______Charter (11) Contract No. A2010422 EXHIBIT A CITY OF ORONO During the contract term, the County shall: 1. Physically inspect and revalue 20% of the real property, as required by law. 2. Physically inspect and value all new construction, additions and renovation. 3. Adjust estimated market values on those properties not physically inspected as deemed necessary per sales ratio analysis. 4. Prepare the initial assessment roll. 5. Print and mail valuation notices. 6. Respond to taxpayers regarding assessment or appraisal problems or inquiries. 7. Conduct valuation reviews prior to Board of Review or Open Book Meetings, as determined by the City – approximate dates: March through May 15. 8. Attend Board of Review or conduct Open Book Meeting. Prepare all necessary review appraisals. Approximate dates: April 1 – May 31. 9. Maintain an updated property file – current values, classification data and characteristic data. 10. Prepare divisions and combinations as required. 11. Administer the abatement process pursuant to Minn. Stat. §375.192. 12. Prepare appraisals; defend and/or negotiate all Tax Court cases. 13. Provide all computer hardware and software applications necessary to complete contracted services. 14. Process all homestead and special program applications. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the contract for the replacement of the Walters Port water main. 2. Background. Walters Port Lane is a private roadway. The residents are serviced by a city water main that runs under and adjacent to the roadway. The owner of the private road will be reconstructing the road this summer. The water main is 1970 era cast iron pipe which is susceptible to corrosion. The section of pipe has experienced breaks in the recent past. 3. Scope of Work. The projects consists of the replacement of 800 feet of water main, 1 fire hydrant, 4 valves and curb stop reconnections. A Temporary water main will provide water to residents during construction. (Plan sheet at Exhibit A) 4. Cost. The city received two quotes (Summary at Exhibit B). The low quote is for $173,615 is from Schneider Excavating. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of NTE $ 29,000 for construction oversight. (Exhibit C) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering Construction Oversight $ 35,000 Not to exceed Previously approved Schneider Excavating Construction $173,615 Pending award Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $ 29,000 Not to exceed Total $ 237,615 5. Funding. Funding for the project will come from the water fund. Fund Amount Est. 2021 End of Year Fund Balance Water Fund $237,615 $125,122 Total $237,615 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend award to Schneider Excavating in the amount of $173,615. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to award the Walter Port Watermain Replacement project to Schneider Excavating for $ 173,615 and to authorize Bolton and Menk to perform construction oversite for a fee not to exceed $ 29,000. Reference A. Project Layout B. Quote Tab C. Bolton and Menk Construction Services proposal Item No.: 7 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Walters Port Water Main Replacement project- Award Project #21-022 Presenter: Adam Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Exhibit A-Project Layout City Of Orono Walters Port Water Main Reconstruction AGENDA ITEM Exhibit B-Quote Tab City Of Orono Walters Port Water Main Reconstruction Contractor Quote/ Bid Schneider Excavating $ 173,615 Kusske Construction $ 175,970 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\123366 Construction Services 2-01-21.docx February 1, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Walters Port Lane Watermain Improvements Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction services associated with the Walters Port Lane Watermain Improvements project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and accurate information via newsletters and website updates as desired by the City. Construction Staking and Observation Construction staking will be provided along with full time construction observation. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction-related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Review of all materials testing • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction-related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: • Administering a pre-construction meeting • Review of shop drawings • Preparation of pay estimates • Contractor Communications • Liaison with City Staff and Council Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the City of Orono’s contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and electronic format. Record plans will also be linked to the City mapping system and the City’s GIS system will be updated. 2020 Street Improvements Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\123366 Construction Services 2-01-21.docx Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed of $29,000 to be billed on an hourly basis. A separate proposal for materials testing services will be submitted to the City for Review. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. Authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the Building Services Agreement with MnSpect. 2. Background. The Building Services Committee has spent the last two months evaluating the proposals for building services, and after speaking with applicants and their references, have chosen MnSpect out of Mound as the provider that best serves the needs of the City. Staff and MnSpect have prepared an agreement outlining responsibilities. The City Attorney has reviewed the contract and has no changes. Scott Qualle will serve as Building Official. The contract lays out reimbursement levels based on a per hour rate for time spent on a given permit type. While the contract is approved in February, the agreement reflects MnSpect and staff recommendation for an effective start date of March 15, 2021. This will allow MnSpect to be trained on the software and processes of the city without impacting or delaying permit issuance or inspections. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to sign the agreement as drafted. Exhibits A. Final Agreement Item No.: 8 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Building Services Contract Agreement Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 INTERIM AGREEMENT FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL AND INSPECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 8th day of February, 2021 by and between the City of Orono, Minnesota, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation (City) and MNSPECT, LLC, a Minnesota Limited Liability Company (Inspector). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the City is desirous of contracting with Inspector for the performance of the hereinafter specified Building Official and Inspection services with the City; and WHEREAS, Inspector is agreeable to rendering services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Building Official and Inspection Services. Inspector will provide the following building official and inspection services (Services) for the City: A. Inspector shall provide an individual who meets the statutory qualifications for a Designated Building Official found in the relevant Minnesota Statutes (326B) and Rules (1300) to serve as the City’s Designated Building Official during times when the City does not have a satisfactory internal designee to serve as the City’s Designated Building Official. During the time Inspector is acting as the Designated Building Official, Inspector shall be responsible for all duties set forth in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1300, including items B- D below. B. Perform Plans Examination services for all eligible permit applications received under this agreement. C. Perform field inspections for all inspections requested. D. Prepare and provide inspection records and other necessary information to the City for it to maintain permanent records of all services performed by Inspector. E. Perform required septic system plans examination and inspection services. F. Perform Code Enforcement services as requested. G. Attend city meetings as requested. 2. Qualifications of Inspector’s Employees and Contractors; Independent Contractor. All Services provided by Inspector shall be performed by qualified individuals certified by the State of Minnesota as Building Officials or Limited Building Officials, Master Plumbers (when required), and employees with state delegation. City and Inspector acknowledge and agree that Inspector is an independent contractor contracting with the City to perform the Services pursuant to this Agreement and is not an employee of the City. Inspector shall have control over 2 the manner in which the Services are performed under this Agreement. Inspector shall supply, at its own expense, all personnel, materials, supplies, equipment, and tools required to provide the Services contemplated by this Agreement. Inspector shall not be entitled to any benefits from the City, including without limitation, insurance benefits, sick and vacation leave, workers’ compensation benefits, unemployment compensation, disability, severance pay, ore retirement benefits. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to constitute a partnership, joint venture, or agency relationship between the Parties. Inspector shall be responsible for all individuals performing Services on behalf of Inspector pursuant to this Agreement. As the designated Building Official, Inspector shall perform all duties for all State delegation projects delegated to the City using plans examiners and inspectors qualified and authorized to do so as determined by MN Dept. of Labor & Industry staff. Inspector will utilize City’s permitting software for all building permitting and code enforcement functions. City will provide up to two user accounts to City’s permitting software, currently Citizenserve. 3. Insurance Inspector, at its expense, shall procure and maintain in force for the duration of this Agreement, the following minimum insurance coverages: A. General Liability. Inspector agrees to maintain commercial general liability insurance in a minimum amount of $1,000,000 per occurrence; $2,000,000 annual aggregate. The policy shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, products-completed operations, personal injury, advertising injury, and contractually assumed liability. The City shall be endorsed as additional insured. B. Automobile Liability. If Inspector operates a motor vehicle in performing the Services under this Agreement, Inspector shall maintain commercial automobile liability insurance, including owned, hired, and non-owned automobiles, with a minimum liability limit of $1,000,000 combined single limit. C. Workers’ Compensation. Inspector agrees to provide workers’ compensation insurance for all its employees in accordance with the statutory requirements of the State of Minnesota. The Contractor shall also carry employer’s liability coverage with minimum limits as follows: i) $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease per employee ii) $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Disease aggregate iii) $500,000 – Bodily Injury by Accident Inspector shall, prior to commencing the Services, deliver to the City a Certificate of Insurance as evidence that the above coverages are in full force and effect. The insurance requirements may be met through any combination of primary and umbrella/excess insurance. Inspector’s policies shall be the primary insurance to any other valid and collectible insurance available to the City with respect to any 3 claim arising out of Contractor’s performance under this Agreement. The Contractor’s policies and Certificate of Insurance shall contain a provision that coverage afforded under the policies shall not be cancelled without at least thirty (30) days advanced written notice to the City. 4. Effective Date of Agreement. The effective date of this Agreement shall be March 15, 2021. 5. Termination of Agreement. This agreement shall remain in force and effect from the effective date until cancelled by either party upon sixty (60) days advance written notice. It is expected that this contract be evaluated at least once every five (5) years. 6. Cost to the City for Services. The City shall pay Inspector for Services performed by Inspector within 30 days of submission of a written invoice to the City for the following Services at the following rates: A. For the services listed below, the fee for inspection personnel and services shall be billed at a per hour rate as follows: i. Designated Building Official $125 ii. Plan Review and Inspections on State Licensed Facilities (SLF) $125 iii. Inspections on all other IBC (commercial) (non-SLF) permits $105 iv. Plan Review (all) $105 v. Master Plumber (for Commercial Plumbing plan review and SLF & IBC inspections) $105 vi. Septic Plan review and inspections $85 vii. Fire Inspections $105 viii. Code Enforcement $85 ix. Residential (IRC) Inspections (including plumbing and mechanical) $85 x. Clerical $75 Inspector shall submit logs with its invoices for services rendered under this subsection. 7. Amendments and Assignment. Any modification or amendment to this Agreement shall require a written agreement signed by both Parties. Inspector may not assign any of its rights or duties under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. The City may, with 60 days’ notice, terminate any single Service without terminating the balance of this contract. 4 8. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Inspector agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold-harmless the City and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, actions, damages, losses, and expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, arising out of the Inspector’s negligence or Inspector’s performance or failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement. Inspector’s indemnification obligation shall apply to Inspector’s subcontractor(s), or anyone directly or indirectly employed or hired by Inspector, who performs Services on behalf of Inspector, or anyone for whose acts Inspector may be liable. Inspector agrees this indemnity obligation shall survive the completion or termination of this Agreement. This indemnification requirement is subject to the provisions of MN Rule 1300.0110, Subpart 9. Indemnification shall not extend to any City employees performing services under the authority of this agreement. 9. Legal Compliance. Inspector agrees to comply with all federal, state, and local laws and ordinances applicable to the Services to be performed under this Agreement, including safety standards. Inspector shall be solely responsible for the safety of all persons and property during performance of the Services. Inspector represents and warrants that it has the requisite training, skills, and experience necessary to provide the Services and is appropriately licensed by all applicable agencies and governmental entities and will perform the Services with reasonable skills and care. 10. Ownership of Documents; Data Privacy. All reports and other documents produced by Inspector in the performance of Services under this Agreement shall be the property of the City. Inspector agrees to abide by the applicable provisions of the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act, Minnesota Statutes, Chapter 13, and all other applicable state or federal rules, regulations, or orders pertaining to privacy or confidentiality. Inspector understands that all of the data created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by Inspector in performing those functions that the City would perform is subject to the requirements of Chapter 13, and Inspector will cooperate with City to furnish or provide requested data to City. This does not create a duty on the part of Inspector to provide the public with access to public data if the public data is available from the City, except as required by the terms of this Agreement. 11. Entire Agreement. This is the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all other agreements. 12. Choice of Law. This agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the State of Minnesota Law. 5 13. Representation of Authority. The undersigned executing this agreement for MNSPECT, LLC, represents and warrants that he has been duly authorized to execute this agreement on behalf of MNSPECT, LLC, by the organization’s Board of Directors, and that this agreement shall bind it to the terms and obligations contained herein. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate this ______ day of ___________________, 2021. CITY OF ORONO By:___________________________ Dennis Walsh Mayor Attest:_________________________ City Clerk MNSPECT, LLC By:_____________________________ Scott Qualle, President AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To consider a resolution approving a variance to allow more than 70% of the roof plane to be covered by solar array. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 11, 2020 and considered to be complete on December 15th. The 60-Day review period will expire on February 13, 2021. 3. Background. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow 75.3% of the garage roof to be covered with solar arrays, 70% is the maximum. The applicant believes the location of the roof plane mitigates any negative visual impact caused by the additional panels. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 19th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance. The Commission also recommended that the council consider changing the ordinance to remove the maximum coverage rule. The members of the Commission were in agreement that the difference in panels had no impact to the purpose and intent of the zoning code. The Commission also agreed that the existing trees limiting placement on the roof constituted a practical difficulty. 5. Public Comment. No comments against the proposal have been received. The neighboring property owner has submitted a letter of support, provided as Exhibit G. 6. 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. PC Minutes – Draft C. PC Staff report D. Construction Plans E. Practical Difficulties form F. Project Illustrations G. Site Photos H. Variance Narrative I. Neighbor letter of support References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 1/19/21 Item No.: 9 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000073 – All Energy Solar o/b/o Brian O’Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1379 FILE NO. LA20 -000073 WHEREAS, on October 20, 2020, All Energy Solar, o/b/o Brian O’Connell and Lynne Rasmussen (“Owners”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3145 North Shore Drive and legally described as: Tract B, RLS No. 1113, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1379 to allow 75.3 percent coverage of a roof with solar panels, where 70% is permitted; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 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 January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 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 #LA20-000073. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 1.13 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 117 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Variance from the roof coverage limits of 70% 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. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The intent of the 70% rule is to avoid the visual impact of solar panels covering a roof. The proposed location of the panels is on a portion of the roof directly abutting the neighboring property. The visual difference between the proposal (roughly two panels) and the allowances by ordinance are negligible. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The Comprehensive Plan includes “To preserve open space, light, air, and solar access for all citizens while maintaining night sky” as a general goal (CMP Part 2 Community Plan Foundation, page 13). Additionally, Cities are required to include an element of protection and access to for solar energy systems (CMP Part 3A Solar Access Protection, page 14.) 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The placement of the extra solar panels is a reasonable use. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. the property owner did not build the house, and the desire to maximize the use of solar panels did not appear to be the key objective during construction. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 The excess coverage (of panels) will likely not be discernable. Further, removal of the trees to place panels elsewhere on the roof would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and the lake. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations has not been the sole factor in the variance approval determination. 4. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” The applicant has noted that the design of the house roof, the orientation of the accessory structure, and the City’s prohibition of ground mounted arrays limit adequate access to sunlight. 5. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as solar arrays are permitted in every district. 6. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This criteria does not apply. 7. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The structure’s orientation and the existing mature trees do not support adequate access to the sun. 8. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The conditions would apply to other structures not properly oriented to the sun. 9. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The right to the sun for solar arrays is a right provided by the city and the state legislature. 10. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” No suggestion that the increased level of solar panels will impact health, safety, and comfort has been received. 11. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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 78-1379 to allow up-to 76 percent roof coverage, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the 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. A permit must be issued within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 8, 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 8th day of February, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 2. LA20-73 ALL ENERGY SOLAR O/B/O BRIAN O’CONNELL + LYNNE RASMUSSEN, 3145 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian O’Connell, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart showed on screen a view of the house near the lake and noted the portion of the roof is right over the corner and said it is fairly well screened by the neighboring house to the side. Staff reviewed this proposed variance for solar panels and this is not dissimilar to the variance the Planning Commission saw in November or December of 2020 where that property was asking for approximately 85% solar roof panel coverage where 70% is allowed. Barnhart showed on screen a very complex roof system with many relatively small roof planes; the goal here from a solar panel array is to provide southern exposure and this house works out well in that the largest roof plane is towards the south which provides good exposure. He pointed out the large stands of trees that block view from the lake and pointed out the neighboring property onscreen. The Applicant provided some practical difficulty statements, they are in attendance tonight and the Planning Commission should ask them for additional statements. From Staff’s perspective the goal of solar panel regulations is to minimize an aesthetic impact and the difference between 75% and 70% lot coverage is relatively minor from a distance. Barnhart said close to the property the visual impact of the additional arrays is very negligible. Given the building code standards in terms of safety issues to make sure there is access into the solar array and access around the edges, it is probably appropriate that they examine their solar regulations as it applies to roof coverage. Barnhart noted some of the Commissioners made that statement last November. From Staff’s perspective, they found there were practical difficulties. In particular, the State has a practical difficulty for lack of adequate sunlight; from a State statute perspective this is not a carte blanche that someone can automatically get a variance for roof panels. Staff thinks the intent of the State legislature when they made that regulation is that existing trees and vegetation block the ability for a property to access the sun. In those situations, the remedy is to cut down those trees and that is not the goal of Orono’s Comprehensive Plan, nor the goal of many neighborhoods where they want to protect established vegetation, and they certainly want to protect vegetation within the lake. In lieu of cutting down the trees to provide maximum solar access, the Applicant is requesting the variance. The Applicant is present tonight and Staff is recommending approval of the variance as proposed. Bollis asked when calculating the 70%, are they calculating just the garage roof or how are they coming to that number. Barnhart noted they just calculate that portion of the roof where there are panels, that plane. They do not calculate the other side, they just calculate “this side” (referencing on the screen). Bollis asked if that is spelled out specifically in the code that it is just that plane. Barnhart replied yes. He said if it was the “roof system” then they would be at approximately 14%. Kirchner noted Barnhart mentioned this was not entirely different than November. If he recalls, that one was adding an accessory structure in an open area. Barnhart clarified there was an existing accessory structure and they put the panels on that. The argument for that one was one could not see that structure from anywhere. He noted this one can be seen from Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 other places but if the analysis is variance or no, they are allowed 38 panels and are just asking for 2 extra ones, that difference is relatively negligible from a Staff perspective. Chair Ressler thinks it is laid out very well with the screening and the findings from the November meeting is a good lesson for the Planning Commission to know there was not necessarily a safety reason they had that limitation. A lot of the weight of the decision goes upon proper screening. Barnhart pointed out late in the afternoon the Planning Commission received a forwarded email from the neighboring property owner to the south supporting the proposal. Chair Ressler welcome the Applicant to the podium. Colin Buechel, 18 West 15th Street, Minneapolis approached the podium representing All Energy Solar, the company doing the installation on the property. He summarized the practical difficulties on this project – at first glance it looks like there is plenty of space on the roof to put these panels, and they can see the garage roof facing south is by far the best option for panels. The difference was two panels between getting that 70% coverage and what the proposed design is currently. As Barnhart mentioned there are a lot of hills and valleys and the Planning Commission can see that on the bird’s eye view on screen. On top of that, there are some mature trees southeast of the residence that also provides further shading on the roof structure. This is not a residence built by the current owner and he did not design this residence to maximize solar and meet the City code, rather he purchased the property and is hoping to add solar to the property. If they were to remove two panels and move them to a different roof structure, he is not sure the concern on that limitation is visual but they would likely have to move those two panels to a completely different area of the house further north and it would just be two panels sitting out on a roof plane. If it is a visual impact concern, putting them all on the garage roof with very little visibility versus putting those two panels on the other side of the house with more increased visibility. He also mentioned the elevation of the garage is pretty high where one cannot even see the shingles from the adjacent property so this seems like a far-and-away the ideal location for these panels. Moving those two panels would also include conduit and electrical to run to service back to the original array, which complicates the electrical and cost proponent. Gettman noted the elevation and the neighbor to the south and asked if they can see those panels. Chair Ressler thinks what is onscreen is illustrating the height as well as the screening between the houses makes it pretty well-hidden from the neighbor. Gettman thinks it is just the opposite as they can almost see the neighbor’s house to the right. He said they would be looking directly at the panel and asked if that is correct. Brian O’Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, Applicant, said his neighbor’s house has a lot of windows but the photo shown onscreen is looking at the lake. Around the side of the house where the mouse onscreen is waving is where the panels would be; if they were in the neighbor’s house looking at that roof plane, it is 3 stories up and the neighbor has maybe two windows that are foyer windows on that side of the house. To be in the neighbor’s front yard and look up, one cannot see that roof plane. He said the neighbor is fine with the variance, and Barnhart went out and visited the property and took some photos. He asked to show the side view of the garage onscreen and noted the roof plane at the very top if they put a panel on that roof, it cannot be seen from the ground. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 6 Gettman thanked Mr. O’Connell and said that clarifies. Kirchner asked on the photo they are looking at of the neighbor; is that Mr. Mandell who they provided an email of support earlier today. Mr. O’Connell replied that is correct. Bollis asked why not just build to 70% and drop the two panels. Mr. O’Connell would like to maximize the amount of solar energy he can get on the house. There is a state code and although he is not well-versed in State code, from a safety perspective they must have a 3- foot access way. So, the maximum number of panels he can put on that roof, given where roof vents are is 30. He can get a permit approved for 28 as that is the 70%. As outlined, he could put a single solar panel on a bunch of other roof planes, run conduit, but those would be visible from the lake, from the backyard, and more visible from the street if he put it on the front side of the house. He noted he could comply with the 70% and put two more panels on and he thinks that would be aesthetically unpleasing as he wants to minimize if not completely eliminate this array from the lake. This is a way for him to maximize his solar usage and put it on the same plane. He asked to show a picture of the 28-panel design versus the 30-panel design. He pointed out two squares on an aerial image that he would like to add. Mr. O’Connell said it is reasonable to ask for a variance as there is a variance process in place; one was granted with 80-some% and he said granted it was on an outlying structure, and he thinks the visibility is de minimis on this side and his neighbor his fine with it. Mr. O’Connell could add those two panels somewhere else but he does not think that is practical given the negative aesthetic appearance of the panels on other roof planes. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:57 p.m. Chair Ressler noted they just had one of the applications in November and is interested in finding out the outcome from that. Something that came from that is perhaps they need to revisit the code for the percentage that the roof occupies. Seeing that it was approved and passed, normally he would say practical difficulty is not exactly met but considering the previous application was approved, he does not see any reason why this one would not be. The practical difficulty is identified as accessibility to sunlight so by definition that roofline if it were to continue on would meet the criteria. It is not as egregious of an overreach from the allotment of 70% as currently written in the City code. Kirchner feels this one is slightly different from the one in November; the application in November was in a large open area without trees obstructing it and he felt in that case there was not a lack of adequate sunlight; the roof structure just was not as big to accommodate the number of panels they wanted. He noted in this application there are some trees providing blockage and with that said, in viewing previous decisions the Planning Commission has made (not specific to solar panels but hardcover) they have stuck pretty certain to a percentage – only 1% versus “this” percent is an overage. In this case he struggles with the slippery slope of “well it’s only 5%, it’s only 15%.” With that being said he does believe there is some wind behind the sails here to evaluate this ordinance in the future as to what the intent of it is and what percentage should truly be allowed to circumvent variance applications such as this. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 6 Erickson thinks there are a couple of factors at work in favor of the Applicant. One is that he is really just filling in the middle of the area of the “donut hole” and not expanding outward; therefore, it is not changing the character of the neighborhood. He noted it would be a negative change if they had to cut down trees. Erickson is in favor of this. Bollis is having a hard time seeing the practical difficulty to allow the additional 5%; not saying that he thinks it might be silly to not allow that, he just does not see it on this project. He thinks the Planning Commission should look at that code and decide, rather than just granting variances when they do not apply and meet the practical difficulty. His basis for that is asking what percentage of electrical use do they allow. He noted everyone putting solar up wants to maximize their solar but that should not be considered in the practical difficulty when looking at whether or not they are encompassing 70%. Chair Ressler thinks the main thing is that the Planning Commission could move to deny and say it needs to meet the percentages allowed and then the application could go to City Council and they could approve it as applied. The Planning Commission’s reasoning would be that it does not meet the practical difficulty to exceed the allotment of percentage which is a technicality and he does not know if Staff has a comment on that. He asked if there is really a difference one way or the other. Barnhart hears Bollis’ comment because they do have this conversation quite a lot where someone is allowed 25% hardcover and they are asking for 26% hardcover, and what is really the big deal. He gets that, but the challenge here is the State statute says that lack of adequate access is a practical difficulty. However, that does not give the credit card for someone to just do whatever they want. He noted the City has taken steps to address concerns they had in 2003 and 2012 and they put standards in place such as no ground-mounted solar systems, probably because of a hardcover issue and from a screening perspective. Barnhart believes the 70% is mostly an aesthetic issue so the variance process allows the Planning Commission to review options and as the Applicant said, he has option to put the panels elsewhere on the roof and the conduit will be seen. That is a balance from the Planning Commission and City Council perspective: is what they are proposing more consistent with the goals of the ordinance and goals of the City than the alternate where the practical difficulty cannot be met because of X, Y, and Z reasons. Staff recommended approval because looking at the fact they are allowed solar and the difference is negligible from a visual impact. Staff believes the alternative would be to put it elsewhere on the roof that may require removal of trees over time; it does not show in the drawing very well but Barnhart noted there are quite a few trees in this area that impact the other large expanse of roof for the solar panels. Staff recommended approval because they felt that the goals of the ordinance were satisfied by granting a variance versus not granting. Chair Ressler said fundamentally the goals that Staff is marking is the aesthetics more than anything else. It is not a safety concern and asked if that ship has sailed. Barnhart replied no, there is still a safety concern but the concern is managed by the building code regulations. They are not suggesting variances from that, but from Staff perspective, they believe that the 70% regulation at this day and age is likely more tied to aesthetics than it is to other safety issues. Chair Ressler noted it is the Staff’s opinion that those aesthetics have been satisfied. Barnhart also pointed out while the Applicant suggested that these are the two new panels, it is really the last two. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 Kirchner said if they are looking at the practical difficulty side of this from a lack of adequate sunlight, whichever two panels it is he finds it hard to say the practical difficulty had been met for those two panels because apparently it has not been met for the other panels. Those two panels somehow then do not have adequate access to sunlight and yet the rest of the roof does; he does not believe that would then meet the practical difficulty. Mr. O’Connell commented that they can pick any two panels they want; if he was to build it with 28 panels, the design would remove those “donut hole” ones. In the big roof plane that Barnhart pointed out to the lower right, it is shaded in the summer and he could take two panels and find a roof plane more northerly, but he personally believes that would be terrible aesthetically because it would be seen from the lake or from the neighbor’s backyard. All the other roofs are lower and he wanted to put those two panels on that same roof plane as the other ones and butted up against the 70% challenge. The maximum number of panels that can go on that roof is 30 and he could put two somewhere else but it will be difficult to wire them to that array and have it not be visible from the lake or the neighbor’s house. Chair Ressler noted with Mayor Walsh and Councilmember Seals present, they can speak to the issue. Mayor Dennis Walsh, 1354 West Point Circle, approached the podium and said this is a great opportunity as they see things like this at the City Council. When the last one came before them the first question, he asked Barnhart and the City Attorney is “why do we have 70%?” He needs to understand that before he can assess what is going on. The answer was “we have no idea why we have 70%.” Mayor Walsh noted they just had a boat discussion at the last City Council meeting and asked where did they come up with a 30-foot boat rule…someone remembered 25 years ago they made it 30 feet because there was a Councilmember who had a 30-foot boat and he wanted to be able to put it in his yard so they changed it to 30 feet. He appreciates Bollis saying he does not see a practical difficulty for 70%; however, the problem is why the City even has 70% and nobody knows. Is it a fire code requirement? No. He asked what is the real issue? Then as Mr. O’Connell said he could move the panels somewhere else and then there are practical difficulties of connecting it in and what if they eventually have to replace the roof; nothing else really faces south that is anywhere close. Mayor Walsh noted they can always come up with a good practical difficulty but it begs the question of “why do we have it?” He said at the City Council they look at what ordinances they should try and attack or change because there are 20 of them and they only have so much time to rewrite with the Attorney, go through them, and bring it through the public process. He noted it gets them thinking. When they start to get to those “why” questions and they do not get answered, that is when the Planning Commission and City Council starts saying they recommend approving or disapproving but they also recommend that the ordinance needs to be looked at and changed to reflect the real issue of why there is a percentage and what it should be. There needs to be a rationale so the City can explain it to an Applicant; when they cannot explain it that becomes a bigger issue. Mayor Walsh said over time they try and fix as many of these as they can but sometimes, they do not know they have them until situations like this come up. Then after talking about them they say “why is this here?” Gettman said to the Mayor, the way Gettman was looking at this was perhaps completely backwards, but looking at the 70% it is obviously applicable for each roof face. So, the practical difficulty is the fact that the Applicant is trying not to use all of these other faces and is stuck with just using one of these ten faces. The practical difficulty is then trying to utilize that one space. Mayor Walsh answered that is absolutely a practical difficulty as well. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 Gettman asked if he is missing something because the Applicant could literally have 70% of each and every one of those roof faces and asked if that is correct. Barnhart replied that is correct. Gettman noted the Applicant is trying to minimize the aesthetics. Mayor Walsh said that is a good point, they could do the entire roof. Gettman stated the 70% initially sounded like the safety as there has to be the perimeter around for the firemen to be able to walk. Mayor Walsh said the practical difficulty is they also need to face it south as they are not going to face it north and there are only so many planes facing south. If that is the only thing they can use and they could put 500 panels on but they really only want 30 panels and they need those two more. Mr. O’Connell said he has some shade issues on some of the south facing roofs but he could put all those triangular shapes covered with 70% solar panels. He personally does not like that aesthetic and in Orono it is not the intent to have that look. Given the aesthetic obligation he feels he has, he would like to maximize the solar on the one aesthetically available, the biggest south facing rectangular plane. Chair Ressler thinks the fundamental of inadequate access to sunlight is the best way to define this. It is being met by definition and the Planning Commission needs to decide if they can rest their laurels on this because they know that aesthetics is probably the biggest concern that ties around it based on the discussions. Gettman moved, Bollis seconded, to approve LA 20-73, 3145 North Shore Drive, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Barnhart asked if the Planning Commission would find it appropriate to suggest the City Council consider a change to the code. Chair Ressler replied yes, absolutely. Date Application Received: December 11, 2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 15, 2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 13, 2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: #LA20-000073, All Energy Solar o/b/o Brian O’Connell, 3145 North Shore Drive, Variance Public Hearing Background The applicant is working on behalf of the owner who recently purchased the parcel. They propose a roof mounted solar array that covers 75.3% of the roof to which it is affixed, the maximum is 70%. The difference between conforming roof coverage and the proposal is two panels. This is the fourth variance related to Solar Arrays since 2017. Most recently, in December 2020 the City Council reviewed and approved a variance to allow 83% roof coverage on an accessory structure (LA20-69). Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant suggests that the roof design, its orientation, and the presence of trees in the lake yard provide inadequate access to sunlight is a practical difficulty. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. The applicants also note that ground mounted solar arrays are not permitted in Orono. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: To correct inadequate access to solar for this site, the remedy is removal of the trees, which is undesirable for the city, or redesign of the roof structure. Staff concurs that the design of the roof, the location of existing trees creates a practical difficulty. While the array may be visible from certain points off the property, this visual impact for the additional coverage is not deemed to be a substantial negative. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow solar arrays to cover 75.3 percent of the roof plane, where a maximum is 70%. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval Exhibit C FILE #LA20-000073 January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 5 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 –Setbacks: LR-1B DISTRICT Required Existing Proposed (Array only) Rear 30 100 100 North side 10 30.2 109.9 South Side 10 11.3 16.4 Lake 75 148 190.9 Section 78- 395 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1B DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) 140’ Actual 49,320 s.f. (1.12 acres) 117’@ 75’ / 110’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 49,320 s.f. (1.13 acre) Proposed as part of other improvements: 4,524 s.f. (9.1%) Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: No hardcover increases are proposed. Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 49,320 s.f. 12,330 s.f. (25 %) 9,999 s.f. (20.3%) Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1379 (e) 2. h.): Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. 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 FILE #LA20-000073 January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 5 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 intent of the 70% rule is to avoid the visual impact of solar panels covering a roof. The proposed location of the panels is on a portion of the roof directly abutting the neighboring property. The visual difference between the proposal (roughly two panels) and the allowances by ordinance are negligible. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan includes “To preserve open space, light, air, and solar access for all citizens while maintaining night sky” as a general goal (CMP Part 2 Community Plan Foundation, page 13). Additionally, Cities are required to include an element of protection and access to for solar energy systems (CMP Part 3A Solar Access Protection, page 14.) 2. 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 placement of solar panels is a reasonable use. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the property owner did not build the house, and the desire to maximize the use of solar panels does not appear to be the key objective during construction and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The excess coverage (of panels) will likely not be discernable. Further, removal of the trees to place panels elsewhere on the roof would have a negative impact on the neighborhood and the lake. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 3. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations has not been the sole factor in the variance approval determination. 4. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. The applicant has noted that the design of the house roof, the presence of mature trees, and the City’s prohibition of ground mounted arrays limit adequate access to sunlight. 5. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as solar arrays are permitted in every district. 6. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. FILE #LA20-000073 January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 5 7. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The structure’s orientation and the existing mature trees do not support adequate access to the sun. 8. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The conditions would apply to other structures not properly oriented to the sun. 9. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The right to the sun for solar arrays is a right provided by the city and the state legislature. 10. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. No suggestion that the increased level of solar panels will impact health, safety, and comfort has been received. 11. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance is not merely a convenience to the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. No correspondence from the immediately adjacent neighbor has 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, 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 grant ing of the request ed variance? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff visited the site, and was able to view the property from the lake. Pictures taken during this inspection are provided as Exhibit H. The issue is not the presence of the solar panels, but the presence of 2 extra arrays, intended to provide 41% of the electrical load for the structure (versus 38%). The difference in impact to the standards for variance is negligible. Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance as presented. Additionally, Staff recommends an amendment to the ordinance, removing the maximum. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Construction Plans Exhibit D. Supplemental Information FILE #LA20-000073 January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Exhibit E. Project illustrations Exhibit F. Survey Exhibit G. Satellite photo Exhibit H. Site photos Exhibit I. Variance narrative Exhibit J. Excerpt Solar Energy System Regulations Exhibit K. State Statute Exhibit L. Mailing information References 2040 Comprehensive Plan COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A0 REVISIONS LAST: 09/14/20 MG AZIMUTH NOTES: 1. (30) ENPHASE IQ7+ INVERTER(S) 2. ARRAY 1: 28° TILT, 180° AZIMUTH 3. ARRAY 2: (Array 2 Tilt)° TILT, (Array 2 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH 6. ARRAY 3: (Array 3 Tilt)° TILT, (Array 3 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH 7. ARRAY 4: (Array 4 Tilt)° TILT, (Array 4 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH COVER PAGE BRIAN P O'CONNELL 3145 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 PO 38607 N NORTH S H O R E D R ARRAY 1 LG 375 BOW 30 Flush Roof Mount 11.250 Panel Type # of Panels System Size (kW) 18" RIDGELINE SETBACK 3' ACCESS PATHWAY Exhibit D COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A3 REVISIONS LAST: 09/14/20 MG *STRINGING TO BE DETERMINED ON SITE 2X6 TRUSS @ 24" OC RAIL AND STRINGING DIAGRAM AZIMUTH <aCustName(s)> <aCustAddress1> <aCustAddress2> <aCustAddress3> PO <aCustPONumber> N BRIAN P O'CONNELL 3145 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 PO 38607 SNAP-N-RACK FLASHING MODULE2X6 TRUSS @ 24" OC (30) LG LG375Q1C-V5 MODULES (30) ENPHASE IQ7+ INVERTER(S) CIRCUITS: (3) CIRCUIT(S) OF 10 MICROS ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) MICROS ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) MICROS ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) MICROS ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) MICROS SNAP-N-RACK MOUNTING HARDWARE: 1. (63) L-FEET 2. (8) RAIL SPLICES 3. CLAMPS (50) MIDCLAMPS (20) ENDCLAMPS 4. RAIL LENGTHS: (15) 168" RAILS LEGEND: TERM CAP: OPEN END: ARRAY 1 MAX CIRCUIT LENGTH (120/240V) 15A BREAKER 20A BREAKER ENPHASE IQ7 12 16 ENPHASE IQ7+9 13 ENPHASE IQ7X 9 12 ENPHASE IQ7A 8 11 COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A2 REVISIONS LAST: 09/14/20 MG NOTES: 1. ELEVATIONS MAY VARY DEPENDING ON GROUND ELEVATION BUT ARE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF OUR ABILITY 2. 2X6 TRUSS @ 24" OC 2 8 4 " 3 8 4 " 3 8 6 " 495" 39"445" 2 8 4 " 3 8 4 " 3 8 6 " 219"202" ELEVATION DRAWINGS BRIAN P O'CONNELL 3145 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 PO 38607 SOUTH ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A1 REVISIONS LAST: 09/14/20 MG AZIMUTH ACCOUNT: 51-0293230-7 PREMISE: 302201293 METER: 43000153 CASE # 03946721 SITE MAP N BRIAN P O'CONNELL 3145 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 PO 38607 NOTES: 1. (30) ENPHASE IQ7+ INVERTER(S) = 8.70kW AC 2. ARRAY 1: 180° AZIMUTH, 28° TILT (30) LG 375W = 11.25kW 3. ARRAY 2: (Array 2 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 2 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 2 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 2 kW)kW 4. ARRAY 3: (Array 3 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 3 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 3 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 3 kW)kW 5. ARRAY 4: (Array 4 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 4 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 4 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 4 kW)kW NOTES: 1. LOCATION OF SERVICE PANEL AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT ARE SHOWN. FINAL LOCATION MAY CHANGE 2. LOCATION OF SERVICE PANEL AND ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT NOT DRAWN TO SCALE 3. PV INTERCONNECTION IS A SECONDARY INTERCONNECTION 4. AC DISCONNECT AND PRODUCTION METER WITHIN 10' OF MAIN SERVICE METER/BI-DIRECTIONAL METER. 24/7 UNESCORTED KEYLESS ACCESS TO BE PROVIDED FOR UTILITY AC DISCONNECT, PV PRODUCTION METER, & BI-DIRECTIONAL METER. 5. PV EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH NEC 690 AND POSTED WITH APPLICABLE WARNINGS, SIGNAGE, AND PLAQUES PER NEC 705-10, 690-17, & 690-64 (b)(5). 6. CIRCUITS: (3) CIRCUIT(S) OF 10 (20AMPS EACH) ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) ([Amps] (If Enphase. Based on 15 or 20A breakers)AMPS EACH) ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) ([Amps] (If Enphase. Based on 15 or 20A breakers)AMPS EACH) ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) ([Amps] (If Enphase. Based on 15 or 20A breakers)AMPS EACH) ((Qty of circuits with the number of inverters optimizers above)) CIRCUIT(S) OF (Qty of inverters/optimizers in a circuit/string) ([Amps] (If Enphase. Based on 15 or 20A breakers)AMPS EACH) 1 2 3 CALL-OUTS: 1: SOLAR PANELS 2: INVERTERS 3: ENPHASE IQ COMBINER PANEL 4: UTILITY PV AC DISCONNECT 5: PV PRODUCTION METER 6: UTILITY ESS AC DISCONNECT 7: BI-DIRECTIONAL METER 8: OFF-PEAK METER 9: MAIN LOAD PANEL (1 OF 2) 10: MAIN LOAD PANEL (2 OF 2) 11: OFF-PEAK LOAD PANEL 12: TESLA BACKUP GATEWAY 13: GENERATOR TRANSFER SWITCH 14: ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM DISTANCES SOLAR PANELS - INVERTERS: 5' MAX INVERTERS - IQ COMBINER PANEL: 75' MAX IQ COMBINER PANEL - UTILITY PV AC DISCONNECT: 2' UTILITY PV AC DISCONNECT - PV PRODUCTION METER: 2' PV PRODUCTION METER - UTILITY ESS AC DISCONNECT: 2' UTILITY ESS AC DISCONNECT - BI-DIRECTIONAL METER: 2' BI-DIRECTIONAL METER - OFF-PEAK METER: 2' OFF-PEAK METER - MAIN LOAD PANELS: 5' MAIN LOAD PANELS - OFF-PEAK LOAD PANEL: 2' OFF-PEAK LOAD PANEL - TESLA BACKUP GATEWAY: 2' TESLA BACKUP GATEWAY - GENERATOR TRANSFER SWITCH: 2' GENERATOR TRANSFER SWITCH - ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM: 2' LABELS LOCATED ON PV PRODUCTION METER, BI- DIRECTIONAL METER, AC DISCONNECT(S), INVERTER(S), AND APPROPRIATE LABELS ON MAIN ELECTRIC SERVICE. ALL LABELS ARE PERMANENT, WEATHERPROOF, AND DURABLE THERE ARE NO CLEARANCE ISSUES DUE TO OVERHEAD POWERLINES. BOHN'S POINT RD (500') NORTH SHORE DR ARRAY 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 <10' 14 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA20-000073 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The solar ordinance as outlined by the City of Orono allows solar energy systems to be used in all zoning districts, but is only permitted as a roof-mounted system. The property owner proposes to install a roof-mounted solar system. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The residence was built in 2006 and the current property owners purchased in 2020. The roof structure consists of multiple roof planes varying in direction and size and includes many hips and valleys. The majority of the south facing roof planes, which is most ideal for solar, may be shaded by the adjacent roof plane and inhibit the sun access. The roof plane on the southeast side of the house that is south facing is shaded heavily by a tree. The roof plane on the southwest side of the home and is south facing, is the most ideal for solar. This is where the solar is being proposed to be installed. The factors listed above are outside of the control of the landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Rooftop solar PV is a permitted use in the City of Orono. The proposed array would only be visible from one neighboring property but none others due to the flush mounted design, natural screening, and location and tilt of the roof plane. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Our design meets the 2020 State of Minnesota Building code; however, it does not meet the City of Orono's requirements outlined in Sec. 78-1379 of Orono's Zoning Ordinance. Specifically Sub e, number 2, letter h which states, "Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed". The current array design covers approximately 75.3 percent of the roof plane. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. 5. Practical difficulties 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 Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: The proposed location for 30 solar panels is at an azimuth of 180 degrees. Due to Minnesota residing on the North side of the equator line, the optimal azimuth for solar access is South, therefore this is the ideal spot on the roof. Additionally, the residence's roof structure consists of many valleys and hips between other south facing planes and are slightly shaded and less supreme. The ordinance would require two of the 30 solar panels be removed. It is impractical to require two solar panels be placed on another roof plane, a great distance away. Due to the nature of the layout Exhibit E of the roof, even the other south facing roof planes would not acquire comparable photovoltaic rays. The reduction of two solar panels results in almost a 1,000 kWh loss of potential sunlight obtainable by this roof for the homeowner. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The proposed location for 30 solar panels is at an azimuth of 180 degrees. Due to Minnesota residing on the North side of the equator line, the optimal azimuth for solar access is South, therefore this is the ideal spot on the roof. Additionally, the residence's roof structure consists of many valleys and hips between other south facing planes and are slightly shaded and less supreme. The ordinance would require two of the 30 solar panels be removed. It is impractical to require two solar panels be placed on another roof plane, a great distance away. Due to the nature of the layout of the roof, even the other south facing roof planes would not acquire comparable photovoltaic rays. The reduction of two solar panels results in almost a 1,000 kWh loss of potential sunlight obtainable by this roof for the homeowner. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: N/A 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: It is the property owner's and right to supplement or utilize alternatives to conventional fuels, in which they are choosing to do so by installing a solar energy system. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The City of Orono's Community Management Plan, Part 3A Environmental Protection Plan outlines the need for protecting solar access. Granting this proposed variance will not impair health, safety, comfort, morals or otherwise, but rather be contributing to the City's 2040 plan. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Our design meets the 2020 State of Minnesota Building code; however, it does not meet the City of Orono's requirements outlined in Sec. 78-1379 of Orono's Zoning Ordinance. Specifically Sub e, number 2, letter h which states, "Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed". The current array design covers approximately 75.3 percent of the roof plane. Minnesota Statute 462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. COMPANY INFORMATION CLIENT INFORMATION SYSTEM DETAILS PROJECT-PAGE TITLE ALL ENERGY SOLAR, INC 1264 ENERGY LANE ST PAUL, MN 55108 (800) 620-3370 INFO@ALLENERGYSOLAR.COM PAGE NUMBER A9 REVISIONS LAST: 12/29/20 MG AZIMUTH ACCOUNT: 51-0293230-7 PREMISE: 302201293 METER: 43000153 CASE # 03946721 PROPERTY MAP N BRIAN P O'CONNELL 3145 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 PO 38607 NOTES: 1. (30) ENPHASE IQ7+ INVERTER(S) = 8.70kW AC 2. ARRAY 1: 180° AZIMUTH, 28° TILT (30) LG 375W = 11.25kW 3. ARRAY 2: (Array 2 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 2 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 2 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 2 kW)kW 4. ARRAY 3: (Array 3 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 3 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 3 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 3 kW)kW 5. ARRAY 4: (Array 4 Azimuth)° AZIMUTH, (Array 4 Tilt)° TILT ((Array 4 Panel Qty)) LG 375W = (Array 4 kW)kW PROP E R T Y L I N E ARRAY 1 100' 13 ' 270' 11 0 ' Exhibit F Exhibit G 1264 Energy Lane St. Paul, MN 55108 www.allenergysolar.com December 11, 2020 Dear City of Orono, Brian O’Connell lives at 3145 North Shore Drive in Orono. He is seeking to install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system on the roof of his residence. Minnesota §462.357, subd. 6, states that inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems is a practical difficulty. The combination of ground-mounted solar PV arrays not being permitted in Orono and the uniqueness of the property, limit access to direct sunlight on this property. In order to maximize production of the system on the property, All Energy Solar has designed a flush-mounted solar PV system to go on the South Western most facing roof plane of the residence and attached garage. The solar will be interconnected to a meter that is located at the residence. The array will not be visible from North Shore Drive. Our design meets the 2020 State of Minnesota Building code; however, it does not meet the City of Orono’s requirements outlined in Sec. 78-1379 of Orono’s Zoning Ordinance. Specifically Sub e, number 2, letter h which states, “Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed”. The current array design covers approximately 75.3% of the roof plane. This proposed system will not impact the character of the neighborhood and will not affect the welfare, safety or health of the community. The proposed system will help Brian O’Connell offset his electricity use and contribute to the State of Minnesota’s clean energy goals. Sincerely, All Energy Solar Exhibit H From:Brian O"Connell To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Fwd: Solar Variance Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 2:41:48 PM Jeremy, Per our discussion, the email below is from my neighbor next to the solar array supporting the variance. Please include this in the packet for tonight. See you at the meeting. Thanks, Brian O’Connell 952-221-3153 Sent from Brian's iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Brian O'Connell <BPOC62@gmail.com> Date: January 19, 2021 at 2:36:58 PM CST To: Jim Mandel <jim.mandel@orangehook.com> Subject: Re: Solar Variance Thanks so much Jim! Sent from Brian's iPhone On Jan 19, 2021, at 2:12 PM, Jim Mandel <jim.mandel@orangehook.com> wrote:  To: Orono Planning Commission and City Council From: Jim Mandel RE: Solar Variance at 3145 Northshore Drive DA: January 19, 2021 Dear sirs: I have reviewed the solar plan and variance requested by my neighbor, Brian O’Connell, and have no objections to it. Since I am unable to attend any variance meetings, please consider this discourse my acquiescence to the project as presented. Thank you, Exhibit I Jim Mandel 3155 Northshore Drive Orono, MN 55391 IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail communication may contain confidential or legally privileged information and is intended to be received only by persons entitled to receive the confidential information it may contain. Please do not read, copy, forward or store this message unless you are an intended recipient of it. Any review, use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication by other than the intended recipient or that person's agent is strictly prohibited pursuant to the Electronic Communication Privacy Act,18 USCA 2510. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender by forwarding it by email to the sender and then delete it completely from your computer system. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: Approved ByRJO 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing of a bath/shower in an oversized accessory building. 2. Background. The applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in roughly a 1,500 square foot accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a recreational space. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. 3. 15.99 Deadline. The application was deemed complete 12/16/2020. Following the 60-day rule, this application will expire February 15, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2021. The commissioners reviewed the application and unanimously voted to approve the conditional use permit. 5. Public Comment No public comments were received. The application submitted a letter of support from the abutting neighbor. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends to approve the application. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve or amend the included approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. PC Minutes D. PC Staff Memo References PC Exhibits 1.19.21 Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Neighbor Signature Letter Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 10 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000076 – Chris Moe, 2425 Thoroughbred Lane, 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 78-418 FILE NO. LA20-000076 WHEREAS, on December 16, 2020, Christopher Moe and Ashley Moe (“Applicants”), applied for a conditional use permit from the City Code for the property addressed 2425 Thoroughbred Lane and legally described as: Lot 1, Block 2, Old Crystal Bay Road Second Addition (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 to allow a full bathroom including shower or bathtub within an accessory pool building; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 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 January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 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 # LA20-000076. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR-1B Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 2.71 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 259 feet. 4. The Property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following: a. Conditional Use Permit for Plumbing within an Accessory Building. 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 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: 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 Community Management Plan 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 septic and well. 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 accessory building with a garage and entertaining space 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 accessory building including plumbing is CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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 accessory 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 accessory building with entertaining space 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 accessory building will be situated in a conforming location. Screening is not appropriate. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed accessory 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 accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 4. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 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. 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 78-418 to allow plumbing including a bathtub and/or shower 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 obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (February 8, 2022). 4. The Owners hereby agree to this covenant 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. 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. 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. ________________________ 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8 day of February, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor ______________________________ ________________________________ Property Owner Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 20___, by _________, _______ of ____________. ____________________________________ Notary Public 13 ' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " 20 ' - 0 " 6' - 0 " 10'-0"22'-0" 7' - 6 " POOLHOUSE POOL 44'-0" DRIVEWAY HOT TUB POOL EQUIPMENT 40 ' - 0 " 50'-0" 47'-6 1/2" 19'-0" 11'-0"8'-0" 30'-0" 4' - 1 " PLAYGROUND SILT FENCE LOCATION T1.0 SITE PLAN 50' SETBACK ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 12.11.20 4' - 5 " POOL HOUSE 20'-0" BENCH W/ HOOKS ABOVE BATH/ CHANGING 8' - 6 " MECH. 18 ' - 6 " 40'-0" 10 ' - 0 " 22 ' - 0 " 13 ' - 0 " 30 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 7'-6" 9' - 0 " BAR / ENTERTAINING COVERED DINING 18'-0" x 10'-0" O.H. DOOR 2' - 6 " 3' - 6 " 2' - 0 " 5'-0"6'-9" 9" 2' - 0 " 3' - 3 " CONC. 42" VANITY 13'-9" 13'-9"13'-9" 11 ' - 6 " 15'-9" 11'-9" REF. A1.1 12.11.20 ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 PLAN POOL HOUSE M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SLAB POOL HOUSE PLATE HEIGHT 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING A2.0 12.11.20 ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 ELEVATION M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8' - 0 " 9'-0" FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SLAB POOL HOUSE PLATE HEIGHT 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING A2.1 12.11.20 ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 ELEVATION M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 FIRST FLOOR TOP OF SLAB POOL HOUSE PLATE HEIGHT 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF BLOCK GARAGE PLATE HEIGHT 11 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING 10 ' - 0 " 18'-0" A2.2 12.11.20 ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 ELEVATION M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 TOP OF BLOCK GARAGE PLATE HEIGHT 11 ' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING TOP OF BLOCK 9' - 1 1 / 8 " 4' - 0 " TOP OF FOOTING GARAGE PLATE HEIGHT A2.3 12.11.20 ISSUE DATE WDS WINDMILLERDESIGNSTUDIO.COM T. 952.250.1941 ELEVATION M O E R E S I D E N C E 2 4 2 5 T H O R O U G H B R E D L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 3. LA20-76 CHRIS MOE, 2425 THOROUGHBRED LANE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Chris Moe, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in roughly a 1,500 square foot accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a recreational space. A conditional use permit (CUP) is required due to the proposed shower. Staff is recommending approval contingent upon the property owner’s agreement to filling out those covenants with the four standards which they see often including it will not be used as home occupation, dwelling, rented/leased, etcetera. The Applicant submitted a letter of support from the abutting neighbor. Chair Ressler noted the City code does not allow short-term lease in its current code and asked if that is correct. Ms. Oakden replied that is correct. Chair Ressler said that is one question that often comes up when there is an accessory building adding plumbing and it is a little silly that it comes up every time someone adds a shower as that is really the only trigger to this. Perhaps that is also something to consider rewriting the code for although he may speak for himself. He has seen this a few times, he does not have any questions as it seems pretty straightforward. Chris Moe, 2425 Thoroughbred Lane, Applicant, approached the podium and welcomed questions. There were no questions from the Planning Commission. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:15 p.m. Chair Ressler summarized and noted the Planning Commission has approved applications similar to this in the past and he does not see a reason they would not approve this. He asked if the Planning Commission agrees or disagrees. The Planning Commission agreed. Kirchner moved, Erickson seconded, to Approve LA 20-76, 2425 Thoroughbred Lane, Conditional Use Permit as applied for with the four provisions recommended by Staff. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/14/2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/16/2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: 02/15/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: LA20-000076, Chris Moe, 2425 Thoroughbred Lane, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Background The applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in roughly a 1,500 square foot accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a recreational space. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. Applicable Regulations: Plumbing in the Accessory Building CUP (Section 78-328(7) & 78-1434) The proposed oversized accessory building, a detached garage with recreation space, is conforming to the ordinance, the applicant’s request to install a bathroom with full bathing facilities requires a CUP. The property is 2.71 acres in area, allowing a total of 2,400 square feet in accessory building. The property currently does not have any other accessory buildings. 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; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the Community Management Plan 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. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow plumbing of a bath/shower in an oversized accessory building. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA20-000076 January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 3 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system. The property is served by septic and well. 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 accessory building with a garage and entertaining space 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 accessory building 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 accessory 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 accessory building with entertaining space 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 accessory building will be situated in a conforming location. Screening is not appropriate. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed accessory 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. LA20-000076 January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 3 2. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the applicants’ intended use of the accessory building. 3. The accessory building is conforming in location, size and height. 4. 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 The applicant has submitted a letter of support from the abutting neighbor. Issues for Consideration 1. 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 and the status as an oversized accessory building, providing that the accessory building 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. 4. Regarding future subdivision of the property: a. No future subdivision will be approved that places the oversized accessory building within a lot that has no principal building b. If the property is subdivided, the oversized accessory building and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the oversized accessory building. c. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversized accessory building shall remain. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Neighbor Signature Letter Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: Approved ByRJO 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a wood burning chimney on a new home. 2. Background. The applicant is asking for an average lakeshore setback to allow for a chimney for a wood burning fireplace to be constructed lakeward of the average lakeshore setback along the north side of the new home. This property received an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in 2019 (LA19-000048) to construct a new home. At that time a chimney was anticipated on the south side of the property behind the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has received a building permit for a new home (RPS20-000142) with the chimney removed from the plans, which meet the approved variances and city codes. 3. 15.99 Deadline. A complete application was made on December 30, 2020. Following the 60-day rule the application will expire February 29, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2021 with no public comments made. The commission reviewed the application and voted unanimously in favor 6-0. 5. Public Comment. The applicant submitted two neighbor acknowledgement signatures. 6. Staff Recommendation. The Planning Commission found practical difficulty in the extreme average lakeshore setback for the property. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion or amend the included approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Plans and Site Plan C. DRAFT Planning Commission Minutes 1.19.21 D. PCSR References PC Exhibits Exhibit A. Application and Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Exhibit G. LA19-000048 Resolution Exhibit H. RPS20-000142 New House Building Permit Plans Exhibit I. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 11 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000077 – Premium Construction LLC, 2697 Casco Point Road, Variance – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVINGA VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 FILE NO. LA20-000077 WHEREAS, on December 30, 2020, Premium Construction LLC (“Applicants”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 2967 Casco Point Road and legally described as: Tract B, R.L.S. No 1470 (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow for a chimney to be lakeward of the average lakeshore setback; and WHEREAS, on January 19, 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 January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on February 8, 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 #LA20-000077. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1C Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 0.48 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 78 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Average Lakeshore Setback 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The request for an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a chimney on a new home is in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variance which would allow for a chimney to a single family home in a residential zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to add a chimney to a new home within the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable due to the extreme average lakeshore setback for the property. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. the average lakeshore setback line was not created by the property owner c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” A chimney is a noticeable, but common feature on a home. Adding a chimney would not alter the character of the area. 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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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 single family home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The average lakeshore setback is peculiar for the property with a neighbor’s home located behind the applicants home, creating an extreme setback line. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The extreme location of the average lakeshore setback line in unique to this property creates a difficulty for additions to the property. The council has approved a variance to allow the construction of a new home on the property for reasonable use of the lot. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The council approved a hardcover and average lakeshore setback variance in 2019 (LA19-000048) to allow the construction of a new home on the property. This request for a variance is to allow revisions including a chimney to the home. The property still has an extreme average lakeshore setback limiting the building envelope. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” The applicant states this to be true 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 states this to be true. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow a chimney within the average lakeshore 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 with a revisions dated 12/30/2020 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be received within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 8, 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, Mayor PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. LA20-77 PREMIUM CONSTRUCTION LLC, 2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Timothy Oare, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is asking for an average lakeshore setback to allow for a chimney for a wood burning fireplace to be constructed lakeward of the average lakeshore setback (ALS) along the north side of the new home. Staff finds practical difficulties are not met and Planning Commission should determine if the ALS variance is supported by the submitted practical difficulties and make a recommendation. This property received an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in 2019 (LA19-000048) to construct a new home. At that time a chimney was anticipated on the south side of the property behind the average lakeshore setback. The Applicant has received a building permit for a new home (RPS20-000142) with the chimney removed from the plans, which meet the approved variances and city codes. They are now asking for this chimney and it is not necessarily the footprint of the chimney but the height as the ALS has a 42-inch height requirement. The Applicant submitted neighbor acknowledgement signatures from the two abutting neighbors. Staff finds practical difficulties are not met with what was submitted and that the chimney would act as a convenience and not necessarily for reasonable use of a single-family home for the property. Chair Ressler asked if it is a gable that it is supposed to be limited to. Ms. Oakden replied the ALS is limited to 42 inches in height so they technically can construct things lower than that. Because this was not shown on the original plans for the variance, this height issue of the chimney was not anticipated and not reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council when the variance was granted. So, this chimney is a new visible sightline expansion within the ALS so it triggers the need for a re-review or a new variance to allow it. Chair Ressler said not only is she saying it is a height concern but it is also encroaching on side yard setbacks. Ms. Oakden replied no, just the ALS. The original house the Planning Commission saw in 2019 for the variance showed a 12-foot setback and when the building permit came in and this house, they have proposed they pulled the house back to 14 feet. This footprint of the chimney always anticipated house massing in that space. The actual footprint of the chimney being lakeward is not necessarily the concern but it is the height of the chimney in that new sightline expansion that is triggering the ALS variance. Bollis asked if the overall footprint of the house is getting smaller. Ms. Oakden noted they just pivoted the house so the overall footprint of the house and hardcover from 2019 is the same. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Robert Schmidt of Premium Construction approached the podium is here on behalf of the Oares and noted Tim Oare is here today. When they originally submitted this application, the original house was on the property and was torn down. They submitted a plan for a variance to place the house where it is shown. The biggest difficulty was that down the line was the ALS because of the carriage house that sat way up by the road. During the discussion to get the variance, and the other line shown, they basically said it doesn’t make much sense to use the one up front and rather they should reestablish it and set the house using that setback. That is basically why the house is where it is at. Mr. Schmidt said they did not have the chimney on the plan when submitted the first time and all the talk about this variance was the sightline, how far away they were, how close to the lake, and nobody talked about the roofline, shingles, or anything else. They went ahead and put the chimney on and it triggered the variance that it technically did not meet requirements. What Mr. Schmidt is saying is if they would have originally had the chimney on the proposal to get the variance, he does not think anybody would have even brought it up. At this point it seems a little strange and the house is not even built but they are in the process of building the house now. He stated the chimney is lower than the highest peak of the roof, and he gets it, but as a technicality it is a little moot. He said they are looking for the Planning Commission to consider the fact that if they had the chimney on previously, would the Planning Commission have approved it; the fact that the other lakeshore setback to set the house puts the chimney behind lakeshore access. He noted they are using two lakeshore setbacks to determine what to do on this property and he asked to pick one or the other. Chair Ressler is not familiar with height requirements for wood burning versus gas as far as chimneys go. He asked if there is a minimum they need to have for it to be a wood burning chimney. Mr. Schmidt said all chimneys need to be two feet higher than any ten foot; he clarified if they go ten feet horizontal, the chimney has to be two feet over that roofline. In other words, he has to raise the chimney two feet higher than the point it hits the roof. Chair Ressler clarified in order for this to function it has to be this tall. Mr. Schmidt replied that is correct Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:26 p.m. McCutcheon thinks Mr. Schmidt has a point and does not think the Planning Commission would have said anything previously. The main thing to him is that it is in the building envelope and he hates to split hairs but asked if the neighbors complained or had comments. Ms. Oakden noted the Applicant submitted signatures from the neighbors with the neighbor acknowledgement form. McCutcheon said in hindsight, the chimney is very tall and is at the closest point to the neighbor and maybe the Planning Commission would have said something. He is interested in the rest of the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ discussion; it is in the building envelope so the main question here is the sightlines from the neighbors and they did not submit any comments. He thinks the main thing is the neighbors being able to view the lake and if they do not have an opinion on the matter, he thinks he would favor the Applicant for the variance. Kirchner related this one back to the garage or accessory structure where the roof trusses would go above and beyond into the ALS the Planning Commission saw within the last 4-5 months. He distinctly remembers the Applicant was asking for more than what the building code was requiring of those trusses; in this case as demonstrated by the Applicant, the height of this is to satisfy the building code requirements being a 10-foot distance away and a two-foot height from that ten-foot mark of other roofing structures. Based on that, as well as McCutcheon’s statements, Kirchner would likely be supportive of it. Chair Ressler agrees with Kirchner and that is where his line of questions came from: whether this was a vanity choice or a necessity of function. It is unfortunate they are in the place they are in but when he looks at whether he would have declined the application if this was in there in the first place, that is not how they like to do it but it is a good validator for his conscience. He does not see any problem with it. McCutcheon moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA20-77, 2967 Casco Point Road, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/16/2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/30/2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: 02/29/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: LA20-000077, Premium Construction LLC, Variance Public Hearing Background The applicant is asking for an average lakeshore setback to allow for a chimney for a wood burning fireplace to be constructed lakeward of the average lakeshore setback along the north side of the new home. This property received an average lakeshore setback variance and hardcover variance in 2019 (LA19-000048) to construct a new home. At that time a chimney was anticipated on the south side of the property behind the average lakeshore setback. The applicant has received a building permit for a new home (RPS20 -000142) with the chimney removed from the plans, which meet the approved variances and city codes. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the extreme average lakeshore setback as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance. 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 the variances previously granted for the property allow for construction of a new home and allows for a reasonable use of the property. A chimney would act as an amenity and not necessary to the use of the property for a single family home. The applicant has shown they can meet the city code by submitting plans and receiving a new house building permit. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1C Required New House Permit Street 30’ 40’ Side 7.8’ (North) 14’ Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a wood burning chimney on a new home. Staff Recommendation: Staff finds the practical difficulties are not met. The Planning Commission should determine if the average lakeshore setback variance is supported by practical difficulty and make a recommendation. LA20-000077 January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Side 7.8’ (South) 8’ Lakeshore 75’ 141’ Average Lakeshore Not Met with New Proposed Chimney Location Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1279) Average Lakeshore Setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline of existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; This does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, and/or stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. The applicant is proposing to construct a chimney for a wood burning fireplace with the new home project. The chimney will be forward of the average lakeshore setback but portions of the approved new home will sit closer to the OHWL than the proposed chimney location. The chimney is proposed to be taller than 42 inches in height, and extend above the abutted gabled roof but no taller than the highest proposed peak of the house. 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 request for an average lakeshore setback variance to allow a chimney on a new home is not in harmony with the Ordinance at the property has reasonable use to allow a home and opportunity in for a chimney in conforming locations. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance which would allow for a chimney to a single family home in a residential zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. LA20-000077 January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 4 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to add a chimney to a new home within the average lakeshore setback does not appear to be reasonable as the current property has an open building permit and plans that meet all the City Codes with adequate use of the lot for a single family home. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner’s desire to add a chimney for a wood burning fireplace within the average lakeshore setback to the home is a condition created by the landowner, however the average lakeshore setback line was not created by the property owner and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A chimney is a noticeable, but common feature on a home. Adding a chimney would not alter the character of the area. 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 single family home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The average lakeshore setback is peculiar for the property with a neighbor’s home located behind the applicants home, creating an extreme setback line. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The extreme location of the average lakeshore setback line in unique to this property creates a difficulty for additions to the property. The council has approved a variance to allow the construction of a new home on the property for reasonable use of the lot. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The council approved a hardcover and average lakeshore setback variance in 2019 (LA19-000048) to allow the construction of a new home on the property. This request for a variance is to allow revisions including a chimney to the home. The owners have reasonable use of the property with the current approved variances and issued building permit meeting all the variance and city code requirements. The proposed chimney would act as an amenity and convenience. It is not necessary for the use of the land. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant states this to be true. LA20-000077 January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 4 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The property owner has an open permit to build a new home meeting all pervious variance criteria and city code requirements. The addition of a chimney for a wood burning fireplace is not necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty and would merely serve as a convenience to the Owner. 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 has submitted neighbor acknowledgement signatures from the two abutting neighbors. (Exhibit F) 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 finds the practical difficulties are not met and to allow a chimney would act as a convenience not necessary for reasonable use of a single family home for the property. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application and Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Exhibit G. LA19-000048 Resolution Exhibit H. RPS20-000142 New House Building Permit Plans Exhibit I. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To adopt an ordinance amendment related to appeals 2. Background. In the process of enforcing the zoning code, a property owner desired to exercise his rights to an appeal per section 78-96 administrative appeal. This process allowed for the Planning Commission and City Council to hold a public hearing and review of the issue. The appropriate avenue for appeals of code enforcement action is the Court system. The ordinance, drafted by the city attorney’s office, clarifies this issue. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held their public hearing on January 19th. No comments have been received. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 on a motion to approve the amendment as written. The members of the Commission agreed that the proper avenue for appeal of code enforcement issues was the court system. 4. Public Comment. No comments have been received. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the ordinance as written. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the draft ordinance and approve or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance B. PC Staff report dated 1-19-2021 C. PC Minutes - Draft References Sections 2-41, 66-253, and 78-96 of the Orono City Code. Item No.: 12 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000001 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Appeals Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS RELATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL: SECTIONS 2-41, 66-253, and 78-96 OF THE ORONO CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Title I, Article II, Sec. 2-41 of the Orono City Code is amended as follows, underlined language is an addition and strikethrough language is removed: Sec. 2-41. - Right to administrative appeal. Except as otherwise provided, if any person shall be aggrieved by any administrative decision of the city administrator or any other city official, or any board or commission not having within its structure an established review schedule or an appellate procedure, such aggrieved person is entitled to a full hearing before the council upon serving a written request upon the mayor and city clerk. Such request shall contain a general statement setting forth the administrative decision to be challenged by the appellant. An appeal under this section shall be filed no later than ten days following the decision. Failure to file an appeal within ten days of the decision shall constitute a waiver of the person's right to a hearing. A hearing on the appeal shall occur at the next regularly scheduled council meeting that is at least seven days after the appeal is served. At such hearing, the appellant may present any evidence he deems pertinent to the appeal; but the city shall not be required to keep a verbatim record of the proceedings. The mayor, or other officer presiding at the hearing, may, in the interest of justice or to comply with time requirements and on the mayor's own motion or the motion of the appellant, the city clerk, or a member of the council, adjourn the hearing to a more convenient time or place; but such time or place shall be fixed and determined before adjournment so as to avoid the necessity for formal notice of reconvening. An employee of the city who is aggrieved by an action or decision of another city employee that relates to their employment shall exhaust the grievance procedures set forth in the administrative and personnel policy before requesting a hearing before the city council. The city council's decision on appeal may only be appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. This section shall not apply to hearing officer decisions under section 50-32; decisions of an administrative officer under chapter 78; decisions of an administrative officer under chapter 82; or decisions of the planning director under section 78-1604.; code enforcement letters that warn a person of a potential criminal, civil, or administrative penalties; or any matter regarding a pending or actual criminal charge based on a violation of this code. Exhibit A SECTION 2. Title V, Chapter 66, Article VIII of the Orono City Code is amended as follows, underlined language is an addition and strikethrough language is removed: Sec. 66-253. - Payment. Once notice of an administrative violation is given, the person responsible for the violation shall, within 14 calendar days of issuance of the notice, pay the stated violation penalty to the city. At any time before the payment of the administrative penalty is due, the person who has been given notice of an alleged violation may request to appear before the city council to contest the request for payment of the penalty. After a hearing before the council, the council may determine to withdraw the request for payment or to renew the request for payment. Because the payment of the administrative penalty is voluntary, there shall be no appeal from the decision of the council. A notice of an administrative violation does not include code enforcement letters that warn an individual of possible criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. Further, any criminal matter must be adjudicated through the court system, and may not be appealed to the city council, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.861 subd. 1. SECTION 3. Title VI, Chapter 78, Article II of the Orono City Code is amended as follows, underlined language is an addition and strikethrough language is removed Sec. 78-96. - Board established. (a) A zoning board of appeals and adjustments is established. The planning commission is constituted as the board of appeals and adjustments. The board shall have the following powers: (1) To hear and decide appeals from any affected person where it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision or determination made by an administrative officer in the enforcement of this chapter. (2) To hear requests for variances in accordance with this chapt er. (3) To exercise other functions as provided in this chapter. (b) Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the council, the board may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The board shall provide for a record of its proceedings, which shall include the minutes of its meetings, its findings and the action taken on each matter heard by it, including the final order . (c) An order, requirement, decision, or determination does not include code enforcement letters that warn an individual of possible criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. Further, any criminal matter must be adjudicated through the court system, and may not be appealed to the city council, pursuant to Minn. Stat. §412.861 subd. 1. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective __________________________. ADOPTED this day of , 2021, by the City Council of the City of Orono. CITY OF ORONO BY: Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: #LA21-01, City of Orono Text Amendment related to appeals Public Hearing Issue An interested party has the right to appeal decisions made by the city, outlined in several sections of the code, depending on the source of the regulation to be appealed. In the course of administering code enforcement activities, however, the appropriate appeal process is through the court system. The City Code is not clear on this issue. Solution The City Attorney recommends amending the city code with the proposed text to clarify the appeal process when responding to potential criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1.Are there any issues or concerns with this proposal? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Application Summary: The proposed text amendment will guide the process for appeals of decisions of the city differently than appeals from code enforcement action. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as drafted. Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 1 5. LA21-01 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO APPEALS (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart noted any resident has the right to appeal the decision by any member of the City Staff and any board decision. That does currently apply to those that are facing action through code enforcement process and that is not the appropriate mechanism to review those. This proposed text amendment clarifies that if one is going to appeal a decision from a zoning code enforcement official, the process to do that is through the legal system, working with a prosecuting attorney and if necessary, the County court system. This ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney and he recommends approval. The only change is it clarifies the appeal process for those actions related to code enforcement. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:31 p.m. Chair Ressler said it seems pretty straightforward, a bit of a housekeeping item, and seem like a good way to tidy up the code. He asked if anyone is opposed to this change. Erickson moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve La21-01 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Appeals. Exhibit C AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To consider a change to the definition of “dry-buildable”. 2. Background. In the review of the Subdivision Code (LA19-000065) last summer, the City Council directed staff to adjust the definition of dry-buildable. Dry-Buildable is most frequently used in the application of the subdivision code in establishing buildable lots in a given proposed subdivision. Dry-Buildable equates to the minimum amount of land area necessary to support a house site and where applicable, the septic sites. The Council suggested increasing the steepness acceptable for minimum lot areas, up to 3:1 (33.33%) slope. Staff recommends a 30% slope simply for ease of communication. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning commission held their public hearing on January 19th. Commissioners questioned the origins of the 30% and some voiced concerns with having a limit at all. Ultimately, the Commission recommended approval of the text amendment as drafted with a vote of 6-0. 4. Public Comment. No comments related to the proposed ordinance have been received. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the ordinance as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve or amend the proposed ordinance. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance B. PC Staff report dated January 19, 2021 C. PC Minutes - Draft D. Dry Buildable discussion. Item No.: 13 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000002 – City of Orono Text Amendment – Dry Buildable Definition Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF DRY-BUILDABLE THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions shall be amended by adding and deleting text for to the definition of Dry Buildable to read as follows: Dry buildable means that portion of the lot not encumbered by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river, wetlands, bluffs, or slopes steeper greater than 30 percent. 18 percent. SECTION 2. Section 82-2 Definitions shall be amended by adding and deleting text for the definition of Dry Buildable to read as follows: Dry buildable land means that portion of the lot not encumbered by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river, wetlands, bluffs, or slopes steeper greater than 30 percent.18 percent. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this _____ day of _____, 2021 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker Pioneer newspaper the week of ________, 2021. Exhibit A LA21-02 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: #LA21-02 City of Orono Text Amendment related to the definition of dry buildable: Public Hearing Issue Dry Buildable is important in determining lot areas during subdivision. In non-sewered zoning districts, each lot must provide 2 acres of dry buildable land (for septic systems and the home site) and in sewered areas, each lot must have 0.5 acres, for the home site. Slopes greater than 18% are excluded from the area of land calculated as dry buildable currently. In the development of the Subdivision Code (LA19-000065) last summer, the City Council noted the definition for Dry-Buildable, and inquired as to the origin for the 18% limit. The Council felt that 18% was too restrictive, and after staff could find no historical or statutory reason for the 18%, and directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment to move the limit to a 3:1 slope. Staff proposes a 30% limit, for ease of communication. Solution The attached draft ordinance in Exhibit A completes this task. Staff’s analysis of the issue is attached as Exhibit B. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1.Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as drafted List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance Exhibit B. Dry Buildable Discussion Application Summary: The City is proposing a text amendment that would alter what is considered dry buildable. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as drafted. Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 6. LA21-02 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DRY BUILDABLE DEFINITION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart said during the course of the review of the subdivision code last fall, a question came up at the City Council level about the definition of dry buildable. At the time it was 18% and one of the Councilmember questioned why it is 18%. In a review of the City codes and history they could not really find any basis for the 18% so the Council directed Staff to draft an ordinance amendment to change it to 3-to-1 slope or 33.33%. To try and keep things easy to communicate, Staff is recommending the definition of dry buildable be changed to 30%. The Planning Commission will note it is in two different sections, one is in the zoning code and the other is in the subdivision code; they will see more of the dry buildable as it relates to the development of plats in subdivisions than they will in the zoning ordinance but both sections reference dry buildable as 18% so they are changing it in both locations. Staff does not see this as a big issue and it will have a potential impact on lots that have marginal or extra steep slopes where more of those parcels can be used at the calculated dry buildable. However, Staff does not think it will be a huge issue. Gettman asked what percentage the neighboring cities are running with. Barnhart replied he summarized his research in the attachment and he does not recall what others do. Dry buildable is a relatively unique Orono-ism, other cities have “usable” or something like that, but he does not know the percentages off the top of his head. Gettman noted 30% is significant and 18% is a decent slope and he is trying to understand the jump. He asked if anyone else has any experience as when he thinks about a 30% slope that is really steep. Barnhart stated part of the argument made during this subdivision review was when Mr. Gronberg, a surveyor, commented that a slope from the front yard to a walk-out basement is about 23%. That may be true and they do not apply that level of detail for the zoning review. In subdivisions it will be seen when they have steep slopes like they saw in the Shoreland Estates project earlier this evening. Barnhart is not too worried about the 18-30% because they care about dry buildable if one can fit a house site and septic locations. Regardless of the slope, the septic locations follow their own regulations so it is really a question of what the City is comfortable allowing and the Council suggested 30% is fine. Gettman said it is basically an arbitrary number. Barnhart does not have any mechanisms to stay at 18%, 3-to-1 is a pretty common, maintainable slope and they generally do not suggest grading steeper than that if they want to maintain that. He thinks 3-to-1 is a reasonable number. McCutcheon asked Barnhart what was the number for the average walkout. Barnhart said going off memory it is about 23% or something like that. Gettman said it will vary depending on the depth of the house. Barnhart said of course. Bollis asked what they consider a bluff percentage-wise and he thinks it must be more than 45 degrees. Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 Barnhart said the bluff is several things; there is a steepness, length, and height. A bluff also has to terminate at the shoreline; there are several factors that apply and are specifically established by the State in terms of bluff definition. He clarified they are not proposing to change that and they do not want to increase it to a really steep level because they are trying to establish buildable minimums. If it is a really steep slope, for example, 135 Orono Orchard Road is really the only time it has come into play since Barnhart came here and it had a very pronounced peninsula in the middle and was surrounded by wetlands. He noted steep slopes came into play there. This change is not going to add a lot to that but Barnhart thinks 30% is a good suggestion for a maintainable slope. Chair Ressler said 30% is slightly “flatter” than 33%. He noted that 18% is probably not enough and based on the feedback of Staff and City Council it is something that has probably been researched well enough and they must pick a number. He said it seems like a reasonable text amendment in his opinion. Bollis would be in favor of removing this from the code altogether and not having a percentage towards dry buildable at all. However, they are clearly picking an arbitrary number here. Barnhart thinks it is important that they have a dry buildable number – if they do not, for example, the subdivision they reviewed earlier tonight is in the sewered area and City code requires the gross land area for the east lot be 2 acres minimum and because it is sewered, it had to be ½ acre of dry buildable. He does not know the origin but that is the requirement for sewer parcels. For non-sewer parcels they need a minimum of 2 acres of dry buildable to site a house and two septic sites. That is why the dry buildable is important in non-sewered areas. He clarified for sewered area they do not have to worry about the septic issue and just need a site for the house. That is why he would recommend they still keep a dry buildable minimum, because removing that introduces a lot more analysis that will be necessary to be sure they are not opening up Pandora’s box. Bollis said in that case the septic would be the key to the whole thing and there would be no reason for this calculation. If they can’t fit a septic there, they would not be able to subdivide it and that would be dictated by the steepness of the lot. He feels like this is just going way above and beyond and clarified he has always been against the 18% as it made no sense because they were creating bigger slopes to create walkouts than the 18% and that is clearly buildable. Chair Ressler noted this is a step in the right direction. Bollis agreed but he still thinks they could do away with it; however, perhaps they want to take baby- steps in that direction. Chair Ressler said this is a good start and they can always take the feedback and entertain a change later on. He knows the City Council wants to be cautious to make sure there are not positions being created that would make it more difficult to measure. He asked if anyone is opposed to the 30% as being too large. Erickson moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA 21-02 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Dry Buildable Definition as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Barnhart asked if they had a public hearing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 Chair Ressler did not and noted there is no one in the room but he will do a public hearing and they can go back to that motion. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. There were no public comments regarding the application. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:41 p.m. Erickson moved, Gettman seconded, to approve La21-02 City of Orono Text Amendment Related To Dry Buildable Definition as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: October 12, 2020 TO: Mayor Walsh, City Council Dustin Rief, City Administrator FROM: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development Director RE: Density discussion The City Council requested information regarding the origins of the 18 percent rule as it applies to the existing and proposed definitions of “dry buildable”. Dry Buildable is used in the development of lots as part of a subdivision and is intended to remove lands that are either not buildable due to protected status (water, wetlands, bluffs) or their characteristics make development of home or septic sites not appropriate without major grading that is likely to change the nature of the development. There is a minimum of 0.5 acres of contiguous dry-buildable for sewered lots, and 2 contiguous acres for non sewered lots. Dry buildable has been referenced in ordinances since at least 1976, but not defined until May, 2018 (Ord 206 3rd series) as part of a general clean-up of ordinance definitions. Historically, dry buildable had only been applied to subdivisions, in the creation of lots. Steep slopes were identified as those 12% or greater when the city adopted the DNRs Shoreland regulations in February, 1992. Those same regulations identify toe and top of slope, referencing an 18% grade below or above a bluff. In researching this question, the 18% designation of steep slopes, staff reviewed the state rules and statutes regarding septic systems and Shoreland rules, and the city code regarding floodplain, Shoreland management, and septic rules. Staff could find no reference in those sources specifically referencing 18%, the only place it is mentioned is in the definition of toe and top of bluff. Given there is no state definition of dry-buildable, the City Council may establish their own definition of dry buildable to include or exclude any slope desired. The slope definition could also be removed. Dry Buildable (Zoning Code) Dry buildable means that portion of the lot not encumbered by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river, wetlands, bluffs, or slopes greater than 18 percent. Dry buildable land (Subdivision Code) means land area occurring within the property lines of a parcel or lot, excluding drainageways, flowage areas, floodplains, wetlands, marshland or slopes of 18 percent or greater. Exhibit D The graphics below illustrate the comparative slopes. Exhibit A Definitions. City definitions: Lot area (Zoning Code) means the area of a lot in a horizontal plane bounded by the lot lines, but not including any area occupied by the waters of a duly recorded lake or river or wetland or area which has been dedicated as public right-of-way. Lot area, minimum, (Subdivision Code) means minimum area required for each proposed lot as prescribed in chapter 78. In rural zones not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of wetlands, public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property. All rural lots must comply with chapter 58, article II. In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in chapter 78 or half-acre, whichever is less (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property), and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a wetland or floodplain area. Steep Slope means lands having average slopes of 12 percent or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. Bluff means a topographic feature, such as a hill, cliff or embankment, having the following characteristics (An area with an average slope of less than 18 percent over a distance of 50 feet or more shall not be considered part of the bluff): (1) Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2) The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; (3) The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (4) The slope must drain toward the water body. Bluff, toe of the, means the lower point of the lowest 50-foot segment with an average slope exceeding 18 percent. If the lowest such point is lakeward of the OHWL, the OHWL will be defined as the toe. Bluff, top of the, means that point on the cross section of a bluff below which the slope becomes more than 18 percent and above which the average slope for a distance of 50 feet or more is 18 percent or less. Minnesota Administrative Rules 6120.2500 Definitions: Steep slope. Subp 15b. "Steep slope" means land where agricultural activity or development is either not recommended or described as poorly suited due to slope steepness and the site's soil characteristics, as mapped and described in available county soil surveys or other technical reports, unless appropriate design and construction techniques and farming practices are used in accordance with the provisions of these regulations. Where specific information is not available, steep slopes are lands having average slopes over 12 percent, as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs. Septic rules. Mn Rules 7080.2230 subpart B. “At-grade systems must not be installed in areas with slopes greater than 25 percent.” AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To grant an extension to the final Master Development Plan approval for the 56 unit apartment building at 2475 Kelley Parkway. 2. Background. In April, 2020, the City Council approved the final Master Development Plan which was the final step in the approval necessary to facilitate construction of the 56 unit 2 ½ story apartment building on a vacant lot at 2475 Kelley Parkway immediately east of the Orono Dentist office. The Resolution of approval included the statement: The approvals granted by this resolution runs 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 for the principal building shall be obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, if not permit is issued or extension granted by the City Council, the City Council may declare the approvals granted within this resolution as null and void on that date (April 13, 2021). (Emphasis added) 3. Request. COVID delayed construction of the project, and the applicant requests an Extension for one year. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the extension to April 13, 2022. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Resolution 7085 B. Extension request Item No.: 14 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000001 – Neil Weber o/b/o Orono Apartments LLC, 2475 Kelley Parkway, Final Master Development Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DG Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this request is to gain Council approval for the replacement of Bobcat #452 with a 2021 Bobcat T66 Tracked Bobcat skid steer from Lano Equipment 2. Background. Bobcat #452 is a 2003 Bobcat model S250 Skid wheel loader that has been in service for 18 years with 3600+ hours on it. In the last 3 years we have had to spend over $4000.00 in maintenance. Public Works utilizes the bobcat for numerous tasks from loading material on trucks to digging, plowing and sweeping, easement mowing to mention a few tasks. The unit is used on a daily basis. 3. Cost. The City received the quoted listed below which is based on state contract pricing. Lano has the state contract for Bobcat. The unit will be traded in for $16,000.00 to help offset costs. The total cost including trade will be around $ 45,155.69 Component Company / Model Cost Bobcat T66 Lano Equipment Loretto, MN $ 45,155.69 4. Funding. Funding will be provided from the Improvement Equipment Outlay Fund. The 2021 EOY projected fund balance is $ 205,103. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend replacement of Bobcat 452. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve replacement of skid steer #452, with a 2021 T66 tracked Bobcat from Lano Equipment. Exhibits None Item No.: 15 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Replacement of Bobcat Skid Steer unit #452 Presenter: DJ Goman Public Works Supervisor Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is announce the resignation of Jason Goehring our current Parks and Golf Course Supervisor and to inform the council of efforts to fill the maintenance worker vacancy within Public Works. 2. Resignation. Mr. Jason Goehring submitted his resignation and 2 weeks’ notice. His last day with the city will be 15 February 2021. Jason has done an excellent job for the city in his role as the Parks and Golf Course Supervisor for the last 3 years and as a part time assistant golf course superintendent for several years before that. While we will miss him here on staff; we also wish him well as he takes on new challenges and roles of increased responsibility. 3. Recruitment. The Parks and Golf Course Superintendent position is critical to meet maintaining our parks system, golf course, trails and outdoor public spaces. The selection process for the vacant position will involve advertising the position, application screening, an interview panel and reference checking. Upon completion of the process a candidate will be presented to the council for consideration for appointment. 4. Position Description. The position description has been revised based on lessons learned over the past few years. The revised description includes description of duties related to community events planning and winter maintenance activities management. Further staff is proposing the title be changed from supervisor to Superintendent and an FLSA status of Exempt. 5. Timeline. The timeline for the process is as follows: When What 8-26 February 2021 Advertise Position 15 February 2021 Jason Goehring’s Last Day 1-5 March 2021 Review Applications 8-12 March 2021 1st Round Interviews 15-19 March 2021 2st Round Interviews 29 March 2021 Council Approval/Appointment NLT 12 April 2021 New Employees First Day COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Information. Exhibits A. Job Description (Revised February 2021) Item No.: 16 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Parks and Golf Course Superintendent Recruitment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF ORONO Position Title: Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Superintendent Document Date: February 3, 2021 Department: Public Works Accountable to: Public Works Director/City Engineer FLSA Status: Non-Exempt Nature of Work Plans, organizes, directs, supervises, and evaluates the activities of staff and contractors engaged in the improvement and maintenance of city parks, trails, natural/open space, grounds, playground equipment, lstreetscapesake access points, and golf course as well as overseeing the recreation and events planning with in the parks system. Supervision Received and Exercised This position is supervised by the Public Works Director and upon receiving guidance from the Director operates independently to supervise the work of the Maintenance maintenance and recreation personnel. 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. • Leads and manages the daily, periodic, and emergency maintenance and repair activities to maintain the City’s parks, trails and golf course in safe and operational/useable condition. • directs the maintenance practices of the golf course, supervising the planting and growing of various turf grasses, ensuring proper maintenance of equipment, lead, direct and train employees regarding safe performance practices, ensures proper mixing and application of golf course chemicals/fertilizers • Plans and manages the maintenance of other city grounds and open spaces. • Prepare project plans, specifications, and contracts and also provide management oversight for work/projects assigned. • Direct and participate in maintaining city parks, trails, snow plowing and equipment maintenance. • Assist local civic and business groups in the preparation of special events held at the Golf course or within the parks. • Assists with the implementation of the comprehensive safety program for employees; • Communicates with the general public in a professional manor and sets the example for, excellent Formatted: Font: (Default) Times New Roman, 11 pt The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer customer service. • Interviews, hires, trains and supervises a staff of employees for the purpose of maintaining the properties. The superintendent has authority to terminate employment of seasonal subordinates. • Supervises the Golf Course and Park Staff. • Works with the other Public Works Supervisors in developing daily, weekly, and seasonal work plans to ensure effective and efficient maintenance operations. • Coordinate the bidding of equipment and materials for parks, trails and the golf course. • Establish and maintain safety programs related to parks, trails and the golf course. • Assist Public Works Director in preparing short term and long term goals and objectives for Parks, Trails and the Golf course • Assist in developing an annual budget covering all functions of the Parks, Trails and the Golf course, and monitor expenditures to ensure compliance with the budget. • Staff the Park Commission as needed. • Act as liaison to assigned partner organizations and with community groups for volunteer activities within the parks. • Maintains a variety of records relating to inspections and maintenance activity. • Drives trucks and operates equipment of various sizes and weights in loading, hauling and unloading various equipment or materials. • Serves as the city’s tree inspector and assistant weed inspector. • Assists with Snow Plowing during the winter months. • 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. • 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. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • 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. 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). Minimum Requirements • High School Diploma or equivalent. • Five (5) years of experience in parks or golf course maintenance. • Two (2) years of experience planning and coordinating projects. • Two (2) years of experience as crew leader, field supervisor, or equivalent. • Valid MN Class “B” Driver’s License or ability to obtain within one-year of employment. • 2 year turf certificate • Certified tree inspector or able to require within 6 month of employment • Current state certification or licensing as a pesticide applicator. • Must live within a 30 minute travel time of the Orono Public Works facility within one (1) year of employment. • No physical limitation required. • Satisfactory results from drug test, physical examination, motor vehicle records check, and criminal background investigation. Desirable Qualifications • Ten (10) years of parks or golf course experience. • Five (5) to seven (7) supervisory experience. • Certified Arborist • Bachelor's degree with major work in turf management, horticulture, or park management. Physical Demands and Working Environment See Physical and Environmental Addendum AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: DG Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this request is to gain Council approval for the replacement of Trailer #482 with a 2021 Felling Trailer from Lano Equipment. 2. Background. Trailer #482 is a 1992 Tow master trailer that has been in service for 29 years. Public Works utilizes this trailer for hauling equipment and supplies to and from job sites. The new trailer will be a deck over to allow for safer transporting of equipment and the related attachments than the traditional raised fender trailer we currently use 3. Cost. Lano has the state contract for Felling. The total cost including trade will be around $11,199.44. The City received quote listed below based on state contract pricing. The old trailer will be sent to auction. Component Company / Model Cost Felling FT14-2 Lano Equipment Loretto, MN $ 11,199.44 4. Funding. Funding will be provided from the Improvement Equipment Outlay Fund. The 2021 EOY projected fund balance is $205,103. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend replacement of Trailer 482. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Approve replacement of Trailer #482, with a 2021 Felling Trailer from Lano Equipment. Exhibits None Item No.: 17 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: Replacement of Trailer Unit #482 Presenter: DJ Goman Public Works Supervisor Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO 1. Purpose. The Orono Police Department has completed a draft for a Body Worn Camera policy and is allowing public comment and input regarding this policy. Exhibit A. Policy - Portable Audio-Video Recorders - Draft Item No.: 18 Date: February 08, 2021 Item Description: Body Camera Policy – Public Comment Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Police Department Report ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT “Dedicated to fairness, service, pride and quality” POLICY: 5010.0 EFFECTIVE DATE: REVIEW DATE: APPROVED BY: Title: Portable Audio / Video Recorders Distribution: Sworn Personnel Purpose: It is our mission to provide superior law enforcement services through the advancement of technology. To further achieve this goal, body-worn cameras will be used for the purpose of documenting evidence and accurately capturing contacts between members of the department and the public. The Orono Police Department is committed to the utilization of body-worn cameras as a means to reach this goal. This policy provides guidelines for the use of portable audio/video recording devices by members of this department while in the performance of their duties (Minn. Stat. 626.8473). Portable audio/video recording devices include all recording systems whether body-worn, weapon mounted camera, handheld or integrated into portable equipment. This policy does not apply to mobile squad car audio/video recordings, interviews or interrogations conducted at any Orono Police Department facility, undercover operations, wiretaps or eavesdropping (concealed listening devices). 5010.01 Definitions: 1. Portable Recording System (PRS) or Portable Recorder: A device worn by a member that is capable of both video and audio recording of the member’s activities and interactions with others or collecting digital multimedia evidence as part of an investigation and as provided in Minn. Stat. 13.825 2. MGDPA or Data Practices Act: refers to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. 13.01, et seq. 3. Records Retention Schedule: refers to the General Records Retention Schedule for Minnesota Cities found at: https://www.mcfoa.org/vertical/sites/%7B067FFB58-E3CD-42BA-9FB1- 11EFC7933168%7D/uploads/General_Records_Retention_Schedule_201 8.pdf Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 2 4. Law Enforcement Related Information: means information captured or available for capture by use of a portable recording device that has evidentiary value because it documents events with respect to a stop, arrest, search, citation or charging decision. 5. Evidentiary Value: means that the information may be useful as proof in a criminal prosecution, related civil or administrative proceeding, further investigation of an actual or suspected criminal act, or in considering an allegation against a law enforcement agency or officer. 6. General Citizen Contact: means an informal encounter with a citizen that is not and does not become law enforcement-related or adversarial, and a recording of the event would not yield information relevant to an ongoing investigation. Examples include, but are not limited to, assisting a motorist with directions, summoning a tow truck, or receiving generalized concerns from a citizen about crime trends in his or her neighborhood. 7. Official Duties: for purposes of this policy, means that the officer is on duty and performing authorized law enforcement services on behalf of this department. 5010.02 Policy: The Orono Police Department may provide members with access to Portable Recorders for use during the performance of their duties. The use of recorders is intended to enhance the mission of the Department by accurately capturing contacts between members of the Department and the public. The Chief of Police or their designee may supersede this policy by providing specific instructions for Portable Recorder use to individual officers, or providing specific instructions pertaining to particular events or specialized details. This policy is a living document and any changes to the Portable Recorder policy must be approved by the Chief of Police. 5010.03 Coordinator: The Chief of Police or the authorized designee shall designate a coordinator responsible for (Minn. Stat. 626.8473; Minn. Stat. 13.825): 1. Establishing procedures for the security, storage and maintenance of data and recordings. a. The coordinator shall work with the Custodian of Records and the member assigned to coordinate the use, access and release of protected information to ensure that procedures comply with requirements of the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act (MGDPA) and other applicable laws (Minn. Stat. 13.01 et seq.) 2. Establishing procedures for accessing data and recordings. Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 3 a. These procedures must include the process to obtain written authorization for access to non-public data by Orono Police Department members and members of other governmental entities and agencies. 3. Establishing procedures for logging or auditing access. 4. Establishing procedures for transferring, downloading, tagging or marking events 5. Establishing an inventory of Portable Recorders including: a. Total number of devices owned or maintained by the Orono Police Department. b. Daily record of the total number deployed and used by members and, if applicable, the precinct or district in which the devices were used. c. Total amount of recorded audio and video data collected by the devices and maintained by the Orono Police Department. 6. Preparing the biennial audit required by Minn. Stat. 13.825, Subd. 9. 7. Notifying the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) in a timely manner when new equipment is obtained by the Orono Police Department that expands the type or scope of surveillance capabilities of the department’s Portable Recorders. 5010.04 Member Privacy Expectation: All recordings made by members on any department-issued device at any time or while acting in an official capacity of this department, regardless of ownership of the device, shall remain the property of the Department. Members shall have no expectation of privacy or ownership interest in the content of these recordings. 5010.05 Member Responsibilities: Prior to going into service, each uniformed officer/sergeant will be responsible for making sure that he/she is equipped with a Portable Recorder issued by the Department, and that the recorder is in good working order (Minn. Stat. 13.825). If the recorder is not in working order or the member becomes aware of a malfunction at any time, the member shall promptly report the failure to his/her supervisor and obtain a functioning device as soon as reasonably practicable. Uniformed members shall wear the recorder in a conspicuous manner or otherwise notify persons that they are being recorded, whenever reasonably practicable (Minn. Stat. 626.8473). Except weapon mounted cameras will be placed on an officer’s duty weapon, placed in a holster or firearms storage device and not otherwise conspicuously placed or announced. Any member assigned to a non-uniformed position may carry an approved Portable Recorder at any time the member believes that such a device may be Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 4 useful. Unless conducting a lawful recording in an authorized undercover capacity, non-uniformed members must wear the recorder in a conspicuous manner when in use or otherwise notify persons that they are being recorded, whenever reasonably practicable. When using a Portable Recorder, the assigned member shall record his/her name, employee number and the current date and time at the beginning and the end of the shift or other period of use, regardless of whether any activity was recorded. This procedure is not required when the recording device and related software captures the user’s unique identification and the date and time of each recording. Members must document the existence of a recording in any report or other official record of the contact, including any instance where the recorder malfunctioned or the member deactivated the recording (Minn. Stat. 626.8473). Members must include the reason for deactivation. 5010.06 Activation of the Portable Recorder: This policy is not intended to describe every possible situation in which the Portable Recorder should be used, although there are many situations where its use is appropriate. Members must activate the Portable Recorder any time the member believes it would be appropriate or valuable to record an incident. The Portable Recorder must be activated in any of the following situations: 1. All enforcement and investigative contacts including stops and field interview (FI) situations 2. Traffic stops including, but not limited to, traffic violations, stranded motorist assistance and all crime interdiction stops 3. Self-initiated activity in which a member would normally notify the HCSO Dispatch Center 4. Any other contact that becomes adversarial after the initial contact in a situation that would not otherwise require recording 5. If assigned and equipped a weapon mounted camera must be automatically activated for recordings upon the officer from removing the weapon from a holster or firearm storage device. Weapon mounted cameras are not intended to be used for situations 1, 2, 3, or 4, unless they involve a use of force incident involving the use of a firearm. The intended purpose of a weapon mounted cameral is for use of force encounters or incidents where the officer’s firearm is deployed from the officer’s holster and involves the use of a firearm. Officers have discretion to record or not record general citizen contacts. Members must remain sensitive to the dignity of all individuals being recorded and exercise sound discretion to respect privacy by discontinuing recording whenever it reasonably appears to the member that such privacy may outweigh Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 5 any legitimate law enforcement interest in recording. Requests by members of the public to stop recording should be considered using this same criterion. Recording must resume when privacy is no longer at issue unless the circumstances no longer fit the criteria for recording. At no time is a member expected to jeopardize his/her safety in order to activate a Portable Recorder or change the recording media. However, the recorder must be activated in situations described above as soon as reasonably practicable. Cessation of Recording Once activated, the Portable Recorder must remain on continuously until the member reasonably believes that his/her direct participation in the incident is complete or the situation no longer fits the criteria for activation. Recording may be stopped during significant periods of inactivity such as report writing or other breaks from direct participation in the incident. Surreptitious Recordings Minnesota law permits an individual to surreptitiously record any conversation in which one party to the conversation has given his/her permission (Minn. Stat. 626A.02). Members of the Department may surreptitiously record any conversation during the course of a criminal investigation in which the member reasonably believes that such a recording will be lawful and beneficial to the investigation. Members shall not surreptitiously record another department member without a court order unless lawfully authorized by the Chief of Police or the authorized designee. Explosive Device Many Portable Recorders, including body-worn cameras (BWC) and audio/video transmitters, emit radio waves that could trigger an explosive device. Therefore, these devices must not be used where an explosive device may be present. 5010.07 Data Security Safeguards: Members are prohibited from using department-issued Portable Recorders and recording media for personal use and are prohibited from making personal copies or recordings created while on duty or while acting in their official capacity. Members are also prohibited from retaining recordings of activities or information obtained while on duty, whether the recording was created with department- issued or personally owned recorders. Members shall not duplicate or distribute such recordings, except for authorized legitimate department business purposes. All such recordings shall be retained at the Department. Members are prohibited from using personally owned recording devices while on duty without the express consent of the Chief of Police. Personally owned Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 6 devices, including but not limited to computers and mobile devices, shall not be programmed or used to access or view agency Portable Recorder data. Any member who uses a personally owned recorder for department-related activities shall comply with the provisions of this policy, including retention and release requirements and must notify the on duty supervisor of such use as soon as reasonably practicable. Recordings shall not be used by any member for the purpose of embarrassment, harassment or ridicule. Officers shall not intentionally edit, alter, or erase any Portable Recorder data. Audits conducted in compliance with Minn. Stat. 13.825 Subd. 9, as may be amended from time to time, this agency shall obtain an independent biennial audio of its BWC program. 5010.08 Identification and Preservation of Recordings: 1. All Portable Recorder data shall be retained for a minimum of 90 days. There are no exceptions for erroneously recorded or non-evidentiary data. Each member is responsible for transferring the data from his or her camera in accordance with procedure by the end of each shift. All Portable Recorder data that is classified as non-evidentiary or is not maintained for training shall be destroyed after 90 days. 2. Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous, must be maintained for a minimum period of one year. 3. Certain kinds of BWC data must be retained for six years: a. Data that documents the use of deadly force by a peace officer, or force of a sufficient type or degree to require a use of force report or supervisory review. b. Data documenting circumstances that have given rise to a formal complaint against an officer. 4. Other data having evidentiary value shall be retained for the period specified in the Records Retention Schedule. When a particular recording is subject to multiple retention periods, it shall be maintained for the longest applicable period. 5. Upon written request by a Portable Recorder device data subject under 5010.11 of this policy, the agency shall retain a recording pertaining to that subject for an additional time period requested by the subject of up to 180 days. The agency will notify the requestor at the time of the request that the data will then be destroyed unless a new written request is received. 6. To assist with identifying and preserving evidentiary data and recordings, members must download, tag or mark the recordings in accordance with Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 7 procedure and document the existence of the recording in any related case report. A member must transfer, tag or mark recordings when the member reasonably believes: a. The recording contains evidence relevant to potential criminal, civil or administrative matters. b. A complainant, victim or witness has requested non-disclosure. c. A complainant, victim or witness has not requested non-disclosure but the disclosure of the recording may endanger the person. d. Disclosure may be an unreasonable violation of someone’s privacy. e. Medical or mental health information is contained. f. Disclosure may compromise an undercover officer or confidential informant. g. The recording or portions of the recording may be protected under the Minnesota Data Practices Act. 7. Any time a member reasonably believes a recorded contact may be beneficial in a non-criminal matter (e.g., a hostile contact), the member must promptly notify a supervisor of the existence of the recording. 8. Weapon mounted camera data and recordings will be downloaded into a password protected secured server site at the Orono Police Department. Downloads of data will be handled by the Chief of Police or the patrol sergeant. Patrol officers issued weapon mounted cameras will not be allowed to download their own data and will not be provided the password to access the recorded data. Patrol officers shall notify the Chief of Police or patrol sergeant of any data to be marked as required by this section. 5010.09 Review of Recorded Media Files: When preparing written reports, members may review their recordings as a resource. However, members shall not retain personal copies of recordings. Members must not use the fact that a recording was made as a reason to write a less detailed report. Supervisors are authorized to review relevant recordings any time they are investigating alleged misconduct or reports of meritorious conduct or whenever such recordings would be beneficial in reviewing the member’s performance. Recorded files may also be reviewed: 1. Upon approval by a supervisor, by any member of the Department who is participating in an official investigation, such as a personnel complaint, administrative investigation or criminal investigation. 2. Pursuant to lawful process or by court personnel who are otherwise authorized to review evidence in a related case. Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 8 3. In compliance with the Minnesota Data Practices Act request, if permitted or required by the Act, including pursuant to Minn. Stat. 13.82 Subd. 15, and in accordance with the Records Maintenance and Release Policy. All recordings must be reviewed by the Responsible Authority or designee prior to public release. Recordings that are clearly offensive to common sensibilities must not be publicly released unless disclosure is required by law or order of the court (Minn. Stat. 13.82 Subd. 7; Minn Stat. 13.825 Subd. 2). 5010.10 Accountability: Any member who accesses or releases recordings without authorization may be subject to discipline (See the Standards of Conduct and the Protected Information Policies) (Minn. Stat. 626.8473). 5010.11 Administering Access to BWC Data: 1. Members shall refer any non-employee seeking access to Portable Recorder data to the coordinator, appointed under 5010.03, who shall process the request in accordance with the MGDPA and other governing laws. 2. Data Subjects: Under Minnesota law, the following are considered data subjects for purposes of administering access to Portable Recorders data: a. Any person or entity whose image or voice is documented in the data b. The officer who collected the data c. Any other officer whose voice or image is documented in the data, regardless of whether that officer is or can be identified by the recording 3. Portable Recorders data is presumptively private: Portable Recorders recordings are classified as private data about the data subjects unless there is a specific law that provides differently. As a result: a. Portable Recorders data pertaining to people is presumed private, as is Portable Recorders data pertaining to businesses or other entities b. Some Portable Recorders data is classified as confidential (see 3 below) c. Some Portable Recorders data is classified as public (see 4 below) 4. Confidential Data: Portable Recorders data that is collected or created as part of an active criminal investigation is confidential. This classification takes precedence over the “private” classification listed above and the “public” classifications listed below. 5. Public Data: The following Portable Recorders data is public: Portable Audio/Video Recorders 5010.0 Page 9 a. Data documenting the discharge of a firearm by a peace officer in the course of duty, other than for training or the killing of an animal that is sick, injured, or dangerous. 5010.12 Agency Use of Data: 1. Supervisors and other assigned personnel may access Portable Recorder data for the purposes of reviewing or investigating a specific incident that has given rise to an inquiry or concern about officer misconduct or performance. 2. Nothing in this policy limits or prohibits the use of Portable Recorder data as evidence of misconduct or as a basis for discipline. 3. Supervisors and Field Training Officers may utilize Portable Recorder data with officers and trainees for the purpose of providing training, coaching, or feedback for individuals or group training purposes. 5010.13 Conclusion: The use of this technology will add a higher level of transparency of the professional services provided by the Orono Police Department. This device will also aid in the documentation of events to be used in an evidentiary manner. There needs to be an understanding that the camera view will not capture the entire incident or event, thus it cannot be construed that images are a complete representation of actions by officers and citizens. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To review the preliminary plat and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. 2. MN§462.358 Sub 3b. Application Deadline. The application was received on July 22, 2020 and considered to be complete on that date. The 120-Day review period expired on November 19, 2020, but the applicant agreed to extend the review period to February 23, 2021. 3. Background. An earlier version of this project was reviewed by the City Council on September 14, 2020 and October 26, 2020. Neighboring property owners’ concerns included average lake shore setback, the length of the road, traffic, the proposed density, and view impacts. The applicant reconfigured the proposal to address these concerns. To ensure transparency, the Planning Commission reviewed and held a public hearing on these changes in January. The public hearing was re-advertised. The current proposal includes subdividing the 20.14 acre parcel into 6 buildable lots and 4 outlots. Access to the site will be via a new private road off of Shoreline Drive, along the eastern property line. This road will terminate in a cul de sac with an island. The lots will be served by municipal sewer and private well. All lots are configured to meet the size and width requirements of the zoning ordinance. Lots 1-3 are separated from the lake by County Road 15. County rules prohibit the plat showing lots on both sides of right of way, so lots 1-3 are not lake lots until combined. These lots will be combined after platting with Outlots A-C. Until they are combined, lots 2 and 3 do not meet the width requirement because the width of non-lakeshore lots is measured at the front building setback line. The Planning Commission staff report provides additional analysis of the proposal, and is provided as Exhibit B. During the review, Staff and the Planning Commission commented or received comment on the following: Average Lake Shore (ALS). ALS was a focal discussion point during previous reviews. This proposal does not include an ‘artificial ALS’. During the Planning Commission review, remaining references to an existing Average Lake Shore setback line and the possible location of a home on lot 3 of Tanager Estates caused confusion, and have since been removed, as shown on revised preliminary plat, Exhibit A. ALS will be established at the time development is proposed on lake lots (1-3 and 5), based on the Code standard at that time. Road length. Some concerns with the length of the cul de sac were raised last fall. The City Code allows a maximum length of 1,000 feet. The City code does not prescribe how this is measured. The proposed road shows a distance of 997 feet, measured from its intersection with Shoreline through to the furthest point of cul de sac. The measurement does not follow the path of travel around the cul de sac. The neighbor’s counsel Mr. Aaron Dean (comments provided as Item No.: 19 Date: February 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000048 – Timothy Whitten o/b/o I Jacobs/A Jacobs Revocable Trust , 1700 Shoreline Drive Preliminary Plat – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO Exhibit J) suggest the measurement should be along the path of travel, which would result in a longer than 1,000 foot measurement. This method effectively discouraged cul de sac islands, which offer an opportunity for green space and landscaping in neighborhoods. If so suggested, the applicant will likely remove the cul de sac island. County Comments/ turn lane. Hennepin County, in their review of the project, provided the following comments related to access: “Access: Our preference remains that these homes connect to Heritage Lane. However, we understand this is not supported by the city or neighboring residents. Therefore, we will accept the continued use of the current driveway on Shoreline Drive with the addition of a westbound right-turn lane to support the increased trips and to proactively mitigate safety concerns. Right-of-Way: Sufficient right-of-way is needed to accommodate a right-turn lane at this location.” They also noted the requirement for 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, sidewalk and trail development, and landscaping.” – Hennepin County Comment dated August 17, 2020. Their full comments are provided as Exhibit G The neighboring property owner to the east has voiced concerns with any potential impacts a turn-lane would have on her property. The Planning Commission recommended that the applicant show that a turn lane can be accomplished without encroaching onto adjacent private property as part of the submittal to the City Council. Exhibit D shows the turn lane. This drawing was provided to Hennepin County for their comment. Hennepin County staff noted that the plan looks like a ‘good start’, and shared its recommended criteria, also attached. The County has not approved any work in the right of way at this stage. Lake Parking. The homes on lots 1-3 will be 580+ feet from the lake shore, and the Planning Commission anticipates users will choose to drive to be closer to their docks, to carry boating supplies, etc., and recommended the applicant show a solution to this concern. The preliminary plat shows three ‘head-in’ parking spaces along the west side of the proposed road. Staff recommends this be converted to parallel spaces, to minimum impacts to the wetlands, and to reduce conflicts with incoming traffic off of Shoreline Drive. Outlots. The version of the plan reviewed by the Planning Commission included 4 lakeshore outlots, adjacent to each buildable lot and the extension of the road. Staff and the planning Commission suggest that the outlot found at the extension of the road be eliminated, to remove a parcel with not defined uses or maintenance responsibility. In response, the preliminary plat shows this area absorbed into Outlot C, which will be combined with lot 1. Only three lakeshore outlots are proposed, all to be combined with adjacent lots. Density. Neighboring property owners voiced concerns with the density proposed. The Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Urban Low Density Residential (0.5-2 units per acre). The LR-1A zoning district requires a 2 acre minimum lot size, at the low end of the prescribed density range. The density proposed is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO Traffic on Shoreline. Comments have been made about the traffic levels on Shoreline Drive, and the impact these 6 lots may have on that volume. The County has not required additional improvements to the intersection, other than the comment on the west-bound right turn lane. Tree removal. Area residents have expressed concern with the impact to existing trees due to the project. The applicant has prepared an exhibit showing areas along the east and west property lines to be protected (Exhibit E). A corresponding covenant should be developed and recorded. There will be tree removal impacts along the proposed road. This same exhibit also shows the trees to be removed for the road. No trees within the 0-75 or bluff impact zones are proposed to be removed. These are the only trees that are protected by Ordinance. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 19, 2021. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 (Gettman) on a motion to approve the plat as proposed. Gettman did not state his reasons for denial. The members of the Commission were generally in agreement that the subdivision was appropriate and conforming to the subdivision regulations. The Commission wanted to specifically note that Heritage Lane not be used for this project. In addition, the Commission also highlighted the need to address certain areas, summarized above. The Planning Commission minutes are provided as Exhibit C. 5. Public Comment. Several verbal comments were received during the planning Commission public hearing: Aaron Dean, representing the owner of 1100 Millston spoke. He noted concerns with a turn lane impacting his client’s property, the average lake shore setback being in part based on a house that couldn’t be built, the cul de sac length, and traffic from 6 homes. Barbara Burwell, owner of 1100 Millston spoke with concerns with traffic impacts on Shoreline, the average lake shore setback, the dock lots, and reiterated Dean’s points. Steve Burns, representing Fox Hill, supported Burwell’s concern with the turn lane, but also did not want any traffic on Heritage. Michael Kulhman had concerns with the layout of the proposal, and echoed may of Dean’s comments, includes those related to traffic and trees. All public comments received in January are included in the draft Planning Commission attached as Exhibit C, starting on page 5. Staff’s responses to those comments are incorporated above. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat dated January 28, 2021 subject to the following conditions, and recommends the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval. a. All City Engineer comments addressed to their satisfaction, attached as Exhibit F. b. Watershed District (MCWD) approval. c. Hennepin County approval of the road access/ intersection. d. City Staff comments, attached as Exhibit H. e. Combination of outlots A, B, and C to Lots 1, 2, and 3. f. Covenants protecting tree areas as shown on the Exhibit E. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval, approval with conditions, or denial. If denial, the City Council should state reasons why. The Council may also supplement the suggested conditions. Exhibits A. Plat B. Staff report to Planning Commission C. Draft Planning Commission minutes D. Turn Lane Exhibit E. Tree protection information F. Engineering comment letter G. County comments H. Staff comment letter I. Correspondence from applicant J. Correspondence from neighboring property owner K. Grading Plan L. Road Plan M. Utility Plan N. Applicant email to neighbors RE revised drawings O. Shoreline trees photos. References City Council related packet October 26, 2020 Staff report and Exhibits furnished to the Planning Commission on January 19, 2021: Exhibit A. Application summary Exhibit B. Preliminary Plat Exhibit C. Grading Plan Exhibit D. Road Plan Exhibit E. Sewer Plan Exhibit F. Comment letter dated January 12, 2021 Exhibit G. County Comments dated August 17, 2020 Exhibit H. Email to neighbors Exhibit I. Extension to February 23, 2021 Exhibit J. Council minutes 9-14-20 Exhibit K. Council minutes 10-26-2020 Exhibit L. Letter from applicant Exhibit M. Comments from Burwell representative Exhibit N. Conservation plan supplement Exhibit O. Original Conservation Design Plan Exhibit P. Mailing Information Council Exhibit A Co u n c i l E x h i b i t A The applicant has extended the review period to February 23, 2021. To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: January 19, 2021 Subject: #LA20-48, Timothy Whitten, Whitten Associates o/b/o I Jacobs/A Jacobs Revocable Trust, 1700 Shoreline Drive, Preliminary Plat Background The sketch plan for this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on March 16, 2020 as LA20-000014. The preliminary plat was reviewed by the Planning Commission in August 2020, and the City Council in September and October of that year. The Council received comments related to the Average Lakeshore setback line, the length of the road, and other concerns and ultimately tabled action. In response to these comments, the applicant reconfigured the plan, removing one lot and adjusting the street design. To address concerns that the plan has changed such that public notice wasn’t sufficiently given, the project is being re-presented to the Commission, and a second public hearing is scheduled. Proposal This preliminary plat (Exhibit B) subdivides the 20.14 acres into 6 buildable lots and 4 outlots. All buildable lots will be served by municipal sewer and individual wells. The property currently includes one principal structure and several accessory buildings, including a guest house, a well house, and a guard house. It is understood that these structures will be removed. The parcel has frontage on both Tanager Lake (to the north) and Smith Bay (to the south, across Shoreline Drive). The site includes a large wetland on the south third of the lot, and a smaller wetland on the north side of the lot. The northern third of the lot, in addition to the wetland, includes steep slopes and well established vegetation. The middle third of the lot is dominated by grass lawn with sporadic trees. The project includes the extension of a private road that terminates in a cul de sac. The cul de sac bulb and the right of way appear to conform to city standards, and the road plan (Exhibit D) shows the road length to be 1000 feet long, including the portion of the cul de sac island. Access to the site is proposed via Shoreline Drive, in the location of the Application Summary: The applicant requests approval of a preliminary plat for a 6 lot single family residential development on the 20.14 acre property at 1700 Shoreline Drive. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions outlined below. Council Exhibit B FILE # LA20-48 January 19, 2021 Page 2 of 5 existing driveway along the east side of the property. The presence of the large wetland west of the driveway limits alternative locations for a road. Hennepin County is suggesting turn lanes off of Shoreline. Their comments are provided as Exhibit G. The property is in the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA) and eligible to be connected to sanitary sewer. The developer proposes serving all lots with municipal sanitary sewer via an extension of the main off of Heritage Lane. The sewer plan is provided as Exhibit E. Stormwater management is shown on the grading plan (Exhibit C) and proposes rain gardens between the homes on lots 2 and 3 and the wetland. Stormwater on the road will be collected at various points and diverted to the rain gardens for treatment before entering the wetland. It is recommended that the approval of the preliminary plat be subject to the approval of the watershed district and the city engineer. Analysis Lot area and width. The lots appear to meet the minimum standards for lot area and width: LR-1A Required Area (acres) Provided Area (acres) Required Width (feet) Conforming Buildable Gross Buildable Gross @BSL @OHWL/75 Lot 1* 0.5 2.0 1.08 3.25 200 225/ 225 Yes Lot 2* 0.5 2.0 1.06 3.67 200 213/213 Yes Lot 3* 0.5 2.0 2.20 4.69 200 216/ 222 Yes Lot 4 0.5 2.0 2.04 2.07 200 200 Yes Lot 5 (Lake) 0.5 2.0 2.78 3.09 200 257.16 200 Yes Lot 6 0.5 2.0 2.12 2.12 200 216 Yes *Lots 1, 2, and 3 are not shown with frontage on Lake Minnetonka, but due to County platting rules, outlots A, B, and C will be combined with the adjacent building lot after platting, establishing lake frontage. Lot area and lot width measurements above are based on this combination. The developer has not provided final house design, though house pads are illustrated. It is expected that each home would be individually designed to accommodate particular lot. Conservation design. A conservation design plan has been prepared, and is attached as Exhibit J. This plan supplements the original conservation design plan prepared for the Tanager Estates Plat, Exhibit K. The grading plan also shows proposed tree removal due to grading, utility, or home construction. This should not be considered as the final tree removal plan, but was FILE # LA20-48 January 19, 2021 Page 3 of 5 requested to get a sense of tree removal impacts expected. Staff has requested a list of the trees to be removed. No trees are shown to be removed within the 0-75 lake yard. Most of the environmentally sensitive areas of the property are located on the north side of the parcel. The plans show no activity in these areas that would impact the bluff and heavy Shoreland vegetation. The sanitary sewer line is shown outside of the bluff and buffers. Shoreland and bluff regulations, including additional setbacks and restrictions, will apply in these areas, further protecting these areas. The objectives of the Conservation design process are: (1) Protection and enhancement of drainage -ways and water quality; The project will conform to water protection reg ulations and policies. (2) Protection and enhancement of ecological communities; The large wetland and the sensitive bluffs will be preserved. (3) Reinforcement and establishment of ecological connections throughout the city; The development is based on Orono’s rural development principals . (4) Augmentation and preservation of view sheds including corridor enclosure and buffering; The site is not a designated view corridor. The addition of the homes is not likely to negatively impact the views into the area. (5) Preservation and improvement of views; and The location of the homes and the plat improvements are not expected to negatively impact the view into or out of the property. (6) Preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks. None have been identified The design plan comments on the control of invasive species, including Buckthorn, Reed Canary Grass and Garlic Mustard. It is suggested that the control methods be included in the development contract. Average Lake Shore setback (ALS). Average Lake Shore Setback was a major discussion topic during the original review. Once the plat is approved, the ALS for the lake lots will be applied as written in the city code. The configuration of the homes on lots 1, 2, and 3 reflect the current configuration of the ALS for 1700 Shoreline. The home locations may be different depending on the timing of construction on these lots. It is impossible to predict the ALS for the lake lots because the timing of home construction is not known. No “artificial” ALS is proposed with this plat. There was some question as to the average lake shore setback for lot 5. Until construction occurs on lot 3 of Tanager Estates, the ALS for lot 5 is the distance from the lake to the principal structure of 1100 Millston. Staff has requested an exhibit. Stormwater Quality Overlay District prescribes stormwater quality standards, a maximum amount of hardcover on a given lot. The subject parcel is in Tier 1, due to its proximity to Tanager and Lake Minnetonka. Upon subdivision, each lot will be assigned a Tier. These assignments have not been completed. It is anticipated that lots 1-3, and 5 will be Tier 1 (25%) and lot 4 and 6 may be Tier 2 (30%). Tier assignments will be made as part FILE # LA20-48 January 19, 2021 Page 4 of 5 of the final plat. All lots proposed are greater than 2.0 acres and are exempt from the structural coverage limitation. Parks. The plan does not include any park area. Park dedication will be satisfied by a cash donation for the 5 new lots. Landscaping. The applicant has not yet provided a landscaping plan. The subdivision code does require one shade tree per 40 feet of right of way. Staff recommends the trees be planted in clumps, a more natural effect rather than the traditional linear pattern found in suburban subdivisions. Fees. The following fees are anticipated for this proposed subdivision, to be due at the time of Final Plat approval, subject to the fee schedule applicable at that time. Engineer Comments The city engineer is completing his review and his comments will be added to the record once received. Staff recommends any approval be subject to City Engineer comments. Public Comments During its review of the proposal, the City Council received a number of comments related to the project. The City Council minutes from September 14, 2020 are attached as Exhibit J. The City Council minutes from October 26, 2020 are attached as Exhibit K. Then applicant has provided some feedback attached as Exhibit L, and the neighboring property owner to the east, Barbara Burwell has provided comments via her representative Aaron Dean. Those comments dated December 7, 2020 and October 26, 2020 are provided, combined in Exhibit M. These comments were based on the original design and changes made in September and October. The applicant also solicited comments on the new plans via email, attached as Exhibit H. The results of that inquiry are not know to staff. Per Lot fee x Number of New lots =Total fee Stormwater Truck Fee 8,060.00$ 5 40,300.00$ Sanitary sewer Connection 5,380.00$ 5 26,900.00$ Park dedication 5,550.00$ 5 27,750.00$ Total Fees 94,950.00$ SAC fees also due at time of Permit FILE # LA20-48 January 19, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? 2. Does the Planning Commission feel the project meets the standards of the Conservation Design Plan? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat, subject to the following conditions. 1. All City Engineer comments addressed to their satisfaction. 2. Watershed District (MCWD) approval. 3. Hennepin County approval of the road access/ intersection. 4. City Staff comments, attached as Exhibit F. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application summary Exhibit B. Preliminary Plat Exhibit C. Grading Plan Exhibit D. Road Plan Exhibit E. Sewer Plan Exhibit F. Comment letter dated January 12, 2021 Exhibit G. County Comments dated August 17, 2020 Exhibit H. Email to neighbors Exhibit I. Extension to February 23, 2021 Exhibit J. Council minutes 9-14-20 Exhibit K. Council minutes 10-26-2020 Exhibit L. Letter from applicant Exhibit M. Comments from Burwell representative Exhibit N. Conservation plan supplement Exhibit O. Original Conservation Design Plan Exhibit P. Mailing Information MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 16 1. LA20-48 WHITTEN AND ASSOCIATES, O/B/O I JACOBS/ A JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Tim Whitten, Whitten and Associates on behalf of the Jacobs Family Trust, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information and noted this is the second time the Planning Commission has reviewed this project. Previously the plan was for a 7-lot single-family subdivision. To address some concerns with the length of the road and Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) issues, the Applicant revised the plans. Regarding ALS, which was a major issue during the review at the Council level, this project is based on existing ALS. However, as it impacts these lots after platting is not known at this time and is not proposed; those will be established at the time based on the existing code and where the existing homes are. Barnhart said the ALS does impact this project because lots 1, 2, and 3 and the home sites envisioned for them, are based on the existing ALS line. Once this project is platted, the existing ALS line will go away and will not apply in part because of lot configuration with the lake; they are not proposing any artificial ALS for this project. Staff is recommending approval of this subdivision subject to engineer comments they expect in the next day or so in relation to road design, utility design, erosion control, and storm water management. Staff recommends approval subject to the Watershed District approval which will look at wetland buffers and storm water management. They are recommending approval of the project subject to Hennepin County approval of any improvements required associated with a new road off of Shoreline Drive. Currently the County is recommending a turn lane for west bound traffic into the subdivision. Staff has included some comments in the packet and many of them incorporate the comments identified previously and is a catch all to be sure that the project conforms to City code. Late this afternoon the Planning Commission received an email from a representative of a neighbor to the east and those comments were directly forwarded and a paper copy was provided. During their review they raised a number of concerns: they have asked for an opportunity to comment from both the representative and the neighbor and as a public hearing this would be appropriate for them to comment. A comment was in concern to overcrowding and a concern that six lots would overcrowd the site; as mentioned before the six lots conform to the lot area requirements, and even though some of them are right at 2 acres they all meet the minimum requirement. Regarding the ALS issue, many comments were based on the location of a potential house on lot 3 of Tanager Estates. When Tanager Estates was developed, they identified 3 sites that could be used to build a home so they could prove that a home could be built. This is not an approval of a footprint or final approval of a location; this is just a general location. Earlier drafts last fall based on the proposed house pad showed an ALS line, and Barnhart said that line should not be there now because there is not a lot here and they are not creating an artificial ALS. The ALS for lot 5 is only based on the distance of 1100 Millston which is the lakeshore lot to the east. He noted this ALS should really be ignored or labeled “existing ALS.” The neighboring property made a comment about the lot widths – lake lots are measured at the lake and at 75 feet back. If they are not lake lots, they are measured at the building setback line for the given zoning district so lots 1, 2, and 3 currently, the argument is made are not lake lots because Outlot C, B, and A would be combined at the time. He said the lots were designed to accommodate that future consolidation. Lot 1 and 2 currently meet the requirements based on the building setback line and lot 3 is a bit short based on the building setback line. The decision was made early in the review process to anticipate this as a lake lot because that is what they intend it to be, however County roads prohibit the combination at this stage. The neighbor made a comment about the cul-de-sac length and Barnhart showed onscreen the distance of exactly 1,000 feet. The County recommends a turn lane for westbound traffic and Staff recommends engineering would be completed as a condition of plat approval. It is not uncommon for engineering issues or comments to be deferred until final plat approval because this is an opportunity for Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 16 the community, Planning Commission, and City Council to provide comment on the preliminary plat and make any changes necessary from an engineering standpoint. The traffic was raised as a concern with five new lots onto this property and the County has not suggested that five additional lots will generate traffic issues. The neighbor has suggested some impact to the neighboring trees along the new road and Staff has asked for a landscaping plan to see how those trees would be replaced and some comments will come out as part of the engineering review of the street plan. He noted they have made modifications to try to shift that road over as far as possible to minimize impact to the wetland in that location. Staff recommends approval, this is a public hearing, and Barnhart invited comments. Bollis asked if Barnhart can touch on the combination of those outlets with 1, 2, and 3. Barnhart explained the County does not allow these lots to be platted together, meaning they have to be platted separately and then combined in a second action. He said this has always intended to be a lake lot for lots 1, 2, and 3 so they have created a corresponding outlot that would be combined at the time of plat. There are no size requirements for outlots so there is no review necessary in terms of width or area for those. The intent is to combine those. Chair Ressler said the County has weighed in as far as instructing a turn lane and the developer is okay with the feedback. Barnhart said that would be a good question for the developer and the comment came out right before the Planning Commission’s review in August for the County improvements; they recommend the turn lane and require a permit. He does not know how strong they are on a turn lane. They would also support any condition on the City to require any additional turn lanes or additional improvements. Chair Ressler noted Staff’s feedback and support of this application as submitted is contingent on the Applicant’s supporting the feedback requested for the turn lane. Barnhart said if it is a requirement, yes, the Applicant has to finish those projects. It is not just County, it is the City Engineer and the watershed district. Chair Ressler said the County was recommending but not requiring the turn lane. Barnhart said yes, they are recommending it at this time based on the letter in the packet from August. Kirchner asked regarding the conservation design and subsequent attachment, Barnhart mentioned the tree removal and replacement. Kirchner is not familiar with a tree replacement ordinance in Orono and asked if as part of a plat is there any way to require tree replacement. Barnhart said they certainly can, as a condition of the plat approval, impart some sort of standards for tree protection. In the City code there is not a tree protection ordinance per say, there is prohibition against tree removal in wetlands in the 0-75 or in the bluff. Those areas are protected by ordinance from a neighborhood character standpoint and the Planning Commission could suggest certain areas be preserved or replaced. They are not proposing any of that from a Staff level but the Planning Commission could certainly add that as a comment which would in essence be a recommendation to the City Council. Kirchner believes Barnhart mentioned replacement specific to where Shoreline Drive would intersect with the roadway and asked if there is a wetland that would be impacted with tree removal for that roadway. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 16 Barnhart said there is a road between the road and the property line; the neighboring property owners expressed some concern about the potential impacts to the existing vegetation along the east property line. There is a tree planting requirement as part of the subdivision that is 1 tree per 40 feet and Staff put in comments that those trees be more clumped versus linear to be more of a natural aesthetic. If the Planning Commission wants to go beyond that in terms of concern for an impact, they should make that comment. Gettman said he did not see Outlot D on some of the documents and asked if that will be for parking or a potential dock. Barnhart replied that is a good comment and good question. Right now, it is on its own and is not tied to anything in particular; he thinks there was concern from the Planning Commission in the initial review that there be a parking area, so he recommended that either be tied to Outlot C to make that one bigger as that is probably the cleanest way and they don’t want a remnant out there. Chair Ressler called the Applicant forward for a presentation. He noted Libby will excuse himself a little early from the meeting; also because this is an irregular time to meet Staff wants everyone to know at 6:30 p.m. the alarm is supposed to be set. They think they have mitigated it but if an alarm goes off it will be turned off. Patrick Steinhoff, an attorney at Malkerson, Gunn, Martin is representing the Applicant. He also has Tim Whitten and Mark Gronberg with him this evening. He knows that Planning Commission’s do not like to listen to attorneys and he usually likes to sit in the back and keep his mouth shut. They recall that the Planning Commission heard about this application in August and they have made some changes to the plan since then which are largely driven by legal objections so he will explain the changes. In August, the Applicant had proposed a solution to a potential issue with the ALS as it is a moving target and can be in one place today and tomorrow someone builds a house and the ALS is somewhere else. To address that, they initially proposed to establish a set ALS within the plat that would apply to all lots regardless of when they were built; the idea was that would create some predictability and would not depend on when houses were built. It is not something that the Applicant invented and as Mr. Steinhoff understands the City has done that before in other plats. The problem is that the ordinance does not allow that unless there is unanimous consent from all involved. He understands from the City Attorney that in those prior plats it was something that was requested jointly by the Applicant and neighbors and supported by the City. After the Planning Commission’s August meeting there was some vigorous pushback on the entire concept of an artificial ALS and there was not the unanimous consent needed so the Applicant went back to the drawing board and redesigned the plat so all of the lots can be buildable without establishing an artificial ALS line. That resulted in a few changes; there is one less lot, 6 instead of 7 lots, and in order to make all 6 lots buildable behind the current ALS they needed to be reconfigured. Finally, there was an objection to design of the cul-de-sac in the first plan so in the new plan it is shorter at 997 feet and is designed differently. Apart from those changes everything is more or less the same as in August. There are a lot of issues raised by the neighbor’s attorney such as access off Shoreline Drive, traffic, and trees, and all of those things were discussed at the previous Planning Commission public hearing. After the Planning Commission heard about those, they recommended approval by 7-0. The only real issues are a different number of lots and lot configuration to address the ALS issues and the new cul-de-sac. Mr. Steinhoff just received the neighbor’s attorney letter a short time ago and will quickly address some of the issues in the letter. He noted that Attorney Dean said that they will need variances to build on these lots because of the ALS and Mr. Steinhoff said that is not true. Every one of these lots is buildable right now; MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 16 the only one that is even worth talking about is lot 5 because they know the ALS will change for that lot as there is a house that will be built on the adjacent plat, lot 3 of Tanager Estates. The picture the Planning Commission is looking at is where they will put the house assuming that house is built on the adjacent lot. If that house is not built it is still a buildable lot under the current ALS and he has an exhibit that shows it. All 6 lots are buildable and are all configured so there can be a house pad behind the ALS; they do not need variances and the whole point of revising the plan is to give the Planning Commission a plat that can be approved without variances. Mr. Dean’s letter raises the issue of the cul-de-sac and the Applicant has shortened it up so it is less than 1,000 feet. The letter also raised the issue of the turn lane access onto Shoreline Drive; the County’s letter dates back to prior to the last Planning Commission meeting and there is nothing that has changed since they recommended approval. The Applicant is fine with a turn lane as recommended by the County and it is something they intend to do. Traffic is the same as it was previously except there is one less lot to generate traffic so all the comments about emergency vehicle access are things the Planning Commission already heard in August when they recommended approval. Mr. Steinhoff knows from listening to public comments at the last hearing there are a lot of people who want this parcel to remain the same forever – it is a big parcel with lots of open space and one house. He understands that but the owner, the Jacobs Family Trust, has the right to develop this, they are not asking for variances or anything special but are proposing a conforming plat so Mr. Steinhoff asks that the Planning Commission recommend approval as they did the last time. Tim Whitten said they have an exhibit that overlays the proposed 6 lot application over the 7-lot application previously approved so people can understand - blue is the previous application and red is the current proposed application. Starting from the south on Lots 1, 2, and 3 the blue position of the houses has now shifted up to the red position to honor the ALS line and pulls those house pads farther away from wetlands and the lake. With the 6 lots instead of 7 it allowed them to reconfigure and shorten the cul-de- sac and made it a more efficient plan as for getting a street in there. As for the design of the cul-de-sac they were able to pull away from the property to the east and save some more of the trees on that side. The lots to the north have also been pulled away – in looking at the previous blue lot 6, which was really the lot that “went away” they now have lot 5 that is farther back. As a point of reference, these lots show house pads over 10,000 square foot footprints, they are never going to be that big on one level. They wanted to oversize it so people could see just how lush it might be and also wanted to show they honored all the setbacks on the perimeter and the setbacks on the interior. Gettman asked about Outlot D, how did it come about as it looks like it is brand new and actually overextends onto the other property east of the estate. Mark Gronberg of Gronberg and Associates said there was some extra land there just opposite the road right-of-way; A, B, and C have enough width and it was just an extra area possibly used for people walking down to the lake or parking to carry things down. He said it could be combined with lot C and then they would have an easement over it for multiple usage or it could be Outlot D for lake access purposes. Gettman said as they were considering the outlots and potentially adding Outlot D, traffic seems to be one of the major concerns and he asked how they planned on having people utilize lots A through D. Mr. Gronberg has walked that road and it is very busy, so he thinks it would be wise to have an easement come down across from the main road into D and then have an easement to walk to A, B, and C rather than having people walk in the right-of-way. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 16 Gettman noted Outlot D would become more of a parking lot. Mr. Gronberg replied in the affirmative. Libby said traditionally all of these outlots that are lakeshore are subject to be a part of another property. Hennepin County has typically added a separate PID identification to each of those lakeshore lots. He asked in this case that they will end up with a tax ID number for each of these A, B, C, and D outlots. Mr. Gronberg knows those outlots will be combined with the other lots so it is possible they would just assign it one PID. Libby said that would be unusual and that is why he asks. Mr. Gronberg noted because the road separates those lots from the outlots, the County will not allow them to plat them as lots 1, 2, and 3. Libby noted Outlot D as indicated could possibly be developed into some type of parking or drop off access. Even though lots 1, 2, and 3 appear to be physically relatively close to the thoroughfare and where potential dockage would be that is a significant length of area to come down with something like a golf cart. He stated that is a very narrow portion of the lakeshore land and it really would not be suitable or feasible to actually have a vehicle there or vehicles coming in and out as it is a very heavily trafficked County Road. He thinks there would be substantial danger to pedestrians crossing, but it does not really seem feasible that D is a place for a car can pull in and out. Chair Ressler said this portion of the application is just for questions and they may be able to provide some feedback. He asked to table that until they get through the public hearing and they can circle back. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:35 p.m. Attorney Aaron Dean, 5900 Mount Normandale Drive, Bloomington, is representing Barbara Burwell, and submitted a 12-page letter earlier in the afternoon along with several exhibits. He recognizes the importance of the work that the Planning Commission does and sometimes with a municipal Planning Commission the idea is to kick the can down the road, issue an approval with certain conditions and hope that the City Council operates as the final say. He asks that this Planning Commission resist that; there are a number of problems with this particular proposal and he wants to outline about 6 of them because once they understand the problems with the proposal, he thinks the proposal has to be rejected. Mr. Dean asked for the earlier exhibit with the red and blue overlay and pointed out how the road enters the new development and they will see the access is off Shoreline Drive. When Mr. Dean spoke with Barnhart last week, he was told the County was now requiring, not recommending, a right-hand turn lane for west bound traffic. This is important because all of the questions asked so far to the Applicant are “Do you care?” Mr. Dean said of course they don’t care. The Applicant could care less about a right-hand turn lane because it is not their property that will be impacted, it is Barbara Burwell’s property that will be impacted and nothing shows it better than what is onscreen. Ms. Burwell owns two Millston Road properties and the only way to put in a right-hand turn lane is to take a portion of her property – why would the Applicant care? They could care less if Barbara Burwell is impacted and that is why they don’t care. Ms. Burwell cares and she doesn’t want any portion of her land taken for a right-hand turn lane that the County now requires, not recommends. What Mr. Dean saw earlier today via email was a statement from the County’s representatives that actually the right-of-way is sufficient and no portion of her property will be required to be taken. He asked where are the engineer drawings, where are the plans that MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 16 actually show this? Until they have those plans approved by the County, this Planning Commission cannot approve this plan. All that will happen is that they will invite a lawsuit because his client’s property will be taken to accommodate other private property with a right-hand turn lane. This is the first and biggest problem. The second problem is that the road or private drive that exists is being moved over to the east to the inch, as far as possible to the Burwell property line and will take down all of the trees. Some of the trees that will be impacted are on Burwell property and they cannot do it. The Applicant has had months to develop a landscaping plan that would show what trees will be taken down and what will not. Now they are in the middle of winter with snow cover and they cannot actually see which trees will be taken down and the roots that will be impacted…he said isn’t it convenient to be having the meeting now. When Mr. Dean spoke with Barnhart last week, he asked specifically and said he needs to see the measurements for this private road and the cul-de-sac, and Barnhart said it is right at 1,000 feet. Mr. Dean asked 1,000 feet “from where to where?” Barnhart told Mr. Dean if they measure from the road up to where the private road starts to turn, basically if they go straight up and where it starts to turn, they take that measurement and then where it goes off about 45 degrees and measure to across the cul-de-sac. Those two measurements are 1,000 feet; they are not measuring the actual distance of travel as it takes farther to go around the circumference of the circle than the diameter of a circle and Mr. Dean said they are over 1,000 feet. He asked to show the black and white drawing and show the proposed house pad on lot 3 of Tanager Estates. Once they have this down, this proposed subdivision falls apart. The placement of the proposed house pad of lot 3 of Tanager Estates can never be built there, never. That is the anchor point for the ALS line that is going from lot 3 of Tanager Estates and going all the way in a southeasterly direction to the Burwell house. They can look at this particular plat and see why it does not work; first, he pointed out the sectioned-off area where it says “bluff” throughout lot 5 and said that bluff goes into lot 3 and noted how close that bluff line is to the proposed house plan. If they now go down and look just underneath the bluff to where the house pad is on lot 5, it says 30-foot bluff setback, he said now compare it to the area of lot 3 of Tanager Estates…it is not 30 feet. He asked to pass around a sheet with highlighted areas. Barnhart said if there are other exhibits, they can scan those and put them onscreen. Chair Ressler asked to do that. Mr. Dean said the reason he thought that was important, they can see that by anchoring that proposed house pad on lot 3 will not work as it does not obey the 30-foot setback and the bluff designation that was drawn is only to show the bluff that is already on lot 5 but extends into lot 3. They can tell from that proposed house pad designation that it is already on a bluff – that house can never be put there. Once they take that proposed house pad on lot 3 of Tanager Estates and bring it down to where the correct and only location is, they will wipe out the whole house on lot 5. It cannot be built there. One of the problems with this proposed subdivision is they basically have a 19-acre parcel of land and less than 60% of the land is buildable. Mr. Dean included a table he cut and pasted from Barnhart’s presentation to explain why this is such a difficult parcel of land. Less than 60% is buildable, there are two lakes so there are two ALS lines, there are bluffs, wetlands, and existing neighbors. This all makes for a very challenging situation to be able to build on this particular parcel. The problem they have is the Applicant is asking for too many lots, noting they went from 7 down to 6 but that is not enough. Mr. Dean said they have to drop it down more. It is not the Planning Commission’s or City Council’s job or Mr. Dean’s job or Ms. Burwell’s job to do the Applicant’s job. Their job is to propose a plan that works and noted this does not work and Mr. Dean has given several examples why. When they take out the anchor spot of the proposed house plan on lot 3, the whole subdivision falls apart and Mr. Dean asks that the Planning Commission does not approve but instead rejects the plan and they do not take the easy way out of approving the plan with many conditions. He said no, make the Applicant come back with an actual plan MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 16 that works and then come back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Dean said when he talked the previous week with Mr. Whitten and Mr. Steinhoff, they were actually pretty accommodating and got more accomplished in a 30-minute zoom call than they did in the last six months. He said “here is what you do, you say we’re not ready to act because what we’ve heard so far tells us that there are problems with this proposed subdivision. Go back and talk to your neighbors.” Mr. Dean said they can do it via a Zoom call and get their measurements and engineer drawings and once they are ready and can actually provide a plan that works, then they should come back to the Planning Commission but that is not today. Chair Ressler noted they ask people to limit their comments to five minutes and he knows this is a big project but asked Mr. Dean to try to condense. Mr. Dean said lot 5 of the subdivision is not buildable in its current location and that is the whole problem. Once they don’t have lot 5, they have to reject the whole thing. He asked if the Planning Commission can think of another project where there is a requirement for a residential turn lane where the Applicant’s land is not being used but rather a neighbor’s land is being use. Mr. Dean said the Planning Commission is being asked to approve the taking of Barbara Burwell’s land and why would they ever do that? It is just going to put the City in a bad position. The cul-de-sac still is not less than 1,000 feet and he has confirmed that with Barnhart, they have no calculations. He does not need someone to come up here and say it actually is 1,000 feet, he needs to see the calculation that shows it is less than 1,000 feet. Traffic with 6 homes is not just one car and noted he had four vendors come out to his house today working on appliances, snow removal, and everything else. He said to think about what that will be like for 24 homes and these will not be 2 car garages but will be 3 and 4 car garages and there will be way too much traffic. In looking at lot 3 of Tanager Estates, not only does it meet that 30-foot setback on the bluff, look right underneath it there is a wetland buffer monument; they have a bluff problem and a wetland problem and are asking the Planning Commission to approve their problems and foist their problems on Barbara Burwell. He asked the Commission, please don’t do it. Barbara Burwell of 1100 Millston Road approached the podium. She looks back at the August meeting and thinks boy, has she gotten a lot smarter than when she was first before the Planning Commission. At that time, she did not even understand what an ALS line is and the ALS line is certainly of importance to this whole project. She said there are challenges and it has been said that there was no challenge back in August and the vote was unanimous; they will have to forgive her, but she said she was pretty ignorant and very wet behind the ears at that time and did not know what she was talking about. Ms. Burwell noted the Planning Commission educated her and she thinks there are some very serious problems with this parcel and she asks that they take a serious look at the concerns Mr. Dean has brought forward. Not the least of which is the traffic and as she mentioned before, she believes Mr. Erickson lives on Heritage and she noted they have had a couple of serious accidents since that time and noted she is the mother of three grown sons. She asked the Planning Commission to take into consideration the traffic issue regarding a school bus and the fact that they don’t make left hand turns coming out of Ms. Burwell’s driveway or the Breck school; then children are standing on Highway 15. She made a comment regarding the little Outlot D which she did not notice until tonight and stated she has a little bit of a parcel that goes down to a dock on an outlot and it is very skinny. Ms. Burwell knows from living there for close to 40 years that Outlot D is not a parking area or a place for a pedestrian picnic table; it is not a sliver of land to put a car or a golf cart without it falling into the lake as it is not a level piece of land. She thinks they are looking at a ridiculous application of those outlots. They could wish that it would work but she says that is a serious challenge and an accident waiting to happen, especially in lots 3, 4, and 1 of outlots. Mr. Burwell concluded by saying Mr. Dean has brought up some important points as to why she is standing before the Planning Commission and that is because she needs to protect her property. She has lived MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 16 there for almost 40 years and the house has been there for 83 years; she needs to make sure that she has a sound, appropriate neighbor that is not of such a high density and trying to put a square into a circle. She noted she is not very articulate as this is not what she does for a job but she said she has lived there a long time and thinks the changes being proposed are not appropriate and do not necessarily fulfill what the vision of Orono is representing. Ms. Burwell does not believe that Barnhart is a resident of the Orono community and she appreciates the fact that he is doing his job and advising the Planning Commission but noted that she lives here, works here, and raised her children here and she is against this plan. Steve Burns, 1025 Heritage Lane, approached the podium and noted he was watching from home and did not realize it was an in-person meeting so he came in late. Fortunately, he was able to get to the meeting quickly. He said this has been a project going on for many years and they have had many discussions about this as well as Tanager Estates. As a representative of Fox Hill, the road right past this property, he wants to be clear and go on the record saying they strenuously object to using Heritage Lane as an entrance point for construction. In the August 2020 letter from Hennepin County, they suggest using Heritage Lane as the entrance point and Mr. Burns has been in conversation with Mr. Whitten, Mr. Stedman, members of the Planning Commission over the years and again said they are very much opposed to Heritage Lane as the entrance point. When Tanager States was developed, he believes Mr. Gronberg is on record as stating access to that property up above would not be admissible because of the bluff. The Hennepin County recommendation in August 2020 caused them concern and as he listened from home tonight about the turn lane – and he completely respects Ms. Burwell’s position and agrees with her position – they do not want to see that turn lane but they also do not want to see access through Heritage Lane. That is a statement from one citizen on Heritage Lane that would also be impacted. Michael Kuhlman, 1760 Shoreline Drive, would like to thank the Planning Commission for the time tonight and also has serious concerns about the way this is laid out and a lot of the points raised by Ms. Burwell’s attorney, including traffic and trees. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:56 p.m. Chair Ressler asked regarding one of the definitions of the cul-de-sac maximum of 1,000 feet, is the measurement that is being used in these plans how the City requires it to be measured or is it linear or straight distance. Barnhart replied the City code does not define how that is measured, so they measured straight line and said yes, they do go through the cul-de-sac bulb and that is the 997 or 1,000 feet depending on how close his cursor can get in the electronic measuring tool they have. He said they asked the Applicant to provide an exhibit where he showed increments of 100 feet to demonstrate where the measurement comes to. He noted the tick marks on screen and counted out 9 marks and pointed out the determination. Kirchner said the measurement that was used is not outlined in City code and asked if the method used to measure in this instance is standard practice across recent developments of cul-de-sacs within the City and how they would have been measured. Barnhart said it is and the only difference he could point out is that they don’t do a lot of cul-de-sac bulbs, so that is a relatively unique feature they have looked at. While the distance is regulated by the Code, the method of how that is measured is not so they apply the distance to this type of configuration. If the Planning Commission and City Council had some concern about how that measurement came to be, one remedy is to remove the cul-de-sac bulb. Barnhart asked to comment on the question of Outlot D and the use for that; Staff has some concerns with that being used as a recreational area or a parking area and would not recommend that be a separate use. Perhaps it is an easement for access, but Staff would not MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 16 support a different use for Outlot D knowing what they know about traffic. They would recommend it be absorbed into Outlot C or something like that. Chair Ressler noted that. He asked regarding the ALS measurement in these plans; is that defined in the City code and is it measured with some degree of misinterpretation, based on the CC’s feedback in the public hearing. Barnhart clarified if Chair Ressler is asking is ALS defined and how they measure that. Chair Ressler asked if it is being correctly used in the proposed plat. Barnhart said there is some nuance here that is important to comment on. As proposed, the ALS for lot 5 today, the only neighboring lakeshore property that is improved is 1100 Millston. Therefore, the ALS for lot 5, if lot 5 was platted today, is the distance of 1100 Millston from the lake. Lot 3 comes into play only when that property is developed and that will form one of the two points that ALS is drawn. This drawing or this proposal shows lot 3 as a carryover when they were talking about creating the artificial ALS and the way to provide some expectation for improvements. He noted they have gone away from that and Staff’s comment letter to the Applicant suggests that anything labeled ALS – because they do not know what the ALS is upon platting – any reference to ALS today should be relabeled. Barnhart does not want to give a false sense of expectation that this is the ALS for lot 5, as that will change upon platting, as will the ALS for lots 1, 2, and 3; those will change upon platting. He does not want to confuse the issue any more than they already have so the line shown between lot 3 of Tanager Estates and points to the east which is 1100 Millston should really be removed. Chair Ressler asked the surveyor, Mr. Gronberg to come up to the podium, and noted during the public hearing there was a question about the bluff setbacks and there seems to be a misunderstanding or disagreement as far as what that is. Mr. Gronberg clarified lot 3 was approved during Tanager Estates, and went over all those bluff lines with Mike Gaffron and there is not a side setback for a bluff, it is at the top of the bluff which is 30 feet. That was an approved pad and, in his office, they have a house plan for lot 3 coming in that will make this whole thing moot. Once that house gets established, the line over to 1100 Millston will be way lakeward of where lot 5 is going to be built. They did have an exhibit that showed the 1100 Millston is 398 feet from Tanager Lake and when measuring 398 on lot 5 there is still a 60x90 building pad there. He said between the red line and yellow lines on screen there would still be room to build a house, even if nothing is built yet on lot 3 Tanager Estates. He noted regarding the turn lane, he looked at it and scaled it off and noted it is about 25 feet or so from the road to the property line and there is enough room to get a turn lane in. When looking at Heritage Lane, there is a turn lane there and the same amount of right-of-way. Kirchner’s initial thought is there is some concern from the neighborhood and the second thought is for all intents and purposes this appears to be a conforming plat. With that being said, to Mr. Dean and Ms. Burwell’s statements regarding the right-hand turn lane, he does believe that should be explored to a definitive point to understand if it can be done with the right-of-way that exists there without taking additional land. It sounds like Mr. Gronberg has already done some work on that but prior to the City Council seeing this plan that may be very beneficial for all parties involved to understand. Regarding the ALS, that seems to be one of the sticking points and they just had it demonstrated that there is still a building pad there and may not be as large as what is shown on the plat, but as Mr. Gronberg has shown there is still a buildable area there in the event that lot 3 of Tanager Estates is not built at the time of lot 5 of this one is. At the end of the day, he said it is a conforming plat, the buildable area and provided areas MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 16 meet City code and requirement. He does think some things need to be explored, such as the right-of-way for the turn lane but those are all things that can be done between now and the City Council meeting with a professional survey report done to demonstrate and illustrate those points. Libby thinks Mr. Gronberg clarified one important point that had to do with Mr. Dean’s objections and that is the bluff conservation ordinances in the City were very focused on preservation of the bluff. They have a zenith, a top, and a peak and then there is the lower level or bottom of the bluff. So, blending those two measurements or setbacks is not necessarily appropriate. His remaining question is, they do have a definitive verse and chapter for bluff conservation ordinance and it is attached to that; does the current lot 5 building site satisfy the necessary setback of 30 feet from the top or zenith of the bluff. Barnhart replied yes it does. They expect that the new house plan may differ from the footprint shown on screen and they will certainly do a review for that new home, but they have demonstrated there is a house site available for that lot. Libby said in looking at this from a linear house size versus dimensional distance that there is anything less than 30 feet even in this drawing. He deals with building size and setbacks on a regular basis during new construction, and this looks very easily perceptible to him to be at 30 feet if not slightly more than that. They’d be 40 feet from where the bluff drops. He is trying to understand where Mr. Dean gets the perception that this is less than 30 feet, not to discount his perception but Libby thinks it is important to establish that is 30 feet if that is what the City’s requirement is. Barnhart thinks Mr. Dean’s comments were more related to the situation on screen where the proposed house site for lot 3 is near the bluff. Libby stated they outlined two areas, one at the setback from lot 5 from the bluff and also from Tanager Estates lot 3. Barnhart said he is confident and comfortable that there is adequate house site. Libby noted that is really what he was trying to define. The bluff conservation was repeatedly addressed and utilized by the Tanager Estates development previously in order to make sure the actual egress and access from County Road 15 was not used to deliver construction materials and do any of the construction on Tanager Estates. He said isn’t it interesting how these things can come around full circle again as this second phase of development is in its fruition. The City’s conservation of the bluff is really used a little bit differently than when the first part of the development started. Erickson asked regarding the new road with the cul-de-sac, apparently adjoining the property to the east, does that create double-frontage situation in regards to the neighbor’s property. If so, what is the City’s policy, regulation, or ordinance regarding double frontage lots. Barnhart clarified it does not create a double frontage situation, but creates a corner lot situation, then he noted onscreen there is perhaps a right-of-way situation on the other side. He said there is right-of-way impact setbacks to this existing lot, he believes it is 1125 Millston, so yes, this will abut right-of-way so there will be impacts from a setback standpoint there. Erickson commented that his sense in regards to the heavy traffic on County Road 15, that in addition to a right turn lane as has been suggested for those entering the subdivision, he would like to see exploration of a blend lane for those leaving the subdivision and contemplating going west. There should be MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 16 something similar to a right-turn lane but is often referred to as a blend lane or acceleration lane to allow people to get up to speed. He thinks that would be a safety enhancement if it were incorporated and realizes ultimately it would be up to Hennepin County to look at that. Chair Ressler noted this is a preliminary plat so this will not be voted on and decided tonight and asked if that is correct. Barnhart said it is a preliminary plat and they are asking for a recommendation to take it to the City Council who will make the final decision. The final plat is the step after that, the City Council will approve that after finding that the final plat is consistent with the approved preliminary plat and any conditions imposed. Chair Ressler thinks there are a few things the Planning Commission needs to address. It is hard for him to recall back to August and he does not recall unanimous support for the previous plat; he thinks there was some feedback provided that they would like to have seen changed. All-in-all it seemed like a pretty reasonable application. Some of the things brought up, Chair Ressler does not think have been addressed in this particular application, one of which is parking for us of the homeowners for boat use. There was discussion about parking being located on the property side not on the lake side, after one turns into the proposed cul-de-sac for guests and homeowners to park, knowing that they will not walk all the way from their house. Chair Ressler does not think that has been properly addressed and for practical use that seems to be lacking some detail as it is. Kirchner asked regarding the wetland located right when one turns into the neighborhood; he assumed an additional square or rectangular parking area could be added to the west off of the driveway or is that not allowable into the wetland area. Barnhart noted there are buffers and setback requirements associated with the wetland. He thinks Kirchner’s comment would be “the Planning Commission recommends that some sort of parking plan be fleshed out for review” by either the Planning Commission or the City Council at an upcoming meeting. Rather than solve the problem, the Planning Commission is trying to identify the problem and then have the City Council solve it. Chair Ressler is not sure the Planning Commission has the ability to table and revisit some of the things being dealt with in detail or if they want to allow the City Council to take this feedback, allow the Applicant to make revisions and go straight to the City Council on that. Barnhart clarified the Planning Commission can table action and ask for some responses to their comments. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend either approval or denial allowing the project to keep moving forward, and are bumping up against the review deadline and moving it forward allows the City Council to see it twice. Chair Ressler noted if the Planning Commission tables it, it stops time for 30 days; if the Planning Commission declines it, it can still go on to the City Council even with the recommendation of a decline. He clarified why that is being discussed. McCutcheon stated Chair Ressler is correct, the Planning Commission did talk at length in August about the safety concerns. The Planning Commission proposed certain ideas and they were going to think about it. The Planning Commission offered that feedback and he does not see the Applicant addressing it here except for the comment on Outlot D. He said in looking at the Hennepin view and looking at it closely, MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 16 regarding the outlot in front of lot 2, he does not know how to even get to Outlot 3. He noted sometimes they see a wetland area and they do a swap, and asked if there is an opportunity to take some of that wetland just for safety – he does not know if there is a culvert under Shoreline Drive. Another thing that would help the Planning Commission understand all the risks associated with citizen safety is not only the people that cross the road but also people driving. McCutcheon would like to understand if there will be a single dock, three docks, or is every lot going to have access to these outlots. Chair Ressler agreed and noted that was one of the things the Planning Commission had provided for feedback and they are not seeing that detail in this application. Kirchner thinks Mr. Gronberg mentioned an easement across Outlots C and B, for instance, to get to A however that is not part of this proposal but is just a thought as he understands it. Chair Ressler said that is correct. Kirchner said to that degree he would almost think something like that would have to exist; where individuals could come down the private driveway, access Outlot D, and those having Outlots B and A would have an easement to cross over C to access their areas. Libby asked Barnhart: would he state that Hennepin County has mandated or just recommended a right turn lane coming from the east. Barnhart answered in re-reading their comments from August, Hennepin County does not require it in their comment letter, but they recommend it. The only thing they require is a permit, so they can anticipate, perhaps a requirement for a turn lane, but they do not come out and say they require a turn lane at this stage. Libby thinks Kirchner made a very good point and that is there is very little shoulder here and there actually is a significant amount of Hennepin County right-of-way beyond the pavement and beyond County Road 15. If a turn lane is coming from the east going west on Heritage Lane which is just a block over, the amount of distance over and above what was already the right-of-way would be relatively insignificant on the private property. Having dealt with Hennepin County right-of-way acquisition as he just did with the Tanager Bridge, Hennepin County is obligated by law to compensate fully even small portions of partial takings and he thinks that if there was a possible consequence of having to have that land for safety, if any portion of a private property needs to be taken, it is relatively small. It would be very difficult to realize it being more than a couple of feet beyond the right-of-way that Hennepin County already owns and has the right to use for a right turn lane. Barnhart understands the comment and noted the property owner has made it very clear that she does not want to give right-of-way. He thinks that the onus is on the Applicant to come up with a plan that does not require any additional. Bollis asked if Staff has any opinion on whether or not the Planning Commission should be requiring that turn lane. They have heard plenty about what Hennepin County thinks but asked do they think from a Planning Commission position they should be requiring that as a body. Barnhart said that would probably be the first one that the Planning Commission has required in many, many years; he cannot think of another situation where they required an improvement on a County Road MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 16 right-of-way. While this seems like a big subdivision, it is a 5-6 lot subdivision and is not a huge number- generator; yes, recognizing that Shoreline Drive already has an uncomfortable level of traffic, he does not think from a solely clinical examination of the impact that they would normally require a turn lane here. Chair Ressler knows the Planning Commission has talked about this but he is hearing that what starts out as a recommendation from the County may turn into a requirement at the time of permitting; however, that is not something that is usually fleshed out at the time of discussion. Barnhart thinks in this situation with the comment about the turn lane, it is appropriate for the Applicant to examine that and work with Hennepin County with this type of scenario, and would their solution be sufficient rather than waiting to the final step which is the permit. What they are recommending from a Staff level is that the City Engineer’s comments, the County comments, the watershed district approvals; those are all subject to the approval of this. If any of those fall apart, the preliminary plat goes away. He can appreciate Mr. Dean’s comment that they want all of this nice and tidy in terms of finishing all the engineering and that is ideal. Typically, that does not happen and they do a lot of these through the approval and he is constantly amazed by the engineering committee and how they can solve problems creatively. While the County has an idea in their mind of how this works, Barnhart looks forward to any solution that the Applicant’s team puts together. Chair Ressler noted the feedback he is hearing from the Planning Commission is that he doesn’t think anyone is opposed to having a turn lane in place. The proposed plat as it stands right now does not have it so they have it on the record and it is noted as such. He stated they have understood that Orono City code does not define the 1,000-foot cul-de-sac measurement as a straight line or a total road line, whatever they want to call that linear, and perhaps that is something they want to look at defining. He knows they do not do a lot of developments but that could be viewed two different ways. Chair Ressler’s personal feedback on that would be it probably would be a straight line if there were not wetlands there so that would be a difficulty to do it in a straight line and that would be the only reason why it is exceeding 1,000 feet if they look at it on the map. Bollis said it seems pretty clear to him that the cul-de-sac is 976 feet, or the road is, just the way it is measured on there. He does not see any other way and it is very consistent with every other project he has seen come through the Planning Commission regarding how the measurement is. Chair Ressler agreed. Erickson’s recollection is they have approved variances in the past on other locations and they have exceeded 1,000 feet with the variance and that is not a terribly rare occurrence in Orono. Chair Ressler asked if there is any other feedback for the construction on Heritage and while this is something that will come later down the road, it is good to have on record. As a City they always want to be the least disruptive as possible for neighbors and he assumes that is probably what the City Council will feel as well; to make sure that the traffic is minimized. Kirchner said if he recalls from the August meeting City Staff said they also do not support the use of Heritage Lane for the development of this project and asked if that opinion has changed. Barnhart said no, it has not. He pointed out that the connection for the sanitary sewer will connect to the bulb at the end of the Heritage Lane cul-de-sac. They are not proposing any use of Heritage Lane for MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 16 construction access; they would have to go through another private lot to get to this subject property so they do not anticipate that as an issue but can clarify that as a clarifying issue in the resolution if need be. Chair Ressler noted that feedback is what they would recommend adding. McCutcheon asked about the background on why they proposed to use Heritage Lane. Barnhart clarified he was asking about the County; he said they would like the traffic to go on City roads versus County roads. Chair Ressler noted it affects the County less. McCutcheon said it is dangerous going through the existing way and Heritage is a much safer approach so the request for that shows a bit of the problem they are dealing with. The wetland, the access to the entry of the lots, there are a lot of barriers here and he thinks going forward those need to be addressed. He said that entry is difficult and it is a small subdivision but he does not know the history of this lot; was there ever a dock used across lots 1, 2, and 3. He said maybe not because of the safety concerns, access to Tanager, and it is just too dangerous to use that. He thinks there are a lot of things to consider here and he is taking them quite seriously as safety concerns. McCutcheon noted in the summer months, that road gets crazy busy and he is in a similar situation as he lives in a back lot and has access across the road; when people have young kids, and are filling coolers, and putting the cover on the boat, there are a lot of things that can go wrong so he is pretty sensitive to this issue. Chair Ressler believes the previous owner used Tanager for boat use and there was a small dock with a float plane there but that was one homeowner using it with two different lakeshores. He does not think that would be a different usage in this case. Chair Ressler does not think he is satisfied with the explanation or what has been proposed here as to how that has been mitigated; he thinks they are all in agreement there. He appreciates the Applicant addressing the ALS and it is helpful as to how that has been repositioned and he does not think anyone disagrees with that as it seems to be in compliance with the ALS, side yard setbacks, etcetera. He said they are not creating an artificial setback, it is conforming to lot requirements, the Staff support and Planning Commission support would likely be contingent on the County for the turn lanes; the exchange of buffer proposed would need to be actual rather than artificial. He said what is not addressed is the parking for neighborhood boat use and how that is proposed for concern over safety and traffic. Libby noted a piece of information to set to rest a bit some of the public concern about the Heritage Lane being used now that lot 3 of Tanager Estates is privately owned. It would require that egress be granted by the private property owner and was previously decided per another Council that both conservation prohibits the use of access to this development from the bottom of the bluff. The reason is because the frontage that would access the lakeshore from the top of the bluff was deemed not feasibly usable and in violation of the conservation for the bluff conservation. The people from Heritage Lane that are concerned about the use for construction traffic can probably rest at ease that the private property owners are not going to allow significant intrusive to go through their million dollar or $300,000 lot to access the new development. He thinks the concern is taken seriously and they will not have to worry about Heritage Lane used as a construction road. Bollis said Outlot D is a concern for him and he does not like to see that sitting out there. His main concern is that would be used for some sort of dock for the inland lots or something like that. He would MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 16 like to see it go away and just become Outlot C as it becomes a little bigger and would be a lot cleaner. He would not be in favor of leaving an outlot out there with no definition on it. Chair Ressler thinks he is hearing that the Planning Commission does not quite have enough information to approve this, but instead of tabling it allows it to go to Council with the feedback they have provided if they were to make a motion to approve or deny it. Tabling would cost time and would be a hindrance to the Applicant. Chair Ressler thinks that would be inappropriate in this circumstance because the feedback the Planning Commission has provided should be helpful for the City Council to weigh in. Barnhart noted if a motion to approve was to move forward, Staff would recommend that Staff’s recommended conditions would be applied which is watershed district approval, City Engineer approval, County approval, and the Staff comment letters, as well as any other comments or conditions the Planning Commission would like to impose. Kirchner moved to approve LA 20-48, 1700 Shoreline Drive, Preliminary Plat with the recommendations from City Staff that Mr. Barnhart just outlined and adding additional comments from the Planning Commission: Outlot D is a serious concern, the parking area has not been addressed, use of Heritage Lane traffic concerns from neighbors, and putting it back on the Applicant to explore the right-of-way for the right turn lane to occur without Ms. Burwell’s property. Chair Ressler asked to clarify that it would be contingent on a turn lane being placed without encroaching on private property. Kirchner will not go so far as to say to not place it there, but it is a concern and he thinks a qualified and certified surveyor would be able to determine if that can or cannot happen. They can then provide that to the City Council if there is not enough room for that turn lane as exists today with the County right-of- way without taking anything additional. Libby seconded the motion. Chair Ressler asked for further discussion. Erickson wonders if there is a way the Planning Commission could specify a neighborhood meeting prior as there was comment from the neighbor’s attorney that quite a bit of progress had been made in one meeting and he kind of suggested that a second meeting might be more helpful. Barnhart thinks it is appropriate and the Planning Commission can certainly recommend that but cannot make that as a condition of any motion. He thinks it is appropriate after the Planning Commission acts on this motion and second that they recommend the Applicant continue the dialogue with the adjacent property owners. Chair Ressler asked if Barnhart finds the conditions of this motion specific enough to get where they need to go after this. Barnhart replied that he does. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, January 19, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 16 Chair Ressler clarified Kirchner has a motion to approve and is contingent upon satisfying concerns over turn lanes, concerns over construction traffic on Heritage Lane, detail for parking for boat use among the homeowners. He asked if he is missing anything. Kirchner replied yes, Outlot D is a concern that frankly does not serve a purpose and would likely be much cleaner added to Outlot C. Chair Ressler said based on the feedback, they should take a closer look at Outlot D for a removal. Kirchner answered in the affirmative. He added another part of the motion is all four of the Staff recommendations as well, on top of his additions. Chair Ressler clarified inclusive of the Staff recommendations that have been set out in the application. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Gettman). Barnhart said this will go to the City Council on February 8, 2021. Chair Ressler said the Planning Commission would take a five-minute recess at 7:38 p.m. Chair Ressler resumed the meeting at 7:41 p.m. Council Exhibit D Council Exhibit E H:\ORNO\C13120357\z_Shoreline Estates\ShorelineEstates_PrePlatReview_2021-1-19.docx January 19, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Jeremy Barnhart 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Preliminary Plat Application Shoreline Estates Engineering Review #3 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. One rain gardens and soil amendments 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 MS4 requirements, the system must treat the water quality volume, calculated as 1” times the sum of new and fully reconstructed impervious surface. b. Per the proposed hydrographs submitted, 2.55 acres impervious surface is proposed resulting in a water quality volume of 9,257 c.f. Therefore, if infiltration is utilized, the basin must be expanded to provide this volume below any surface outlet. c. Based on field inspection and a shovel test, site soils did not seem conducive for infiltration. If infiltration is not possible due to site soils, volume control will not be required per NPDES requirements, but a rain garden is still necessary to treat the water quality volume. Also, if tight soils are present, an underdrain must be installed with the basins to ensure complete drawdown between rainfall events. d. 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. e. Facilities necessary for the ultimate development (street construction, sewer, rain garden, 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. f. Rain garden must be permanently vegetated prior to issuance of any building permits. g. An impervious surface exhibit must be provided to verify areas match the calculations. The exhibit must indicate existing and proposed impervious surfaces. h. Insufficient space is provided for the swale proposed south of the house pad on Lot 1. Grading must be revised to provide adequate space for a swale or the Proposed Drainage Council Exhibit F Preliminary Plat Application Shoreline Estates Page 2 H:\ORNO\C13120357\z_Shoreline Estates\ShorelineEstates_PrePlatReview_2021-1-19.docx Area Map and calculations should be revised to indicate area bypassing rain garden. i. Soil amendment areas should be in locations not subject to future pedestrian and vehicle traffic and planted with native vegetation. The proximity of proposed amended areas to house pads will most likely result in compaction of the soils over time due to human interaction. Therefore, amended soil locations should be revised or the basin should be expanded to meet MCWD requirements. Potential amendment areas include along the east and west side of the entrance road and the cul-de-sac island. 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. Storm sewer sizing calculations must be submitted with correspond drainage area map to verify adequate sizing. 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 (including invasive species removal) e. SWPPP meeting NPDES requirements 4. The applicant will be required to obtain Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval and permitting. Per correspondence with MCWD, they will require all stormwater runoff management facilities to be installed with initial development. 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 CSAH 15. A copy of any approvals or permits required must be submitted prior to Final Plat approval. 7. The applicant will be required to obtain a Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit from the MPCA and MCES. A copy of any approvals or permits required must be submitted prior to Final Plat approval. 8. 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. 9. 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. c. Over all wetland and buffers. d. Over all soil amendment areas. e. All swales and piping providing drainage for multiple properties. f. 5’ along all side lot lines, unless adjacent to Development boundary. g. 10’ along all front lot lines, rear lot lines, and adjacent to Development boundary. 10. The sanitary service line to be abandoned must be completely disconnected from the existing system to remain in place and capped. All pipes greater than 2” to be abandoned in place must be blown full with sand and the ends grouted shut. 11. Road widths must be listed on the Road Plan. 12. The 15” CMP at Station 1+20 must be replaced with a 15” RCP and existing drainage patterns Preliminary Plat Application Shoreline Estates Page 3 H:\ORNO\C13120357\z_Shoreline Estates\ShorelineEstates_PrePlatReview_2021-1-19.docx maintained. 13. A sump manhole must be provided upstream of all inlets to the rain garden in the street per NPDES requirements. 14. Manholes must be included on storm sewer to rain garden as necessary to route runoff directly into basin. 15. The street must transition from urban to rural street section at Station 4+50 to better manage runoff not routed to the rain garden. Ditches do not need to be included. Due to the existing wetland on the west side and an existing culvert on the east, runoff will naturally drain away from the road. A Rural Typical Section should be included on the Road Plan accordingly. 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 From:Jason D Gottfried To:markg@gronbergassoc.com Cc:Michael D Olmstead; Eric M Drager Subject:RE: [External] Shoreline Estates CSAH 15 Thank you for inquiring Mark I received some additional feedback from our design staff Understanding the constraints here, I would offer the following targets to consider as your team prepares the planset: 12’ lanes are standard. Shoulder should be 8’ total- 6’ paved and 2’ gravel. If this cant be met provide a reason why either in a plan or memo. Length of turn lane is going to be dependent on a lot of factors. For a full intersection, we usually ask for 300’. For a driveway of this nature, 150’ should be the mostly sufficient. If that cant be met, again please explain why in the planset submittal. 15:1 inside taper is our standard. We have some flexibility with our standards as you might imagine, but will have to see the constraints demonstrated Once you have a detailed sketch, we can route internally for comments. Hope this helps get you started Thanks and have a nice weekend! Jason Jason Gottfried Transportation Planner Transportation Planning Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073jason.gottfried@hennepin.usHennepin County Public Works1600 Prairie DriveMedina, MN 55340(working remotely) From: markg@gronbergassoc.com <markg@gronbergassoc.com> Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2021 4:23 PM To: Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us> Subject: [External] Shoreline Estates CSAH 15 Council Exhibit G Jason: You had sent some comments to Jeremy at the City of Orono regarding the new 6 lot Shoreline Estates development. We are trying to work in your recommendation for a westbound turn lane within the existing right-of-way. There is about 16 feet to work with from the edge of the existing blacktop which is about 4 feet outside the white strip for the travel lane. Can we get by with a 10 foot lane with a 2 foot blacktop shoulder which would leave about 8 feet for grading? And then there is a power pole to the east that will be in the way. What do we need for a preliminary layout, maybe 60 feet for 3 car lengths and then a 10:1 taper? ***CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.*** PC Exhibit G January 12, 2021 Whitten Associates, Inc. Attn: Timothy Whitten VIA EMAIL 4159 Heatherton Place tim@whittenassociates.com Minnetonka, MN 55345 Re: Shoreline Estates File # LA20-000048 Mr. Whitten, The City has reviewed your revised, 6 lot plan received January 6, 2021. After careful review, we have the following comments. Lots/ Setbacks 1.I note that the bluff setback is shown for lot 5. Please show this same 30 foot setback for the bluff adjacent to Lot 4. 2.The notation for lot area and dry-buildable area for lot 5 is difficult to read. Please clarify. 3.I note no entrance monument is proposed. Future monuments will conform to city regulations. 4.It appears that all lots meet the size and width requirements of the zoning district. Average Lakeshore Setback 5.Please provide an exhibit showing the principal structure at 1100 Millston, and the distance of that structure from Tanager Lake. This will be the ALS for lot 5 until the home at 990 Heritage Lane is built. 6.Wherever Average Lakeshore Setback is labeled, please re-label as “existing Average Lake Shore Setback”. The future Average Lake Shore setback line will be applied as homes come in for permit. Streets 7.Hennepin County has provided comments in a letter dated August 17, 2020, attached as Exhibit A. Their comments include the need for a westbound right turn lane. 8.I note the label for the cul de sac length showing the length at 997 feet. Utilities 9.The City engineering is completing his review of the engineering plans, any approval of the preliminary plat will be subject to those comments. Those comments will be forwarded as soon as received. 10.Any preliminary plat approval will be conditioned on Watershed District Approval. Please verify submission to the Watershed district. Grading/ Landscaping 11.Please list all trees that will be removed due to grading and those that are anticipated to be removed due to house pad preparation. 12.A landscaping plan must be provided. Street trees are required. One tree is required per 40 feet of street frontage. The City Council has recently preferred trees to be installed in natural clumps, in lieu of 40’ on center Council Exhibit H placement. 13. During the public comment last fall, the neighbor to the west commented on the preservation of trees along the west property line. Are any tree preservation practices proposed? Other/ Miscellaneous 14. As part of the final plat, the following legal documents will be required: a. Home Owners Association (HOA) documents to guarantee the maintenance of any community private improvements and the private street; b. Private Covenants to guide use and house design (if desired); c. Drainage and flowage easements (over wetlands); d. Conservation easements (over bluff areas, at minimum); e. Buffer documents (as required by watershed district); f. Drainage and Utility Easements as appropriate. It is helpful to provide a point by point response when submitting new plans, to facilitate more efficient review by the City. Further, we think it is advantageous to hold a new public hearing at the Planning Commission to ensure all interested parties can comment on these revisions. Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions on the above requirements. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Council Exhibit I PC Exhibit L 150 South Fifth Street | Suite 1200 | Minneapolis, MN 55402 P:612 -877-5000 F:612 -877-5999 W:LawMoss.com 6733724v1 January 19, 2021 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Attention Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 1700 Shoreline Drive Subdivision Proposal Our File No.: 61540.1 Dear Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members: I represent Barbara Burwell. This evening, the Orono Planning Commission will review a proposed six-lot development for the property owned by the Irwin Jacobs Estate located at 1700 Shoreline Drive. Reprinted below is a Table Summary from Jeremy Barnhart’s January 19, 2021, memo to the Orono Planning Commission. The Table Summary highlights the basic problem with the proposed development. There are 18.89 total acres, but only 11.28 buildable acres. Less than 60% of the approximate 19 acres are buildable. This Jacobs Estate land presents challenges for development. There are wetlands, two lakes, bluffs, and existing neighbors. It is no one’s fault, but a seven-lot development does not work and a six-lot development does not work either. Council Exhibit J Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 2 2 6733724v1 The Jacobs Estate’s representatives have explained that the property is going to be converted into a Homeowners Association and a new westbound turn lane will be needed to access the new development. As explained, below, there are multiple problems with the proposed development and the Orono City Planning Commission should table all consideration of the proposed development so that the Jacobs’ family’s representatives can further discuss the proposed development with neighbors. On Friday, January 15, 2021, we met via Zoom with the applicant’s developer, Tim Whitten, AIA, and the applicant’s counsel, Pat Steinhoff, for 35 minutes and basic questions could not be answered by the Jacobs’ family’s representatives. A Planning Commission Meeting is not the locale for resolving neighbor concerns. A continuing discussion between the Jacobs’ family representatives and neighbors is needed. Either the Orono Planning Commission should reject the application or, at a minimum, take no action this evening and table all discussion. I. Background. At the Orono City Council Meeting held on October 26, 2020, we raised concerns regarding the seven-lot subdivision proposed by the Irwin L. Jacobs 2018 Revocable Trust (the “Jacobs Trust”) located at 1700 Shoreline Drive, Orono (the “Jacobs Property”). In response, the Jacobs Trust withdrew its proposed plat and submitted a conceptual drawing for a revised, six-lot plan on November 18, 2020. We received Jeremy Barnhart’s two-page letter to the Jacobs Trust’s representative dated November 19, 2020, detailing some of the City of Orono’s comments and concerns regarding the revised plan, and Mr. Barnhart’s most recent Staff Recommendation dated January 19, 2021, recommending preliminary approval of the revised subdivision. At tonight’s Planning Commission meeting, the Planning Commission may decide whether to recommend approval of or reject the proposed six-lot subdivision. For reasons stated below, we believe the Planning Commission should recommend denial of the proposed subdivision or, at a minimum, table discussion of the proposed six-lot development until the Jacobs’ family representatives can answer questions in detail and provide detailed engineering to address concerns. In addition to these written comments objecting to the proposed subdivision, Mrs. Burwell requests that I be allowed to address the Planning Commission and then she requests that she separately be able to address the Planning Commission to explain why the proposed subdivision must be rejected or, at a minimum, consideration of the proposed subdivision should be tabled. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 3 3 6733724v1 Like the proposed seven-lot subdivision before, this proposed six-lot subdivision asks the City to ignore its own established Average Lakeshore Setback Ordinance, subdivision ordinances, and the protections afforded neighboring property owners. The ALS Ordinance cannot be circumvented by the Jacobs Trust, and the proposed subdivision must be rejected for the simple reason that the City should not grant a number of variances to overcome admitted deficiencies in the proposed preliminary plat that fail to meet code requirements established for the health, safety, and welfare of Orono residents. II. Purpose of Orono Zoning Regulations. As previously referenced in our prior correspondence to the City Council, Sec. 78-5 of the Orono Code of Ordinances, attached as Exhibit 1, defines the “purpose” of the Orono Zoning Regulations. Section 78-5(a)(2) explains that “[t]he maintenance of open space and the avoidance of overcrowding of land is a basic guiding principle in this plan.” And Section 78-5(a)(5) provides that “[t]he guiding principles of maintaining open spaces, avoiding the ill effects of overcrowding, avoiding premature development, avoiding the future pollution problems which are inherent in any plan to intensely develop land adjacent to wetlands and Lake Minnetonka, and the need to change some allowed uses in order to preserve the quality of the groundwater supplies in the area were recognized in the comprehensive municipal plan adopted on December 2, 1974, and the amendments to the comprehensive zoning chapter and map.” (Emphasis Ours.) These stated purposes support application of existing codes to any proposed subdivision, not a departure from the ordinances that has the effect of increasing density and compromising the rights, safety, health, and welfare of the property owners in and around the development. III. Average Lakeshore Setback Ordinance. Section 78-1279(6) of the Orono Code of Ordinance – most recently updated on October 14, 2019 as Orono Ordinance No. 234, Third Series, establishes the general rule for Average Lakeshore Setbacks (“ALS”). A copy of Ordinance No. 234 is attached as Exhibit 2. Pursuant to the City’s own records,1 the goals of the ALS are: 1) preservation of lake views; 2) accommodating unique circumstances, including meandering, concave/convex shorelines and peninsulas; and 3) clarity – the regulation should be understandable for the layperson. Both the 2004 and 2013 versions of the ALS, attached as Exhibit 3, included the following language: 1 City of Orono Memorandum dated August 12, 2019 and accompanying Minutes of the Orono Planning Commission, Monday, July 15, 2019. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 4 4 6733724v1 (6) a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval.” (Emphasis Ours.) (See Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004 and Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 28, 6-10-2013). Attached as Exhibit 4 is an August 12, 2019, City of Orono Memorandum (the “Memorandum”) from Jeremy Barnhart, the Community Development Director, addressed to Mayor Walsh, the City Council Members, and City Administrator Dustin Rief. The Memorandum was prepared shortly before the October 2019 amendment to the ALS Ordinance, at the direction of City Council, in order to “review Average Lake Shore setback regulations . . . in part to ensure that the regulations actually protected lake views.” (Memorandum p. 1). The Memorandum makes multiple other references to the importance of lake views and to neighbor consent in order to preserve the sanctity of the ALS: Page 8 of the Memorandum comes from the City Council minutes from the July 15, 2019 ALS discussion. Mr. Barnhart indicated that the ALS “was established in 1992 and was intended to protect the views of lakeshore property owners.” Further, Mr. Barnhart listed “[p]reservation of lake views” as the first of the goals of the ordinance. Pages 11 and 12 of the Memorandum refer to the ALS as being established “to protect the views of lake shore property owners from encroachment due to expansion and placement of structures on neighboring lots.” (Emphasis ours). Subdivision of property would be an expansion of a neighboring lot. The City Council was also concerned with situations “where the average lake shore setback didn’t realistically protect a lakeview.” (Page 11 of the Memorandum). As with other lakeshore properties in Orono, the Jacobs Trust property is currently subject to ALS limitations. Those limitations currently prevent development of Lot 5 of the proposed subdivision. However, in the proposed subdivision, the northerly ALS line runs, at the northwest, from a conveniently presumed home pad location on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates to, at the southeast, the Burwell home. On Friday, January 15, 2021, I had a conference call with Barbara Burwell, Glen Schumann, a real estate lawyer from my Firm, Tim Whitten, AIA (the Jacobs’ family’s developer), and Patrick Steinhoff, the Jacobs’ family’s lawyer. During the January 15, 2021, Zoom call, many questions were asked of Mr. Whitten regarding the revised six-lot subdivision proposal, for which he had no answer. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 5 5 6733724v1 During the Zoom call, Mr. Whitten made it clear that he did not know the basis for the location of the presumed pad on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates, which is used to anchor the asserted northerly ALS line. Mr. Whitten had no information about where the owners of Lot 3 of Tanager Estates intended to build their home. Mr. Whitten speculated that the pad was placed 75 feet back from the ordinary high water line, the minimum setback distance from a lake. The real explanation why the “Proposed House Pad” location for Lot 3 of Tanager Estates was chosen by the Jacobs family is using this location for a pad site extends the northerly ALS line closer to Tanager Lake, allowing greater density of homes in the proposed subdivision. Similarly, I talked with Jeremy Barnhart of the City of Orono on two occasions last week. Mr. Barnhart acknowledged that the current owner of Lot 3 of Tanager Estates has not submitted a building application or obtained a building permit. And the current owner of Lot 3 of Tanager Estates has not indicated that the proposed house pad will be placed anywhere near where it is shown in the Jacobs’ proposed subdivision. This is critical and fatal to the current six-lot proposed subdivision. There is no factual basis for anyone to believe that the “Proposed House Pad” shown in the Application is correct. The only reason that the “Proposed House Pad” was placed where it is on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates is to create an artificial ALS line on the northern boundary of the Jacobs property in order to try to justify a six-lot development. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 6 6 6733724v1 Additionally, “the Proposed House Pad” on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates is not at least 30’ away from the existing Bluff Line shown in the Application. Thus, the Proposed House Pad cannot be used as an anchor point to create an artificial ALS line. Compare the shown Bluff line to the 30’ setback in Lot 5 of the Application to the house on Lot 5. Now compare that setback area to the area between the established Bluff Line on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates and the “Proposed House Pad.” The Planning Commission can easily confirm that the 30’ setback line is violated. Further, the “Proposed House Pad” on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates is clearly shown to be placed on a bluff – as demonstrated by a review of the topographical lines shown in the Application. City Ordinances do not allow building a home on a bluff. The “Proposed House Pad” on Lot 3 is being used to create an artificial ALS line even though the “Proposed House Pad” is located on a bluff and is not at least 30’ away from a bluff. Additionally, survey notes show that a Wetland Buffer Monument is just under the south corner of the “Proposed House Pad” so a home cannot be built in this location and an ALS line cannot be arbitrarily set in this location to try to achieve higher density for 1700 Shoreline Drive. The Jacobs Trust and City Staff appear to propose suspending application of the ALS to the Jacobs Trust property to permit the subdivision to get approved, and then re-applying the ALS rules as if the subdivision had always existed. Mr. Barnhart in his Staff recommendation states that: “Once the plat is approved, the ALS for the lake lots will be applied as written in the city code.” (Emphasis Ours.) The Staff Recommendation further states “No “artificial” ALS is proposed with this plat.” (See page 3 of the Staff Recommendation.) This is incorrect. An artificial north ALS line has been created without any basis in fact. A north ALS line shown on the proposed subdivision is established by pretending a home currently exists on Lot 3 of Tanager Estates. This artificial line makes it possible for the Jacobs Trust to claim it is in compliance with current ordinances, obtain subdivision approval, and forever alter the ALS lines relied upon by adjoining property owners for decades. No authority has ever been cited for the City’s ability to suspend the ALS ordinance to allow an otherwise non-compliant subdivision to get approved. The presumed pad site location should not serve as the location for the ALS line under City Ordinance 234. Under Orono Ordinance No. 234, Third Series, the ALS is defined as a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. Under subdivision a. of the Ordinance, “In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the resident building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot.” The City Staff recommendation appears to acknowledge this fact. At page 3 of the Staff Recommendation, the recommendation states “There was some question as to the average lake shore setback for lot 5. Until construction occurs on lot 3 of Tanager Estates, the ALS for lot 5 is the distance from the lake to the principal structure of 1100 Millston.” This is “boot strapping.” Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 7 7 6733724v1 The current ALS lines are ignored to allow lot 5 to be platted as an impermissible, unbuildable lot, and after lot 5 is platted, the ALS line is readjusted to allow the lot to be buildable. The Staff Report further admits that the home locations may be different (than shown) depending on the timing of construction on the lots. The building areas of some of these lots are confined by wetlands and bluff areas and required setbacks. This high density subdivision sets up potential future variance issues, since there is limited space within each lot to relocate the illustrated building site. The Planning Commission should deny approval of the proposed preliminary plat because the configuration of the six-lot subdivision violates the current northerly ALS and would create at least one unbuildable lot. IV. Lake Lots, Lot Width, and Density. Proposed lots 1, 2 and 3 are non-lake shore lots as initially proposed. Because lots 1–3 do not abut Lake Minnetonka, their lot width is measured by the width of the lots’ front yards (which touch the proposed private road). (See Sec. 78-1 definition of lot width). Because lot width is measured differently for lake shore lots, lot 3 does not meet the City of Orono lot width requirements, but might be able to do so if subsequently combined with an outlot on the south side of Shoreline Drive so as to abut Lake Minnetonka and thus become a lake shore lot. But, as explained by Mr. Barnhart, under Hennepin County rules, lots 1–3 cannot be combined with outlots A–C until after platting. (See Sept. 14, 2020 City Council Meeting recording at 31:30 mark). But the proposed subdivision plan cannot be approved without a variance, because it fails to comply with the currently established ALS, and the current width of lot 3 is non-compliant with City ordinance. Under City Ordinance Section 82-6, the City has the authority to review, approve, and disapprove subdivisions of land. Under Section 82-7, the “provisions of this chapter shall be held to be the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare and prevention of harm to the public health, safety and general welfare.” Thus, under the City’s ordinance, no subdivision should be approved unless it complies with existing ordinances – the minimum requirements for the promotion of the public health, safety and general welfare. For reasons stated above, the proposed subdivision does not meet the minimum standards. And even if a variance allows the Jacobs Trust to establish lots 3 and 5 with their proposed, too-narrow dimension or ALS non-compliance, as discussed below, the Jacobs Trust does not meet the “practical difficulties” test for being granted a variance. V. Road, Cul-de-sac. City Ordinance Section 82-283(6) states that cul-de-sacs are to be discouraged. Section 82- 281(d)(2) sets a maximum length of cul-de-sac roads at 1,000 feet. These ordinances exist for the health, safety, and welfare of the residents of Orono. For example, fire trucks and ambulances need adequate access and turnarounds to serve Orono homes and residents. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 8 8 6733724v1 The road proposed in the original Jacobs Property subdivision exceeded the maximum length, and in the most recent proposal, has been squeezed down to exactly 1,000 feet long. However, the actual length of the road and cul-de-sac exceeds 1,000 feet. The Applicant and City Staff have acknowledged that the road was measured by adding two measurements: (1) the road length from the start of Shoreline Drive to the location where the road starts to curve to the west, and (2) from the start of the curve of the road to the most distant point of the cul-de-sac. Basically, the Applicant has measured the diameter of the cul-de-sac, but not the road of travel of the cul-de-sac. A diameter of a circle is always less than the circumference of a circle. By only measuring these two data points of the road, the City and the Applicant are not measuring the actual length of the cul-de-sac area of travel. The road still exceeds 1,000 feet. The road and cul-de-sac are non-compliant. (One might also ask what has been compromised to get down to 1000 feet.) However, issues with a cul-de-sac at 1,000 feet are no different than cul-de-sacs a few feet longer. Concern about the street was expressed at a previous City Planning Commission meeting about traffic, the addition of a right turn lane with a possible shoulder, and parking. (See the recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at approximately the 2:43:30 mark.) What happens when there are large gatherings at one or more of the (proposed) six homes that have parking spilling over onto the private road, and an emergency vehicle needs access to the same or another home in the development? Circumventing normal safety standards will be to the detriment of the owners of these lots and any adjoining properties that may be impacted by delayed or compromised emergency services (such as fire trucks needed to put out a ground fire). VI. West Bound Turn Lane. The County now requires a right hand turn lane, although during my conversation with Mr. Whitten last Friday, he did not seem to know much about the right hand turn lane requirement. Jeremy Barnhart has explained that a right-hand turn lane for westbound traffic on Shoreline Drive is required by the County. It appears that such a turn lane will be in close proximity to traffic on and off Millston Road, creating a bottleneck of vehicular travel. This is a significant safety concern to Mrs. Burwell. If the right hand turn lane requires any land to be taken from Ms. Burwell, she is not interested in selling. We need actual engineering and completed plans to vet any claim by the Applicant that the existing Right-of-Way on Shoreline Drive is sufficient to create a right hand turn lane. The Orono Planning Commission cannot make decisions based upon anecdotal statements or guesses. Actual engineered drawings need to be proposed and vetted before any decision is made. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 9 9 6733724v1 VII. Traffic. The Jacobs subdivision will access Shoreline Drive along a stretch of the road that is already a safety concern. The Planning Commission’s recommendation of approval of the proposed subdivision would create a larger safety hazard to an already hazardous stretch of road. The Planning Commission, therefore, should deny the proposed application. Visibility along the road is compromised by vegetation and road curvature. Road speeds are not always honored. Recent accidents have already occurred. Under the Jacobs Trust’s plan, six new homes will now be funneled through the same stretch of road for ingress and egress, bringing with these new residents all the additional traffic incidental to home use – multiple cars within a family, service providers such as garbage disposal, repairman, mail delivery, overnight package delivery, and guest traffic. The Burwell home access is also nearby. While deference has been given to the County over road control and access, this should be a City concern as well. VIII. Trees. There are also many trees that run along the common boundary of the Burwell/Jacobs property. Based on recent staking, it is clear that most of the trees, some belonging to Ms. Burwell, will be damaged or removed to construct what appears to be a zero-lot line road along the common boundary between the Jacobs and Burwell properties. It is not clear if these trees will be replaced and at whose expense. IX. Variance. We respectfully submit that variances must be applied for/granted contemporaneously with the plat approval. The City’s action in arbitrarily assuming new ALS lines to facilitate subdivision approval effectively grants numerous variances to the Jacobs Trust without requiring the Jacobs Trust to meet the variance criteria. In the present case, lots 3 and 5 do not meet the criteria for a variance and should not be approved for variances. Variances may be granted only under specific circumstances. “The council upon application may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted, in cases where there are practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter and where the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this chapter nor the health or welfare of the public.” (Sec. 78-121) (Emphasis Ours.) The Jacobs Trust does not satisfy these requirements. First, they do not meet the practical difficulties requirement. Sec. 78-123 of the Orono Code of Ordinances lays out the “parameters within which a variance may be granted.” One of those parameters is that “[t]he plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” (Sec. 78-123(a)(2)). This plainly does not apply to the Jacobs Trust; their problem with the ALS is not unique to the property, and it is one of their own making by attempting to subdivide a single property into six different lots. The Ordinances further specify that “[e]conomic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties” meriting a variance. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 10 10 6733724v1 (Sec. 78-123(a)(4)). And the Jacobs Trust’s pursuit of variances in order to establish and develop this proposed subdivision is purely economical in nature. Second, granting variances in order to enable the construction of the proposed subdivision would “adversely affect the purpose and intent” of the Zoning Regulations and harm “the health [and] welfare of the public.” (Sec. 78-121). Rather than being mindful of the “maintenance of open space and the avoidance of overcrowding of land,” as the Zoning Regulations intended, this subdivision and its variances seek to prematurely overdevelop the Jacobs Trust. (Sec. 78-5(a)(5)). The Jacobs Trust hopes to sidestep the need for individual lot variances through the creation and use of arbitrary ALS lines and blanket plat approval. Doubtless, this has something to do with the challenge of meeting the “practical difficulties” test of a variance or changing an ALS ordinance. But the reality is, the Jacobs Property is not unique; there are no practical difficulties to its development. The property can reasonably be developed at a lower density and meet all current codes. The Jacobs Trust desires to place more homes on the property is to obtain a better return for themselves. But this comes at the expense of the adjoining neighbors who have reasonably relied on the protections of the ALS for decades and to the potential detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the area. As stated by the City’s own Ordinances, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties for compromising the rights of adjoining property owners. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 11 11 6733724v1 X. Six-Lot Development. The Jacobs Trust cannot be allowed to have a six-lot development for many of the same reasons that the seven-lot development fails. The northeast corner of the Jacobs Family home is not buildable without creating an inaccurate and arbitrary ALS line, as shown in the Planning Commission package for tonight’s meeting. Orono City Chair Ressler Orono City Planning Commission Members January 19, 2021 Page 12 12 6733724v1 The ALS Line B proposed in the Jacobs Trust’s six-lot development uses the wrong starting points from both sides of neighboring properties. To the Northwest, the Jacobs Trust relies on the imaginary building pad. To the Southeast, the Jacobs Trust uses an accessory building (i.e., a non-occupied garage) to set the ALS Line B. Lot 5 of the new six lot development, which was first published on Friday, October 23, 2020, and which was most recently illustrated on January 9, 2021, is not buildable. The correct ALS Line B would have to be set to the Burwell residence’s distance from the shoreline, which would not allow a home on Lot 5. This is a good indicator of why the Jacobs Trust cannot propose either a six-lot or a seven-lot subdivision. The applicant is proposing too much density into too small of a land area. Rather than continue to have the Planning Commission’s time absorbed by this Application, the Jacobs Family should submit a different proposal after answering all neighbor questions. Summary The Jacobs plat, as presently drawn, should not be approved. At a minimum, the proposed six- lot subdivision should be tabled until full engineering is completed. Very truly yours, /s/ Aaron A. Dean Aaron A. Dean Attorney At Law P: (612) 877-5255 F: (612) 877-5033 Aaron.Dean@lawmoss.com AD/dshe Enclosures C: Barbara Burwell (w/encs.) (via e-mail) City Attorney Soren Mattick, Esq. (w/encs.) (via e-mail) Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City of Orono (w/encs.) (via e-mail) Patrick Steinhoff, Esq. (counsel for the Jacobs Family) (w/encs.) (via e-mail) EXHIBIT 1 Sec.78-5 .-Pu rpo se. (a )G uid ing p rin cip l es. (1 )T h e cit y is gro w in g in po p u lat io n fro m a ru ral ag ricu lt ur al co mmu n ity to a ru ral res id en t ial co mmu n it y .Use of land fo r res id en t ial pu rpo ses is co n sid ered primary w it h ot h er uses vi ew ed as su p p o rt in g th is us e.W h ile present co mmerci al or in d u st rial act iv it y ,w h ere co n s ist en t w it h res id en t ial use an d ot h er g u i d in g prin ci p les,w ill be p ro t ect ed by ord in an ce or co n d it io n al us e permit ,it is no t th e in t en t io n to ex p and or allo w all su ch co mmercial or in d u st rial act iv it y to a deg ree w h ere it co n flict s w it h th e primary resid ent ial us e an d t h e ot her gu id in g prin cip l es .Th e co n t in u ed use of lan d for farmin g and simil ar pu rpo s es w ill be pro t ect ed by ord in an ce or co n d it io n al use permit w h ere su ffi cien t acreag e allo w s su ch use to co n t in u e w it ho u t co n flict w it h ex p an d in g res id ent ial use. (2 )T h e main t en an ce o f op en sp ace an d th e av o id an ce of ov ercro w d in g of lan d is a basi c g u id in g p rin cip l e in th is plan .In ad d it io n to avo id in g the ill effect s of ex cessiv e,in t ens iv e land dev elo p ment ,it is the po licy to also av o id the th reat to pu b lic healt h w h ich occu rs w it h excessiv e cro w d in g of priv ate sew ag e disp o sal sy st ems on sub st and ard bu ild in g sit es. (3 )The city has reco g n ized that many of the open space po lici es w h ich have prev io u sly pro v id ed the basic direct io n of the land use po licies hav e pro v en to be in adeq u ate.It is no w cl ear that on - sit e disp o sal sy stems mu st not be allo w ed on any sit e of less than tw o acres.It is no w clear that th e phy sical ch aracterist ics of the city mak e the ex tensio n of pub lic serv ices su ch as sew er ex t remely exp en siv e and almo st imp o ss ib le in so me areas.T he city an d ot her go v ern men t al ag en cies hav e learn ed that the premat ure dev elo p ment of op en areas can be co st ly an d disast ro us to the en v iro n men t. (4 )O f paramo u n t imp o rtance to th e cit izen s of th e city and to t he cit izen s of t he met ro p o lit an area is t h e preserv at io n o f Lake Min n et o n k a an d th e w etlan d s th at pro v id e the on ly pract ical sy st em of filt rat io n and pur ifi catio n o f th e st orm w at er so v it al to th e preserv at io n of Lake Mi n n et o n k a and the gro u n d w at er su p p lies in th e area.T h e dis ast ro u s effect s of in t en se res id ent ial an d co mmercial dev elo p men t w it h in t he city,and esp ecially in tho se areas adj acent to Lake Min n et o n k a and t he w et land s ,are pain fu lly ev id en t.T h e ado p t io n o f ad d it io n al reg u lat io n s,rezon in g o f cert ain areas an d the creat io n of larg er lo t si zes in un sew ered areas is mand at o ry in ord er t o pro t ect th e safet y ,healt h and w elfare of th e cit izen s of t he cit y . 6735689vl 6735689vl (5 )T h e g u id i n g prin cip les o f main t ain in g op en sp aces ,av o id in g th e ill effect s ofo v ercro w d in g , av o i d i n g premat u re dev elo p men t ,av o id in g th e fut u re po llu t io n pro b lems w h ich are in h eren t in any p lan to in t en sely dev elo p land adj acen t to w et land s and Lak e Min n et o n k a,an d th e need to ch ang e so me allo w ed uses in order to p reserv e th e qu alit y of th e g ro u n d w at er su p p lies in th e area w ere reco g n ized in th e co mp reh en siv e mu n icip al pl an ado p t ed on D ecemb er 2,19 74 ,an d th e amen d men t s t o th e co mp reh en s iv e zo n in g ch apt er an d map EXHIBIT 2 Orono Ordi nanc e No.234,Thi rd S eri es OR DINANC E NO.23T HIR D SER IES C ITY OF OR ONO HENNEPIN C OUNTY,MINNESOTA AN OR DINANC E AMENDING THE C ODE OF OR DINANC ES PER TAINING TO AVER AGE LAKESHOR E SETB AC K THE C ITY C OUNC IL OF OR ONO OR DAINS: SEC TION 1.C h ap ter Sec.78-12 7 9 Placem en t of B u ild in g s an d structu res on lots shall be amended to read as follows: (6)Average /akeshore setback.No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the lakeshore Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL)than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots;The most lakewardprotrusion except that tThis d o e s n o t a p p ly to p a t io s a n d o t h e r a cce sso ry st ru ctu re s le ss th a n 42 inches above existing grade,stairways,lifts,landings,lockboxes,flagpoles and pump houses.Further,the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries.The a ve ra g e la ke sh o re se t b a ck lin e sh a ll b e a st ra ig h t lin e co n n e ct ing the most lakeward p ro tru sio n s o f th e re sid e n ce b u ild in gs on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a .In sit u a t io n s wh e re imp ro ve me n t is p ro p o se d o n a lo t a d ja ce n t to a va ca n t lo t o r rig h t - o f-wa y,th e a ve ra g e la ke sh o re se t b a ck sh a ll be equivalent to the setback of the most la keward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved la ke sh o re lo t. b .In sit u a t io n s wh e re th e a ve ra g e la ke sh o re se tb a ck lin e b ise cts th e p rin cip a l structure b u ild in g lo ca te d o n e it h e r a d ja ce n t lo t,th e n e xt mo st a d ja ce n t la ke sid e p o in t o f th e b ise cte d p rin cip a l stru ctu re b u ild in g sh a ll b e u se d fo r d e te rmin in g th e a ve ra g e la ke sh o re se tb a ck.If th e lin e co n t in u e s to b ise ct th e stru ctu re ,th e n e xt mo st la ke sid e p o in t is to b e u se d u n t il th e se tb a ck lin e d o e s n o t b ise ct th e b u ild in g o n a n a d ja ce n t lo t. SECTIO N 2 .EF F ECTIVE DATE:T his or dinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADO P TED this 14th day of _oct.,2019 on a vote of 5 ayes and o nays by the City Council of Orono,Minnesota. AT T E ST : Anna Carl son,City Cler k Dennis Walsh,M ayor Ord in a n ce p u b lish ed in Th e La ker a n d Th e P io n eer newsp ap ers th e week oh ov.9_,2 0 1 9 . 10/16/2020 Orono, MN Code of Ordinances 2/2 (3)(4)(5)(6)a.*  Except for detached garages on lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and exceptfor structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated inthe various zoning districts.Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lockboxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones.Uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located onlots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with publicwaters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setbackor be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography,assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone.Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject tothe regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within theshore setback zone.Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to thelakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings onadjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings and lockboxes.Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not applyto tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the mostlakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots.In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approvalmay be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of anadjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval.(Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004) 10/16/2020 Orono, MN Code of Ordinances 2/2 (3)(4)(5)(6)a.*  Except for detached garages on lakeshore lots as regulated in section 78-1435 and exceptfor structures subject to less restrictive side yard adjacent to street setbacks as regulated inthe various zoning districts.Bluff impact zones. Structures and accessory facilities, except stairways, landings and lockboxes, must not be placed within bluff impact zones.Uses without water-oriented needs. Uses without water-oriented needs must be located onlots or parcels without public waters frontage, or, if located on lots or parcels with publicwaters frontage, must either be set back double the normal ordinary high water level setbackor be substantially screened from view from the water by vegetation or topography,assuming summer, leaf-on conditions.Fences, docks, retaining walls. No fence shall be placed within the shore setback zone.Portions of dock located landward of the OHWL shall be considered as a landing, subject tothe regulations for landings per section 78-1282. Retaining walls shall not be placed within theshore setback zone.Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory structure shall be located closer to thelakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings onadjacent lots; except that this does not apply to stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpolesand pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakesand shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight lineconnecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediatelyadjacent lakeshore lots.In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approvalmay be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of anadjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval.(Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(C)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 28, 6-10-2013) E XHIB IT 4 A ugus t 12,2019 Memor andum CITY OF ORONO MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: F ROM: Aug u st 12 ,20 19 Mayor Walsh ,City Co u n cil mem b ers Du stin Rief,City Ad m in istra to r Jer em y Barnh art ,AI CP,Co m m u n ity Dev elop m en t Director RE:Avera g e Lak e Sh ore Setback discu ssio n Reco g n izin g th e v ar ied lo t co n fi g u ra tio n s of lak e sh ore prop erty,th e City Co u ncil directed staff to r ev iew Av era g e L ak e Sh o r e setb ack r eg u latio n s,in p art to en sure th at th ese con fig ura tio n s are ad eq u ately ad d r essed in th e City Co d e,an d in p art to en sure th at th e r eg u latio n s actu ally p rotected lak e v iews. T h e Plan n in g Co m m issio n d iscu ssed th is issu e at th eir m eetin g o n Ju ly 1 5 "".Min u tes fro m th at m eetin g ar e attach ed . Staff seek s co n fi rmatio n o f g o als,an d with th o se,will p r ep ar e a d ra ft o r d in an ce for co n sid era tio n : Pres erv at ion of Lak e v iew s ■I s it t he ci t y 's int ent ion t o pres erv e a 180 degree v iew s hed,fr ee of s t ruc t ures ?Or reas onable v iew s of t he lak e,giv en inherent dev elopm ent dens it ies ? Ac c om m odat es v arious unique ci rc um s t anc es ■I ncl ude m eandering,c onc av e,c onv ex s horelines ,penins ulas . ■Ex t rem e neighboring s et bac k s (F arv iew Lane,ot hers ).I s it t he C it y 's int ent t o pres erv e v iew s fo r hom es t hat are s et bac k m ore t han 200 f eet fr om t he lak e?Should t here be a m ax im um ALS? ■U nique orient at ion t o t he lak e (F ores t Arm s Lane).I s it t he C it y 's int ent t o pres erv e v iew s w here t he hom es are orient at ed ov er anot her's 'propert y ? ■Lot s w it h double lak e fr ont age C larit y .Any res ult ing regulat ion s hould be unders t andable fo r t he lay pers on.T his of t en prec ludes num erous ex c ept ions . An y ch an g e to th e zo n in g o r d in an ce will r eq u ir e r ev iew b y th e p lan n in g co m m issio n an d a p u b lic h ear in g . E x h ib its E x h ib it A Ar ea Co m m u n ity Co m p ar iso n E x h ib it B L o t Sam p les E x h ib it C Pen ce L an e ex am p le E x h ib it D PC M in u tes E x h ib it E PC Staff r ep o rt Lake view protection in neighboring communities Excelsior 17-6 (2)Ordinary high w at er lev el set bac ks.The com plet e shoreland prov isions are fo und as art icl e 60 of t his Appendix E.a.No princ ipal st ruct ure or building addit ion ot her t han an ex ist ing w at er orient ed accessory st ruc t ure as specifi ed abov e shall be loc at ed cl os er t o t he ordinary high w at er lev el t han t he great er of :1.Fif t y f eet ,or 2. F iv e f eet on eit her s ide of a line w hic h is draw n bet w een t he t w o closest riparian princ ipal s t ruc t ures on eit her s ide of a propos ed building s it e. M ound N one W ay z at a 991.09.D N o princi pal s t ruc t ure or building addit ion ot her t han a w at er orient ed ac c es s ory s t ruc t ure as s peci fi ed abov e s hall be loc at ed cl os er t o t he ordinary high w at er m ark t han t he great er of :a)Sev ent y -fi v e f eet ;b)A line w hic h is draw n bet w een t he t w o cl os es t riparian princi pal st ruct ures on eit her side of a proposed building sit e;c)The av erage set bac k of t he t w o closest riparial princi pal st ruct ures on eit her side of a proposed building sit e;or d)The av erage set bac k line shall be m eas ured parallel t o t he ordinary high w at er lev el.In all circum st ances,t he set bac k s hall be es t ablis hed by m eas uring t he dis t anc e fr om t he ordinary high w at er lev el t o t hat part of t he said princi pal st ruct ure t hat is closest t o t he lak e. Vict oria 100-150 set bac k ,based on lak e classifi cat ion Tonk a Bay 1011.03.5.d "For riparian lot s,no princ ipal st ruc t ure or building addit ion shall be locat ed closer t o t he ordinary high w at er mark t han t he great er of fi fty (SO)f eet ,or t he av erage set bac k of t he t w o adjacent riparian princi pal st ruct ures on eit her side of a proposed building sit e.In all ci rcum st ances,t he set bac k shall be est ablished by measuring t he dist ance fr om t he ordinary high w at er lev el t o t he part of t he said princi pal st ruct ure t hat is closest t o t he lak e." M innet onk a Beac h (F)(d)Specifi c Design Crit eria fo r St ruct ures in t he Shoreland Dist rict (i)Av erage M inim um Lak eshore Set bac k (AM LS)Princi pal st ruc t ures-and ac cessory st ruct ures as may be required by t his ordinance-shall be locat ed no closer t o t he lak eshore t han a line deriv ed by t he great est set bac k required by a com binat ion of t he fo llow ing:1.A line draw n 75 f eet parallel t o t he lak eshore;2.If t he lot is bet w een t w o (2)lot s t hat co nt ain princ ipal st ruct ures,a st raight line connect ing point s on eac h side lot line t hat are set bac k fr om t he lak eshore a dist ance equiv alent t o t he princ ipal st ruc t ures on t he direct ly adjacent lot s.3.If t he lot is adjacent t o only one (1)lot cont aining a princ ipal st ruct ure,a st raight line connect ing point s on eac h side lot line t hat are set bac k fr om t he lak eshore a dist ance equiv alent t o t he set bac k of t he lak ew ard m ost point of t he adjac ent princi pal st ruct ure. H Hennepin County Property Map No result s Casco A venue Black line 75 lake yard Red line ALS for red starred lot Blue line is A VS for blue starred lot Dat e:7/11/2019 1 inc h =100 et Comments: This d a ta (i)is furn ish e d 'AS IS'w ith n o re p re se n ta tio n a s to co mp le te n e ss o r a ccu ra cy:(ii)is fu rn ish e d w ith no w a rra n ty o f a n y kin d :a n d (iii)is n o ts u ita b le for le g a l,e n g in e e rin g o r su rve yin g p u rp o se s. H e n n e p in C o u n ty sh a ll n o t b e lia b le fo r a n y d a ma g e ,in ju ry o r lo ss re su ltin g fro m th is d a ta . CO PYRIG HT©HENNEPIN CO UNTY 2019 H Hennepin County Property Map No res ult s Farview Lane Black line 75 lake yard setback Note 450 foot setback Dat e:7/11/2019 1 inc h =200 feet Comments: This data (i)is furnished 'AS IS'with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind;and (iii)is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. CO PYRIG HT©HENNEPIN CO UNTY 2019 H Hennepin County Property Map N o res ult s For est Ar ms L ane Black line 75 lake yard Red line ALS for red starred lot Note orientation of houses Dat e:7/11/2019 1 inc h =200 feet Comments: This d a ta (i)is furn ish e d 'AS IS'w ith n o re p re se n ta tio n a s to co mp le te n e ss o r a ccu ra cy;(i i)is fu rn ish e d w ith no w a rra n ty o f a n y kin d ;a n d (iii)is n o tsu ita b le for le g a l,e n g in e e ri n g o r su rve yin g p u rp o se s. H e n n e p in C o u n ty sh a ll no t b e lia b le fo r a n y d a ma g e ,in ju ry o r lo ss re su ltin g fro m th is d a ta . CO PYRIG HT©HENNEPIN CO UNTY 2019 H Hennepin County Property Map No res ults Shadywood Road Black line 75'lake setback Red Line ALS for red starred lot Blue line ALS for blue starred lot Date:7/11/2019 1 inc h =100 feet Comments: This d a ta (i)is furn ish e d 'AS IS'w ith n o re p re se n ta tio n a s to co mp le te n e ss o r a ccu ra cy;(ii)is fu rn ish e d w ith n o w a rra n ty o f a n y kin d ;a n d (iii)is n o tsu ita b le for le g a l,e n g in e e rin g o r su rve yin g p u rp o se s. H e n n e p in C o u n ty sh a ll no t b e lia b le fo r a n y d a ma g e ,in ju ry o r lo ss re su ltin g fro m th is d a ta . CO PYRIG HT©HENNEPIN CO UNTY 2019 n' (_,...,J zo 0!o $-;.e o 7'o LEGAL DESCRITION: Lot 2,Bock 1,PENCE LANE ADDITION O :Denotes found iron marker @ ;Denotes set iron markeres:zz±. This survey intendsto show the boundaries of the above describedproperty,a proposed house,a proposed and existing drive,and a pool.It does not purport to sh ow any other encroachments or improvements. 1(4°' L/11,,------ 1 f NWCORNER OFI/RLSNO.31o #]I·[I 'g[± ItIIIII /p,G, • N'4.Y N 88"54'17 W 146.30 \ /Lor2 I/°/ -~------------_.:,\1' -··'A8·A, >'·0A,.·t ry68o,C I\\·\\\\·Ifly \f ~i\I\'),yy>e-x s$es..2>\e ;>4s >~~.................}···················::::-:.::-:---':;._~ isl k 7ItVRisurve >sale •.-@<:t_%s s-'---{-&R&_i>sssass?gee can-s3-a-4<'>-.-<2Uzi--..s=EE€2%%.=E I LAKE MINNETONKA I // ·---~--------------/;#'//av +OF CARMe(EMENf PE.RPLA,T / ---.__.--------a¥H G +Ts-/~---------l 4r-:-__ _,,~---r--1 ,a---eif.,,uurrs uer,-se.a .e a " .TA4g 1$° \_ \_ % SCALE IN FEET Black ar eas represent portions of neighboring houses that "block" 2710 Pence views 0 30 60 120;_...I D A TE {BY REVISIONS REMARKS I her eby certify that thls plan,specification,or reportwaspreparedbymeorundermydirectsupervisionandthatIamadulyLicensedLandSurveyorunderthelawsoftheStateofMinnesota. GRONBERG &ASSOCIATES,INC. CIV IL E NGINEER S ,LAND S URVEY ORS ,LAND P LANNE RS 445 N.WILLO W DRIVE LO NG LAKE,MN 55356 PHO NE:952-473-4141 FAX:952-4734435 M INUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COM M ISSION M onday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. 7.LA19-000053 CITY OF ORONO,AVERA GE LAKESHORE SETBACK DISCUSSION, 7:56 P.M .-8:30 P.M . B arnhart stated this item is intended to be a discussion on the City's average lakeshore setback and will likely be discussed at a work session.The avera ge lakeshore setback was established in 1992 and was intended to protect the views oflakeshore property owners.Typically,the avera ge lakeshore setback is established by the location of the principal struct ures on the neighboring lakeshore lots but there are som e except ions for lots adj acent to right -of-way or vacant lots. The C it y recently observed a sit uation where the avera ge lakeshore setback didn't realistically protect a lakeview as the setback line prescribed by ordinance went through the neighboring principal structures. Another example is an avera ge lakeshore setback where it goes right through the house. It is St aff s belief that the following are the goals of the ordinance: 1.Preservation oflake views.Is it the C ity's intention to preserve a 180-degree view shed,fr ee of structures or reasonable views of the lake given inherent development densit ies? 2.Accommodates various unique circumstances,including meandering,concave/convex shorelines, and peninsulas.Is it the C ity's intent to preserve views for homes that are set back more than 200 feet fr om the lake?Should there be a maxim um avera ge lakeshore?Is it the C ity's intent to preserve views where the homes are orientated over another's property? 3.C larit y.Any resulting regulation should be understandable for the avera ge citizen.This often precludes numerous exceptions. To date,no public comment s have been received. Planning St aff requests direction on how to proceed.This direction will be provided to the C ouncil and both will be used to develop regulatory solut ions for future considera tion. McC utcheon asked if the common rule is 75 feet fr om the lakeshore. B arnhart indicated he looked at Mound and Excelsior and most of those communities have some regulations to preserve views.Mound does not.Victoria uses a 150-foot setback to preserve the views. The other cit ies have sim ilar regulations. C hair R essler opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m . There were no public comments relating to this application. C hair R essler closed the public hearing at 8:11 p.m . B arnhart noted Staff did not not ice this as a public hearing. R essler st ated he would like the ordinance to be written so it is understandable by the avera ge person. Som e of the issues might be mit igated if an avera ge of two or three neighboring properties is taken into considera tion to help understand where that line is represented.R essler stated one example is of a Page 1 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. property on a quasi-peninsula and whether the City should also consider the number of feet to the neighboring structure,so it takes into consideration that shoreline point. Barnhart stated Bohns Point is a peninsula and currently the average lakeshore setback is a straight line, so the setback would be 150 feet. Ressler stated that is kind of what he is getting at and that a straight line does not seem to be fair for that lot,which should be taken into consideration. Libby stated he tends to agree from the standpoint of how they look at the metrics.W hen there is something that has irregularities,it is not uncommon to take the measured empirical distance from either the center line of the street or curb,measure back a block's worth of properties,and then divide the number of properties within that block.Instead what the City is trying to deal with is a very static line that does not take into account the irr egular shoreline. B arnhart noted S taff does use its avera ge measuring tool for some nonconforming properties but not for lakeshore lots.The problem with the avera ge number for most situations is that the line is logical.The view is established by where the structure is. Libby stated as long as that st ays the static purpose,there is no way to do it differentl y.P reserving the lakeshore is im portant and is sim ilar to the dock alignm ent s,which is very complicated.The LMC D att empt s to have som ething fair and reasonable so the docks line up but the lakeshore is not linear and does not take into account that the lakeshore differs. McCutcheon stated he agrees it is a problem and that perhaps they could look at having some sort of minim um for the neighborhood. B arnhart stated in his view,if the avera ge lakeshore setback is 219 feet,there should be some sort of maxim um lakeshore setback since there are probably some situations where the house is 450 feet back. The question then becom es,is it fair to have that lot set the avera ge lakeshore setback for the neighboring house and should it be protected as much as the homes on C asco P oint where they are all lined up. B arnhart stated that type of sit uation should be part of any discussion since that creates some of the issues.W hile a new ordinance is not going to elim inate all variances,it could help reduce it somewhat. B oll is st ated he would be in favor of elimi nating it ,which should be brought forward for discussion. Gettman comm ented they also did not discuss vegetation that can obst ruct a view.In the application earlier,there were some trees that were blocking the view and the other neighbor was willing to remove those.Having that as part of the discussion would also be helpful.If one property owner puts in a bunch of trees,it ends up defeating the purpose of having these protect ions. B arnhart noted the C ouncil did look at regulating landscaping in the lake yard in the past and ultim ately discarded any changes because they did not want to get into regulating that.The C it y is trying to protect the lake but they also want to preserve a natura l view. Gett man stated enforcem ent of the ordinance also needs to be looked at. Page 2 of 3 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Monday,July 15,2019 6:30 o'clock p.m. B arnhart stated enforcement of the ordinance can be discussed at any point. R essler stated something else to take into considera tion is the added cost of surveying the shoreline, which in his view is being utilized in ways it should not be.The C it y should take into consideration the avera ge lakeshore setbacks of neighboring properties and not j ust the two adj oining properties. Erickson st ated as it regards the 180-degree view,that is reall y unrealistic,and the idea ofr easonable views has more merit.The C ity has three different lot sizes on the lake,which makes a difference if som eone has a 50-foot lot or 100 or 200 feet of lakeshore,and is the reason why there should be an avera ge.Erickson stated he could probably support some type of upper limi t. As it relates to flag lots,Erickson stated he would like to see something that disregards the flag lots.If it was a new subdivision,flag lots would not be all owed,and if somebody next door wants to build a house, they should not have to dra sticall y comprom ise their layout to accom modate som eone whose house is behind them.One way to deal with that is j ust to ignore the flag lot and go to the next house and use that as the avera ge. In addit ion,every house has a fr ont yard and a back yard.As far as views are concerned,not many have a nice view out the fr ont door.Instead,it is the back yard where they have their pictu re window and easy chair to admi re the sunset.That sit uation would favor the back yard more than the fr ont yard. Erickson st ated a good point was ra ised also about vegetation and that he would not want to regulate vegetation too much beyond what the C it y does now,which is to regulate tree removal wit hin 75 feet of the lake.Erickson stated he would encoura ge people to plant a tree since it is a good thing.The C ity also has sim ilar rules on fences because fencing and tree planting are going to happen. Libby asked whether S t aff will dra ft som ething and bring it back before the P lanning C omm ission. B arnhart stated his plan is to summ arize the comm ents of the P lanning C omm ission and then have the sam e sort of discussion with the C it y C ouncil to gain their input. R essler commented the C ity typicall y is for maintaining vegetation and not removing it ,and that he does not want to get into regulating that. The P lanning C omm ission took no formal action on this item . Page3of 3 To: From: Chair Ressler and Planning Com m ission M em bers Dust in Rief ,Cit y Adm inist rat or Jerem y Barnhart ,Com m unit y Dev elopm ent Direct or D ate: Su b j ect: J uly 15,2019 #LA19-000053,C it y of Orono Text Am endm ent :Av erage Lak e Set bac k Application Summary:T his t he fi rst st ep in a larger disc ussion regarding Av erage Lak e Shore s et bac k prov is ions ,and w het her m odifi c at ions t o t he ordinanc e are appropriat e. Staff Recommendation:Planning D epart m ent St aff reques t s direct ion. B ackg r o u n d T he Av erage Lak e Shore s et bac k is es t ablis hed in 1992 (Ordinanc e 101 2'Series )t o prot ec t t he v iew s of lak e s hore propert y ow ners fr om enc roac hm ent due t o ex pans ion and plac em ent of s t ruc t ures on neighboring lot s .T y pic ally ,t he av erage lak e s hore s et bac k is es t ablis hed by t he loc at ion of t he princi pal s t ruc t ures on t he neighboring lak e shore lot s,t hough t here are som e except ions fo r lot s adjacent t o right of w ay or v acant lot s. In t he 18 mont hs since January 2018,t he cit y has processed 48 variance applic at ions;of t hese variance applic at ions,8 incl uded a v ariance fr om t he av erage lak e shore set bac k in som e fo rm . The regulat ion may be fo und in Sect ion 78-1279: (6)Average /akeshore setback.No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the lakeshore than the average distance from the shoreline of existing residence buildings on adjacent lots;except that this does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade,stairways,lifts, landings,lockboxes,flagpoles and pump houses.Further,the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries.The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residence buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a.In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way,the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the residence building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. T he C it y C ounc il rec ent ly obs erv ed a s it uat ion w here t he av erage lak e shore set bac k didn't realis t ic ally prot ec t a lak ev iew ,as t he set back line presc ribed by ordinance w ent t hrough t he neighboring princ ipal s t ruc t ures (Ex hibit C).That ,coupled w it h t he variance fr equency suggest s a rev iew of t he regulat ion is appropriat e.Av erage Lak e Shore s et bac k w as las t am endm ent in 2015,t o ac c om m odat e lot s adjac ent t o right of w ay . A n al ysi s T his it em is not y et s c heduled fo r a public hearing.At t his s t age,s t aff s eek s confi rm at ion of goals FILE #LA19-000053 July 15,2019 Page 2 of 2 prior t o dev eloping solut ions fo r t he public,Planning Com m ission,and Counci l considerat ion. St aff has polled area com m unit ies t o underst and t heir regulat ions at t ac hed as Ex hibit A.Excelsior, W ay zat a,Tonk a Bay ,and M innet onka Beac h hav e an av erage lak e set bac k sim ilar t o Orono's. Vic t oria relies on a 100 or 150'set bac k (based on t he lak e classifi cat ion),and M ound does not hav e any addit ional regulat ions. Goals.St aff underst ands t hat t he fo llow ing are t he goals of t he ordinanc e Pres erv at ion of Lak e v iew s •I s it t he cit y 's int ent ion t o preserv e a 180 degree v iew shed,fr ee of st ruct ures? Or reasonable v iew s of t he lak e,giv en inherent dev elopm ent densit ies? Ac c om m odat es v arious unique c irc um s t anc es •I ncl ude m eandering,c onc av e,c onv ex s horelines ,penins ulas . •Ex t rem e neighboring s et bac k s (F arv iew Lane,ot hers ).I s it t he C it y 's int ent t o pres erv e v iew s fo r hom es t hat are s et bac k m ore t han 200 f eet fr om t he lak e? Should t here be a m ax im um ALS? •U nique orient at ion t o t he lak e (F ores t Arm s Lane).I s it t he C it y 's int ent t o pres erv e v iew s w here t he hom es are orient at ed ov er anot her's 'propert y ? •Lot s w it h double lak e fr ont age C larit y .Any res ult ing regulat ion s hould be unders t andable fo r t he lay pers on.T his of t en precl udes num erous ex c ept ions . Ex am ples of lot c onfi gurat ions and t he unique ci rc um s t anc es t hey repres ent are at t ac hed as Ex hibit B.N ot e t he s et bac k lines illus t rat ed on t he ex hibit s are es t im at es only ,bas ed on aerial phot ography . Pu b l ic C o mmen ts T o dat e,no public c om m ent s hav e been rec eiv ed. I ssu es fo r C o n si d er ati o n 1.D oes t he Planning C om m is s ion agree w it h t he goals ? 2.D oes t he C om m is s ion hav e addit ional goals t hat s hould be incl uded? Pl an n i n g Staff R eco mmen d ati o n Planning St aff reques t s direc t ion.T his direc t ion w ill be prov ided t o t he C ounc il,and bot h w ill be us ed t o dev elop regulat ory s olut ions fo r f ut ure c ons iderat ion. List o f Exh i b i ts Ex hibit A. Ex hibit B. Ex hibit C. Area C om m unit y C om paris on Lot s am ples Penc e Lane ex am ple 150 South Fifth Street | Suite 1200 | Minneapolis, MN 55402 P:612 -877-5000 F:612 -877-5999 W:LawMoss.com December 7, 2020 VIA E-MAIL and U.S. MAIL dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn.us aprintup@ci.orono.mn.us Mayor Dennis Walsh Council Member Aaron H. Printup 2780 Kelley Parkway 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Orono, MN 55356 vseals@ci.orono.mn.us rcrosby@ci.orono.mn.us Council Member Victoria Seals Council Member Richard F. Crosby II 2780 Kelley Parkway 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Orono, MN 55356 mjohnson@ci.orono.mn.us jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us Council Member Matt Johnson Mr. Jeremy Barnhart, AICP 2780 Kelley Parkway Community Development Director Orono, MN 55356 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Re: 1700 Shoreline Drive Plat Proposal Dear Mayor Walsh, Council Members, and Mr. Barnhart: I represent Barbara Burwell. I write to you regarding tonight’s December 7, 2020, Orono City Council Meeting. At the Orono City Council Meeting held on October 26, 2020, we raised concerns regarding the seven lot subdivision proposed by the Estate of Irwin Jacobs (the “Jacobs Estate”) located at 1700 Shoreline Drive, Orono (the “Jacobs Property”). There are many problems with the proposed subdivision, including violations of City of Orono ordinances provisions and the need for variances due to violations of the City of Orono’s ordinances regarding Average Lakeshore Setback (“ALS”), lot width, and the use and length of the proposed cul-de-sac road. The Jacobs Estate withdrew its original proposed plat and submitted a revised, six lot plan on November 18, 2020. We received a one page PDF plan prepared by the Jacobs Estates’ representatives. A copy is enclosed for your convenient reference. Mayor Walsh, Council Members, and Mr. Barnhart December 7, 2020 Page 2 This one page document is not as detailed as the prior, seven lot plat submitted by the Jacobs Estate. The one page document appears to be a draft document printed over a topographical map without engineered dimensions. The one page document is insufficiently detailed to properly and fully evaluate so the one page document cannot be considered. It is our understanding that the purpose of tonight’s City Council meeting is to refer the new proposed plat to the Orono Planning Commission. Barbara Burwell and I will be present at this evening’s City Council meeting to ensure that her objections are noted. We also received Mr. Barnhart’s two page letter to the Jacobs Estate’s representative, detailing some of the City of Orono’s comments and concerns regarding the revised plan. A copy of the letter is also enclosed for your convenient reference. We share many of the same concerns as the City regarding this revised proposal, including concerns over the proposed cul-de-sac road’s length and the ability of emergency vehicles to navigate the cul-de-sac. A high density neighborhood at 1700 Shoreline Drive will not work, and Ms. Burwell opposes a six lot development. We also have separate concerns not yet raised by the City. For example, the Northern ALS line depicted on the revised proposal seems to rely on an unbuilt house and a non-principal structure. In other words, it seems likely that the Northern ALS line is inaccurate. We are also concerned that some of the proposed lots do not meet minimum acreage requirements or minimum lot width requirements. The revised plat would require variances. And, as we explained on October 26, 2020, the Jacobs Estate likely cannot meet the practical-difficulties test required for variances. (See Orono City Ordinance 78-121). In light of the above-raised concerns, we plan to object to the revised, six lot plat. Our understanding is that there will be no substantive discussion regarding the Jacobs Property at the December 7, 2020, City Council Meeting this evening, and that the revised plat will be referred to the City of Orono Planning Commission for discussion in January 2021. To the extent that there will be substantive discussion regarding the new six lot plat, we object to the plat based on: (1) the concerns raised by Mr. Barnhart in his November 19, 2020 letter, (2) the concerns we have raised, above, and (3) the lack of detail in the proposed six lot plat necessary to conduct an accurate and thorough analysis of the proposal. We also object to any substantive discussion of the revised plat because the one page PDF is insufficient to properly and fully analyze the Jacobs Estate’s proposal. Very truly yours, /s/ Aaron A. Dean Aaron A. Dean Attorney At Law Mayor Walsh, Council Members, and Mr. Barnhart December 7, 2020 Page 3 P: (612) 877-5255 F: (612) 877-5033 Aaron.Dean@lawmoss.com AD/dshe Enclosures cc: Barbara Burwell (via e-mail) 6646199v1     November 19, 2020    Whitten Associates, Inc.  Attn: Timothy Whitten       VIA EMAIL  4159 Heatherton Place                 tim@whittenassociates.com  Minnetonka, MN  55345    Re: Shoreline Estates   File # LA20‐000048    Mr. Whitten,  The City has reviewed your revised, 6 lot plan received November 18, 2020.  After careful review, we have the  following comments.      Lots/ Setbacks  1. Please show the bluff on lots 5 and 6 and the 30‐foot top of bluff setback.    2. The plans indicate the amount of contiguous dry buildable area for lots 1‐3.  Please also include that  calculation for lot 5.  3. Please show the 75‐foot lake setback for lots 1‐3, and 5.    4. The street side yard setback for Lot 1 is 30 feet.    5. Is an entrance monument proposed?  If so, details should be provided and it should be located either  within an easement or outlot.      Average Lakeshore Setback  6. The plan shows an average lakeshore setback (ALS) line to the north, through lot 5, and to the south,  through lots 1‐3.  Since upon platting, these lines will go away; showing these lines may add confusion.   Please provide two exhibits:  a. An exhibit showing current Average Lakeshore Setbacks impacting 1700 Shoreline (do not show  any proposed lots, or any proposed house pads).  The scale may need to expand to incorporate  the principal structure of 1100 Millston in the graphic.    b.  An exhibit showing the proposal without the average setback line, because this will not be known  until the lots are developed.  Streets  7. Hennepin County has provided comments in a letter dated August 17, 2020, attached as Exhibit A.   8. The cul de sac design exceeds the minimum ROW width.  However, because of the center island, please  provide a turning template to illustrate that a firetruck can navigate the cul de sac.  The plan has been  forwarded to the Fire Chief for his comment.    9. The cul de sac measures 1005 feet from Shoreline ROW to the furthest edge of the pavement, through  the center of the cul de sac. Because there may be a measuring error, please provide an exhibit showing  the distance.      Utilities  10. Engineering (sanitary, storm sewer, road design) needs to be completed based on this layout in order for  the preliminary plat to be approved.    11. Any approval will be conditioned on Watershed District Approval.    Grading/ Landscaping  12. A grading plan is necessary prior to approval.    13. Please show and list all trees that will be removed due to grading and those that are anticipated to be removed  due to house pad preparation.  14. A landscaping plan must be provided.  Street trees are required. One tree is required per 40 feet of street  frontage.  The City Council has recently preferred trees to be installed in natural clumps, in lieu of 40’ on center  placement.     Other/ Miscellaneous  15. As part of the final plat, the following legal documents will be required:  a. Home Owners Association (HOA) documents to guarantee the maintenance of any community private  improvements and the private street;  b. Private Covenants to guide use and house design (if desired);  c. Drainage and flowage easements (over wetlands);  d. Conservation easements (over bluff areas, at minimum);  e. Buffer documents (as required by watershed district);  f. Drainage and Utility Easements as appropriate.    It is helpful to provide a point by point response when submitting new plans, to facilitate more efficient review by the  City.  Further, we think it is advantageous to hold a new public hearing at the Planning Commission to ensure all  interested parties can comment on these revisions.  For inclusion in the Planning Commission meeting on January 19,  2020, this information must be provided by January 6, 2021.  Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email  at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions on the above requirements.    Sincerely,   CITY OF ORONO       Jeremy Barnhart, AICP  Community Development Director  150 South Fifth Street | Suite 1200 | Minneapolis, MN 55402 P:612 -877-5000 F:612 -877-5999 W:LawMoss .com 6573570v1 October 26, 2020 VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members 2780 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Re: 1700 Shoreline Drive Subdivision Our File No.: 61540.1 Dear Mayor Walsh and Council Members: I represent Barbara Burwell. At the last City Council meeting on September 14, 2020, the Council asked Tim Whitten, the Jacobs family’s developer and architect, if he had talked to the neighbors, and the City Council asked Mr. Whitten whether the neighbors supported the proposed subdivision. Mr. Whitten’s statement to the City Council was very telling: “The neighbors? Oh, we’ve got neighbor meetings and everybody loves it. We have no issues whatsoever. . . . That’s not a concern. . . . As far as neighbors, I don’t see an issue at all.” See September 14, 2020, City Council meeting video, 1:00:00 and 1:00:31 marks. Mr. Whitten’s statements to the City Council were untrue. Mrs. Burwell objects to the proposed subdivision. We are concerned that the Jacobs family’s representative made this fundamental misrepresentation. Mr. Whitten had not even talked to Michael and Meredith Kuhlman, the next door neighbors who live at 1760 Shoreline Drive, before the September 14, 2020, City Council meeting. Mr. Whitten never obtained Mrs. Burwell’s consent at any time, and she lives at 1100 Millston Road. Despite these facts, Mr. Whitten represented that the “neighbors loved” the development. Thus, the two families that live next to this proposed development were not consulted and never agreed to the subdivision, contrary to Mr. Whitten’s representation to the City Council at the last meeting. The neighbors do not “love” the proposed subdivision. The neighbors object to the proposed subdivision. This is an important point, and this fundamental misstatement colors all of Mr. Whitten’s actions to date before the City Council. PC Exhibit M Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 2 2 6573570v1 At tonight’s City Council meeting, the City will decide whether to approve a seven lot subdivision that the Jacobs family applied for on July 22, 2020. The application should be denied. We are concerned that on Friday, October 23, 2020, the City provided notice – for the first time – that the Jacobs family/trust proposed a new six lot development. The City cannot consider this new six lot subdivision. Notice was not provided as required by Minnesota law. See Minn. Stat. 462.358, subd. 3b. As you will hear from Mrs. Burwell directly this evening, Mrs. Burwell objects to both the originally applied for seven lot subdivision and this newly disclosed six lot subdivision. The City must reject the application submitted by the Jacobs family/trust for several reasons discussed, below. In addition to these written comments objecting to the proposed subdivision, Mrs. Burwell requests to be able to address the City Council and then separately requests that I be allowed to address the City Council to explain why the proposed subdivision must be rejected. Mrs. Burwell has concerns about the proposed seven lot subdivision of the Irwin Jacobs property (the “Jacobs Property”) located at 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono.1 This proposed seven lot subdivision asks the City to ignore its own established Average Lakeshore Setback Ordinance and the protections afforded neighboring property owners. The ALS Ordinance cannot be circumvented by the Jacobs family/trust, and the proposed subdivision must be rejected for the simple reason that the City should not grant a number of variances to overcome admitted deficiencies in the proposed preliminary plat that fail to meet code requirements established for the health, safety, and welfare of Orono residents. The City must reject the proposed subdivision. Minnesota Government Data Practices Act Request. We are concerned by the lack of transparency to date regarding the proposed subdivision. This concern relates to the actions by Tim Whitten and agents of the Jacobs Family Trust. We need to better understand what the Jacobs Family Trust has represented to the City’s officials. Mrs. Burwell respectfully requests that the City Council deny the proposed application for the subdivision. Mrs. Burwell also requests copies of the following documents, pursuant to Minnesota’s Government Data Practices Act: 1. All e-mails submitted by the Jacobs Family, the Jacobs Trust, Gronberg & Associates, Whitten Associates, Inc., Tim Whitten, or Patrick Steinhoff to the City related to the subdivision of 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono since January 1, 2020. 1 Despite the assertion by Mr. Whitten at the City Council Meeting dated September 14, 2020 that the neighbors had no objection to the plat (see the recording of the City Council Meeting at approximately the 1:00:00 and 1:00:31 marks), the Kuhlmanns and Ms. Burwell are opposed to the development and have not previously indicated any approval of the subdivision as proposed. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 3 3 6573570v1 2. All text messages sent or received by Jeremy Barnhart of the City, other City employees, Mayor Dennis Walsh, or City Council members related to 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono since January 1, 2020. 3. All documents received by the City of Orono related to the proposed subdivision or development of 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono since January 1, 2020. 4. All documents showing dates of meetings on-site at 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono by Jeremy Barnhart, any City employee, Mayor Walsh, and any City Council member since January 1, 2020, related to any proposed subdivision or development. 5. All e-mails sent or received by Jeremy Barnhart, City employees, City Council members, or the Mayor related to the proposed development or subdivision of 1700 Shoreline Drive in Orono since January 1, 2020. To be clear, Mrs. Burwell needs this information in order to understand the representations of the Jacobs Family Trust and its agents to the City. Mrs. Burwell is not implying that City officials have done anything wrong. Mrs. Burwell requests that no City Council meeting be scheduled until 21 days after all documents listed above have been produced by the City, pursuant to this Minnesota Government Data Practices Act request. Purpose of Orono Zoning Regulations Sec. 78-5 of the Orono Code of Ordinances, attached as Exhibit 1, defines the “purpose” of the Orono Zoning Regulations. Section 78-5(a)(2) explains that “[t]he maintenance of open space and the avoidance of overcrowding of land is a basic guiding principle in this plan.” And Section 78- 5(a)(5) provides that “[t]he guiding principles of maintaining open spaces, avoiding the ill effects of overcrowding, avoiding premature development, avoiding the future pollution problems which are inherent in any plan to intensely develop land adjacent to wetlands and Lake Minnetonka, and the need to change some allowed uses in order to preserve the quality of the groundwater supplies in the area were recognized in the comprehensive municipal plan adopted on December 2, 1974, and the amendments to the comprehensive zoning chapter and map.” (Emphasis Ours.) These stated purposes support application of existing codes to any proposed subdivision, not a departure from the ordinances that has the effect of increasing density and compromising the rights, safety, health and welfare of the property owners in and around the development. Average Lakeshore Setback Ordinance Section 78-1279(6) of the Orono Code of Ordinances–most recently updated on October 14, 2019 as Orono Ordinance No. 234, Third Series, establishes the general rule for Average Lakeshore Setbacks (“ALS”). A copy of Ordinance No. 234 is attached as Exhibit 2. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 4 4 6573570v1 Pursuant to the City’s own records,2 the goals of the ALS are: 1) preservation of lake views; 2) accommodating unique circumstances, including meandering, concave/convex shorelines and peninsulas; and 3) clarity – the regulation should be understandable for the layperson. Both the 2004 and 2013 versions of the ALS, attached as Exhibit 3, included the following language: (6) a. In instances where the average lakeshore setback can not be met, administrative approval may be granted at the discretion of the planning director provided no lake views of an adjacent lakeshore lot are obstructed and adjacent neighbors provide written approval.” (Emphasis Ours.) (See Ord. No. 11 3rd series, § 1, 5-24-2004 and Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 28, 6-10-2013). Attached as Exhibit 4 is an August 12, 2019 City of Orono Memorandum (the “Memorandum”) from Jeremy Barnhart, the Community Development Director, addressed to Mayor Walsh, the City Council Members, and City Administrator Dustin Rief. The Memorandum was prepared shortly before the October 2019 amendment to the ALS ordinance, at the direction of City Council, in order to “review Average Lake Shore setback regulations . . . in part to ensure that the regulations actually protected lake views.” (Memorandum p. 1). The Memorandum makes multiple other references to the importance of lake views and to neighbor consent in order to preserve the sanctity of the ALS: Page 8 of the Memorandum comes from the City Council minutes from the July 15, 2019 ALS discussion. Mr. Barnhart indicated that the ALS “was established in 1992 and was intended to protect the views of lakeshore property owners.” Further, Mr. Barnhart listed “[p]reservation of lake views” as the first of the goals of the ordinance. Pages 11 and 12 of the Memorandum refer to the ALS as being established “to protect the views of lake shore property owners from encroachment due to expansion and placement of structures on neighboring lots.” (Emphasis ours). Subdivision of property would be an expansion of a neighboring lot. The City Council was also concerned with situations “where the average lake shore setback didn’t realistically protect a lakeview.” (Page 11 of the Memorandum). Attached as Exhibit 5 is a copy of the proposed subdivision with the different ALS lines superimposed over it. It is undisputed that the approximate existing ALS for the Jacobs Property is identified as Line A in Exhibit 5, and that it greatly limits the Jacobs Family Trust’s ability to subdivide their property. Lots 2 and 3 are clearly ahead of the existing ALS line, as is a portion of lot 1. See recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at approximately the 2:17:00 mark. 2 City of Orono Memorandum dated August 12, 2019 and accompanying Minutes of the Orono Planning Commission, Monday, July 15, 2019. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 5 5 6573570v1 Mr. Barnhart admitted that the proposed ALS, identified in Exhibit 5 as Line C, is arbitrary (see the recording of the City Council Meeting dated September 14, 2020 at approximately the 42:50 mark) and that views will be compromised (see the recording of the City Council Meeting dated September 14, 2020 at approximately the 44:30 mark). Thus, the sole purpose of arbitrarily adjusting the ALS for the Jacobs property is to allow significantly greater density of homes than is presently permitted under the City of Orono’s ordinances. At the September 14, 2020 City Council Meeting, concerns were raised about the ability of an owner to convert their property into a better ALS by subdividing the property. The Council appeared to be in agreement that if a single-family home were to be built on the Jacobs Property, the established ALS would apply. However, some Council members advocated that the council could ignore the established ALS ordinance and arbitrarily establish new ALS lines C & B, in order to accommodate a higher density subdivision of the Jacobs Property.3 This position ignores the detrimental impact such action has on neighboring property owners that have relied, for decades, on the ALS line established under ordinance, and clearly circumvents the City’s own codes and variance standards. No authority was cited for the City’s ability to use a plat approval as a means of circumventing its own ordinances other than some suggestion the City may have done it before. A mistake in the past is not justification for a mistake in the future. In our review of the city Ordinances, we have not identified anything in Sec. 78-1279(6), its history, or any other Orono ordinance that suggests or provides that long-standing ALS rules established by the City for the protection of neighboring property owners can be circumvented by the City arbitrarily modifying the ALS. We respectfully request that the City identify its authority for ignoring the established ALS and subjectively inserting its own new ALS for the property. In the absence of such authority, we believe an ordinance change is required to give the City authority to so modify the ALS. Impact of Circumventing ALS When the ALS ordinance is not enforced, property views quickly become compromised, building density and watershed increases, and property values can be adversely impacted. That is evident from the present circumstances. In recent years, the Jacobs Family Trust sold a number of parcels of land that were previously part of the current Jacobs Property. See Exhibit 6. The premium prices obtained for these parcels doubtless had some basis in the ALS limitations and the general public’s understanding of the impact of the ALS on housing density and location around Lake Minnetonka. After obtaining premium prices for parcels previously sold, some of which were owned by the Jacobs Family Trust, the Jacobs Family Trust now wants to undermine the very ALS that supported higher prices by increasing the housing density of their remaining property to maximize its value. This is an unfair result to adjoining property owners, including property owners who purchased high priced neighboring lots owned by the Jacobs Family Trust, yet now are having their property ownership values impacted by the proposed arbitrary re-writing of the ALS to support a new seven lot development of 1700 Shoreline Drive. 3 Mr. Barnhart, at the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020, at approximately the 2:14:40 mark, stated the City goal was subdivisions and not to initiate or create variances. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 6 6 6573570v1 The impact of this higher density also comes at the expense of longstanding owners of neighboring properties as well as future purchasers of the seven proposed Jacobs subdivision lots, given they also will enjoy more limited views in a higher density subdivision. In the present case, the City Council should deny approval of the proposed preliminary plat because the configuration of the seven-lot subdivision cannot be allowed to be used to further manipulate the ALS. See recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at approximately the 2:17:50 mark. Had the Jacobs’ proposed subdivision included only one south lot between the neighboring Kuhlman and Burwell parcels, the ALS line may have remained unchanged. By proposing three south lots, at least two of which presently violate the existing ALS, the Jacobs Family Trust seeks to convert their property into a more favorable ALS line by first building on the middle lot in order to manipulate the ALS. Lake Lots, Lot Width and Density Proposed lots 1, 2 and 3 are non-lake shore lots as initially proposed. Because lots 1–3 do not abut Lake Minnetonka, their lot width is measured by the width of the lots’ front yards (which touch the proposed private road). (See Sec. 78-1 definition of lot width). As a result, lots 2 and 3 do not meet city code lot width requirements. (See Sept. 14, 2020 City Council Meeting recording at approximately the 31:00 mark where Mr. Barnhart admits that lots 2 and 3 are too narrow; also, the recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at 2:09:29 – 2:09:55; see also Exhibit 5). Because lot width is measured differently for lake shore lots, lots 2 and 3 might meet the City of Orono lot width requirements if they were subsequently combined with the outlots on the south side of Shoreline Drive so as to abut Lake Minnetonka and thus become lake shore lots. But, as explained by Mr. Barnhart, under Hennepin County rules, lots 1–3 cannot be combined with outlots A–C until after platting. (See Sept. 14, 2020 City Council Meeting recording at 31:30 mark). But the proposed subdivision plan cannot be approved, because it fails to comply with the established ALS. As to the proposed subdivision lot density, when asked about the buildable acreage above the ALS as presently established, Mr. Barnhart stated there were about 4 acres of buildable land above the ALS line. (See the recording of the City Council Meeting dated September 14, 2020 at approximately the 45:50 mark.) That is the acreage that establishes the potential density of the Jacobs Property, if subdivided. Again, the Jacobs Family Trust asks the City of Orono to ignore its established ordinances and asks that the City approve a subdivision with two lots (lots 2 and 3) that do not meet minimum lot width requirements, two arbitrarily created ALS lines and an otherwise impermissible higher density. Put another way, not only does the Jacobs Family Trust seek to bootstrap lots 2 and 3 into ALS compliance, but by doing so, they are able to later bootstrap lots 2 and 3 into meeting minimum lot width requirements. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 7 7 6573570v1 The City should not ignore its own ordinances. And while a variance may allow the Jacobs Family Trust to establish lots 2 and 3 with their proposed, too-narrow dimensions, as discussed below, the Jacobs Family Trust does not meet the “practical difficulties” test for being granted a variance. Road, Cul-de-sac City ordinances discourage cul-de-sacs and set a maximum length of cul-de-sac roads at 1000 feet. (See Sec. 82-281(d)(2) and 82-283(b)(6)). These ordinances exist for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of Orono. For example, fire trucks and ambulances need adequate access and turnarounds to serve Orono homes and residents. The road proposed in the Jacobs subdivision is well over 1,000 feet long. Further, concern was expressed at the City Planning Commission meeting about traffic, the addition of a right turn lane with a possible shoulder, and parking (See the recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at approximately the 2:43:30 mark.) What happens when there are large gatherings at one or more of the seven homes that have parking spilling over onto the private road, and an emergency vehicle needs access to the same or another home in the development? Circumventing normal safety standards will be to the detriment of the owners of these lots and any adjoining properties that may be impacted by delayed or compromised emergency services (such as fire trucks needed to put out a ground fire). It is also not clear what impact the addition of a westbound turn lane will have on the Burwell property, but it appears that such a turn lane will be in close proximity to traffic on and off Millston Road, creating a bottleneck of vehicular travel. This is a significant safety concern. Mrs. Burwell is also concerned is that a west bound turn lane is inevitable to accommodate a seven lot neighborhood, so Mrs. Burwell is concerned that the City’s decision about this preliminary plat will eventually cause Hennepin County to require a portion of the south end of Ms. Burwell’s property to be dedicated to widening Shoreline Drive to accommodate turn traffic. Mrs. Burwell objects to a high-density development. The City cannot promise that a west bound turn lane will never be required. The only solution is to eventually a consider a very low density subdivision, not a six lot or a seven lot subdivision. There are also many trees that run along the common boundary of the Burwell/Jacobs property. Based on recent staking, it is clear that most of the trees, some belonging to Ms. Burwell, will be damaged or removed to construct what appears to be a zero-lot line road along the common boundary. It is not clear if these trees will be replaced and at whose expense. The proposed road includes a cul-de-sac that exceeds the maximum length permitted under code and requires a variance. Arbitrary modification of the ALS lines and approval of a non-compliant subdivision is being requested so the Jacobs Family Trust can obtain a better return on the sale of their property, ignoring safety, health and welfare concerns and ignoring the Jacobs Family Trust’s recent sales of adjoining lots when buyers paid price premiums for their parcels. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 8 8 6573570v1 The City should not allow any cul-de-sac. The cul-de-sac is being used to try to create a high density development, rather than a simple subdivision. The City should reject this effort by the Jacobs family/trust. Traffic The Jacobs subdivision will access Shoreline Drive along a stretch of the road that is already a safety concern. The City Council’s approval of the proposed subdivision would create a larger safety hazard to an already hazardous stretch of road. The City, therefore, should deny the proposed application. Visibility along the road is compromised by vegetation and road curvature. Road speeds are not always honored. Recent accidents have already occurred. Under the Jacobs Family Trust plan, six or seven new homes will now be funneled through the same stretch of road for ingress and egress, bringing with these new residents all the additional traffic incidental to home use – multiple cars within a family, service providers such as garbage disposal, repairman, mail delivery, overnight package delivery, and guest traffic. The Burwell home access is also nearby. While deference has been given to the County over road control and access, this should be a City concern as well. Variance We respectfully submit that variances must be applied for/granted contemporaneously with the plat approval. The City’s action in arbitrarily adjusting or assuming new ALS lines to facilitate subdivision approval effectively grants numerous variances to the Jacobs Family Trust without requiring the Jacobs Family Trust to meet the variance criteria. In the present case, lots 1, 2, 3 and 6 do not meet the criteria for a variance and should not be approved for variances. Variance Criteria Variances may be granted only under specific circumstances. “The council upon application may grant variances from the strict application of the provisions of this chapter and impose conditions and safeguards in the variances so granted, in cases where there are practical difficulties in the way of carrying out the strict letter of the regulations of this chapter and where the variance does not adversely affect the purpose and intent of this chapter nor the health or welfare of the public.” (Sec. 78-121) (Emphasis Ours.) The Jacobs Family Trust does not satisfy these requirements. First, they do not meet the practical difficulties requirement. Sec. 78-123 of the Orono Code of Ordinances lays out the “parameters within which a variance may be granted.” One of those parameters is that “[t]he plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” (Sec. 78-123(a)(2)). This plainly does not apply to the Jacobs Family Trust; their problem with the ALS is not unique to the property, and it is one of their own making by attempting to subdivide a single property into seven different lots. The Ordinances further specify that “[e]conomic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties” meriting a variance. (Sec. 78-123(a)(4)). And the Jacobs Family Trust’s pursuit of variances in order to establish and develop this proposed subdivision is purely economical in nature. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 9 9 6573570v1 Second, granting variances in order to enable the construction of the proposed subdivision would “adversely affect the purpose and intent” of the Zoning Regulations and harm “the health [and] welfare of the public.” (Sec. 78-121). Rather than being mindful of the “maintenance of open space and the avoidance of overcrowding of land,” as the Zoning Regulations intended, this subdivision and its variances seek to prematurely overdevelop the Jacobs Family Trust. (Sec. 78- 5(a)(5)). The Jacobs Family Trust hopes to sidestep the need for individual lot variances through the creation and use of arbitrary ALS lines and blanket plat approval. Doubtless, this has something to do with the challenge of meeting the “practical difficulties” test of a variance or changing an ALS ordinance. But the reality is, the Jacobs Property is not unique; there are no practical difficulties to its development. The property can reasonably be developed at a lower density and meet all current codes. The Jacobs Family Trust desires to place more homes on the property is to obtain a better return for themselves. But this comes at the expense of the adjoining neighbors who have reasonably relied on the protections of the ALS for decades and to the potential detriment of the health, safety and welfare of the residents in the area. As stated by the City’s own Ordinances, economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties for compromising the rights of adjoining property owners. Lots 2, 3 The City admits that proposed non-lakeshore lots 2 and 3 currently violate the established ALS and require a variance. Further, even as platted, these lots are non-compliant with code until combined with the outlots south of Shoreline Drive. (See the recording of the City Council Meeting dated September 14, 2020 at approximately the 43:20-44:00 mark.) Lot 6 The City proposes to establish an ALS line for lot 6 based on yet unbuilt lot 3 of Tanager Estates and 1125 Millston Road. However, because lot 3 is unbuilt, the current ALS for Lot 6 is equal to the setback distance of 1125 Millston Road from Tanager Lake, which would limit the ability to build on lot 6 of the prosed Jacobs Subdivision. This realignment of the ALS by the City makes lot 6 a buildable site, likely avoiding the need for yet another variance. (See the recording of the City Planning Commission Meeting dated August 17, 2020 at approximately the 2:12:00 mark.) The problem with the northeast corner of the Jacobs property is that it is not buildable. As will be discussed at the City Council meeting this evening, proposed ALS Line B for the seven lot development is the wrong ALS line and uses the wrong endpoint on the Burwell property. The home shown in Lot 6 cannot be built for these reasons. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 10 10 6573570v1 Six Lot Development Published on the City’s Website on Friday, October 23, 2020. The Jacobs Family Trusted cannot be allowed to have a six lot development for many of the same reasons that the seven lot development fails. The northeast corner of the Jacobs Family home is not buildable without creating an inaccurate and arbitrary ALS line, as shown in the City Council package for tonight’s meeting. The ALS Line B proposed in the Jacobs Family Trust’s six lot development uses the wrong starting points from both sides of neighboring properties. There is no home on the Tanager side (i.e., west side of 1700 Shoreline Drive and the Jacobs family proposes uses an accessory building (i.e., a non-occupied garage) to set the ALS Line B. Lot 5 of the new six lot development, which was first published on Friday, October 23, 2020, is not buildable. The correct ALS Line B would have to be set to the Burwell residence, which would not allow a home on Lot 5. This is a function of the Jacobs Family Trust proposing too high of a density. Orono City Mayor Dennis Walsh Orono City Council Members October 26, 2020 Page 11 11 6573570v1 This is a good indicator of why the Jacobs Family Trust cannot propose either a six lot or a seven lot subdivision. The applicant is proposing too much density into too small of a land area. Summary The Jacobs plat, as presently drawn, should not be approved. Very truly yours, /s/ Aaron A. Dean Aaron A. Dean Attorney At Law P: (612) 877-5255 F: (612) 877-5033 Aaron.Dean@lawmoss.com AD/dshe Enclosure Council Exhibit K Co u n c i l Ex h i b i t K Council Exhibit L Co u n c i l Ex h i b i t L Council Exhibit M C o u n c i l E x h i b i t M Council Exhibit O From:Tim Whitten To:mdkuhlmann@gmail.com Cc:"Steadman, Mike B"; Jeremy Barnhart; "Heather Maanum" Subject:RE: Shoreline Estates, 1700 Shoreline Dr, Orono MN Date:Sunday, January 10, 2021 11:37:52 AM Attachments:20_01_09 Shoreline Estates ALS Site Plan Aerial.pdf Good morning Michael and Meredith, We recently submitted a revised application to the City of Orono scheduled to be presented at the Planning Commission public hearing on January 19, 2021 and the Council on February 22nd, 2021. Attached is a Site Plan of the six-lot subdivision for your reference. It is our understanding that the proposed Subdivision is in full compliance with the zoning and code requirements of the City of Orono, Hennepin County and would be reviewed by the Minnehaha Watershed District. We had hoped to have scheduled a neighbor meeting to discuss our proposal but due to the Covid 19 that option is unavailable. We have mailed a letter to the neighbors that included the Site Plan and suggested if they have any comments, questions, or concerns prior to the Planning Commission meeting to please contact us directly to set up a telephone or video conference. We would be happy to meet with you separately as well, please let me know if you have time available this week. Thank you Tim Whitten AIA Whitten Associates, Inc. 4159 Heatherton Place Minnetonka MN 55345 612 747 0771 From: mdkuhlmann@gmail.com <mdkuhlmann@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2020 12:10 PM To: Steadman, Mike B <MBSteadman@cbburnet.com> Cc: Tim Whitten <tim@whittenassociates.com> Subject: Re: Shoreline Estates/Kuhlmanns Hi All— Thanks for sending. Would you be able to stake the new proposed house footprint. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 13, 2020, at 6:00 PM, Steadman, Mike B <MBSteadman@cbburnet.com> wrote:  Michael, Council Exhibit N We would be happy to meet with you back out at your property if you would like. Best, Mike Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Steadman, Mike B" <MBSteadman@CBBURNET.COM> Date: October 12, 2020 at 12:21:49 PM CDT To: Kurt Woodhouse <woodhouse18@aol.com> Cc: Tim Whitten <tim@whittenassociates.com>, "Pawlik, Casie" <casie.pawlik@cbburnet.com> Subject: Fwd: Shoreline Estates/Kuhlmanns  Kurt, Attached is a drawing showing how the siting of a future home could be built if the average lakeshore setback moves to the north. We are happy to meet back out at the site to walk the lots. Best, Mike Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Tim Whitten <tim@whittenassociates.com> Date: October 12, 2020 at 12:17:29 PM CDT To: "Steadman, Mike B" <MBSteadman@CBBURNET.COM> Cc: "heather@whittenassociates.com" <heather@whittenassociates.com> Subject: Shoreline Estates/Kuhlmanns  Mike, We created an exhibit (see 1st pdf) that compares the house pad for Lot 3 with the Average Lakeshore Setback Line A and the proposed Line C (see 2nd pdf). I recommend we share this information with the Kuhlmanns as it shows that the Lot 3 house would actually be 140’ closer to their home and 20’ higher then our proposed house. This is partially due that Lot 3 side setback is 30’ whereas Lot 4 has a 50’ rear setback. We might consider increasing the Lot 4 rear setback if the Kuhlmanns would support ALS Line C as well. Let me know if you have any questions or if the Kuhlmanns want to meet to better understand these options. Thanks Tim Whitten AIA Whitten Associates, Inc. 4159 Heatherton Place Minnetonka MN 55345 612 747 0771 *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. <20_10_05 Aerial Kuhlmann.pdf> <LA20-48 ExH Average lake shore setback.pdf>