Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-24-2021 Council PacketAgenda Council Meeting Monday, May 24, 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 May 10, 2021 2. Council Work Session Minutes of May 10, 2021 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approval of Garbage Hauler Licenses 5. Approval of Transient Merchant License – Renaissance Fireworks 6. Approval to Accept Donation 7. 2021 Sewer Rehabilitation Award (21-014) 8. 2022 Streets Maintenance Planning and Engineering 9. Public Works Superintendent Appointment 10. Position Description Updates and Scores 11. West Lafayette Road Agreement 12. LA21-000026 – JALIN Design, LLC. o/b/o Tim Holland, 1395 Orono Lane, Variances 13. Fox Island Release of Development Agreement 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. Finance Director Report Community Development Report 14. LA21-000040 Text Amendment related to dock licenses and Big Island City Attorney Report City Administrator/City Engineer Report 15. Provision of Public Works Service to the City of Spring Park by the City of Orono Mayor/Council Report Adjournment Agenda Council Meeting Monday, May 24, 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 Upcoming Events 2021 05-31-21 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 06-07-21 Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 06-14-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 06-21-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 06-28-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 06-28-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 07-05-21 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 07-06-21 Park Commission Work Session, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. 07-12-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 07-12-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 07-19-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Matthew Johnson) 07-26-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 07-26-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 34 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Matt Johnson Richard Crosby, III, and Victoria Seals. Council Member Aaron Printup was absent. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, City Administrator/City Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, and City Planner Melanie Curtis. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2021 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF APRIL 26, 2021 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 5. CSAH 15/19 INTERSECTION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT 6. APPOINTMENT OF 2021 SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 7. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATIONS 8. VERIZON TOWER AGREEMENT 9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7191 This item was removed from the Consent Agenda at the request of Johnson. 10. LA20-000047 – TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO BOAT STORAGE 11. LA21-000027 – TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO PLUMBING IN ACCESSORY BUILDINGS 12. NAVARRE PARKING LOT – AUTHORIZATION FOR PLANNING Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 34 FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT 13. FIRE DEPARTMENT UTILITY VEHICLE REQUEST Fire Chief James Van Eyll said the Fire Department has a capital project for 2021 to replace Utility 13 with a vehicle similar to Utility 11 (pictures included in the packet). The new utility vehicle would be at Station 1, the old utility vehicle would move to Station 2, and the grass rig (Utility 21) would be repurposed back to a utility truck at Station 1. This has been in the capital plan for the last few years and in 2018 the officers met and revised the plan a bit which is where they combined Utility vehicles 11 and 13 together for efficiency in paring down the fleet. Bids have come in higher than expected, ranging from $170,000 to $190,000. Chief Van Eyll noted in the capital plan they had $130,000 allocated for this and he is before the Council tonight to see what the City would like to do with this capital purchase for 2021. Seals noted there is a $20,000 difference between the truck bids from Fire Safety U.S.A. and McQueen and asked if it is like a Kia versus a Chevy. Chief Van Eyll replied they were both given the Utility truck with the same parameters that the Fire Department wanted to duplicate; a four-door pickup truck, single tires on the back, fiberglass body, and a slip-in unit for grass rigs. He noted McQueen is the “Cadillac” builder out there, they are fantastic fire truck builders but one does pay for that. He was surprised to see Fire Safety U.S.A./CET as one of the lower bids and he expected Midwest Fire, which is local to Minnesota, to be one of the lower ones. Seals does not want the department to buy the cheapest just to buy the cheapest. If Midwest Fire or McQueen give a longer life on the machine, she thinks they should look at that, also. Crosby asked about the chassis they are providing. Chief Van Eyll replied it is a Ford F-350 Crew Cab Super Single from Fire Safety U.S.A. Spencer and Midwest are also Fords; he does not know exactly what McQueen’s was. He was very impressed with Fire Safety U.S.A./CET when they came out with a demo truck and displayed much better in person than online. He would not be here asking for that truck if he did not feel it was a good fit for the Fire Department for the future. Crosby asked if it will have extrication tools on it. Chief Van Eyll stated it will have extrication tools, which were purchased with the money saved the previous year when his salary was allocated through the CARES Act for Covid-type things. Those tools will be moved onto this vehicle. Walsh said they have a lot of discussions going on with Long Lake right now and probably need a few more discussions to understand moving pieces going forward and who is doing what. He asked what this purchase is replacing or adding to. Chief Van Eyll said it is replacing a Utility 13 pickup that had been donated; that truck totaled out due to some airbag recall issues, tried to replace with aftermarket parts, and Chrysler came back and said no, they will buy the truck back. He clarified Station 1 has the majority of calls so they will get this new grass MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 34 13. FIRE DEPARTMENT UTILITY VEHICLE REQUEST – Continued rig utility vehicle and Station 2 will get the older one. In five years they have a replacement for the one down at Station 2 in the 15 year capital plan. Walsh would like to have a little more conversation regarding all the equipment and vehicles to see what they really need and do not need, perhaps at a work session. He is not ready to make a decision on a $100,000 or $200,000 vehicle today without knowing all the moving parts and having those conversations with Long Lake regarding the future. Chief Van Eyll said absolutely and stated he would not be doing his job if he was not here presenting the capital plan and planning for the future of the department. Walsh noted just because something is in the capital plan does not mean it is purchased. Crosby agreed a work session makes sense to understand and become more familiar with this going forward. Johnson asked when they turned the truck over for recall. Crosby asked what they got for it. Chief Van Eyll said it was the end of 2019 and was about $7,500. Seals asked Chief Van Eyll not to hesitate to come to the Council with expired life-saving equipment, because they do want the firemen to be safe and have all the tools. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Ron Olson reported auditors will be present the following week for the field audit. Real-time utility payments will be live the following day or two, and there is an upcoming training on the installation of the Check 21 scanner. He shared Building Permit revenues, noting a big uptick in March 2021; he noted they are ahead of last year and are at 36% of budget. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197 Staff presented a summary packet of information. The applicant is requesting variances to build a new detached garage in a similar location as the existing, failing garage. The new garage will be 82 square feet larger than the existing to improve the functionality and will be taller; the project will result in a 49 square foot reduction in hardcover resulting in 37.3% where 37.7% currently exists. The garage is shown to be 4.5 feet from the west property line and 7.5 feet from the east. Hardcover and side yard setback variances are requested. Following a public hearing during the Planning Commission meeting on April 19, 2021, the Commission voted 6-0 in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances. Staff recommends approval. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 34 9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197 – Continued Mark Prueter noted the garage is estimated to be built in the 1970’s and is a block foundation with a wood parking level on the second floor and the integrity is declining. He noted the rear yard creates some challenges and his goal is to build a new structure and improve the integrity, manage the setbacks favorably, and build an aesthetic structure that matches the neighborhood and is in conformance with the house. Crosby asked to see pictures of the existing garage. Johnson drove by the property and in comparing what he saw with the drawing, he noticed some increasing in massing of the height and then he learned it is bigger. Because it is in a non-conforming location, if they want to take advantage of its location being non-conforming, then increasing of the massing is not allowed. That is what he would like to discuss. Curtis showed a drawing on screen and said it is not the footprint size of the existing garage as that is getting a bit larger; she showed the height difference in the drawing. She noted the garage is currently more than conforming on the west side with 7.5 foot setbacks and the applicant has opted to encroach on the west side. She believes the property owner to the west is comfortable with that but she did not speak with them. The applicant is proposing to meet the side setback on the east where it was previously very close to the lot line. Walsh asked the width of the lot in the front. Prueter thinks it is 35 feet. Walsh said generally speaking for the garage it is 35 feet wide with 7.5 feet setbacks on each side which would give a 2 car garage. Mr. Prueter replied yes, that is what they currently have. It is 20 feet wide and is extremely tight for two moderate vehicles. Crosby asked a normal width on a two car garage. Johnson replied a garage door is 16 feet wide. Mr. Prueter noted they are proposing a 22 foot wide garage with an 18 foot wide door. Johnson noted they reduced setbacks from 10 to 7.5 to avoid variances. In this case, if they want to keep the non-conforming location, then they cannot mass them and make them bigger. They must use the same existing footprint. If one switches the location, people have come into conformity then on other garages. The Council has not allowed them to get bigger and not conform. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 34 9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197 – Continued Walsh said if the applicant wants to keep the non-conforming they could rebuild it the size that it is. If the applicant wants to make it bigger from a height perspective, they must conform on size which gives a 20 foot garage. Mr. Prueter pointed out they are asking for 82 square feet. He asked for 92 square foot addition of an entryway in 2007 and he was at the podium for an hour arguing that, which came to approval. He would imagine in driving the street the Council has seen some new construction; several homes have gone in that have doubled the size of the existing structure on property that is much smaller than his. He knows they all have their limitations for properties. He feels what they are asking for is reasonable and they tried to do it in a respectful manner, managing the setbacks they could for both neighbors and the City, and increase the garage size. If they are going to invest the money to build this, they would like to increase the space and be able to open the doors of the cars to get in and out. They are asking for additional height for additional storage as currently things are stacked in the rafters and the integrity of the rafters is no better than the foundation. The height is to allow for sufficient storage and for Mr. Prueter to be able to carry it into place. He noted the neighbors are supportive of the project. Walsh asked how big the lot is. Mr. Prueter replied at lakeshore it is 60 feet, rear is 35 feet, and about 140 feet deep and is a pie shape. Walsh said it is about ¼ acre. He noted it is already a practical difficulty with a small lot and setbacks; it would be about another foot of encroachment. Going up on a lot that is quite small – Walsh said every lot there is substandard from a zoning perspective and there has been a lot of leeway, especially with new construction. Crosby stated there is some height to the garages back there. Walsh said in the end, the applicant is trying to make a better placement by centering the garage and getting a little more space. He noted cars are not getting any smaller. Walsh acknowledges Johnson’s issues but he knows the lots in this area are very tight and tiny from a width perspective. He thinks the applicant is trying to make the property better, and is still in compliance on one side, and just a bit of extra space is more benefit and the Council should give credit for that. He would be supportive of the application. Johnson said there is nothing preventing this from going farther back and closer to the house. For space, the garage can also go deeper. When they allow the massing increases on these very narrow spots, they get complaints about the water shedding off the roof onto the neighbors. Mr. Prueter asked to address those issues. His neighbors at 3205 Crystal Bay Road have a sizable garage with a similar design and height to what he would be achieving. He does not think they would outpace the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 34 9. LA21-000023 – MARK PRUETER, 3215 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, VARIANCES RESOLUTION NO. 7197 – Continued neighbors in terms of height. Mr. Prueter clarified they needed variances on almost all sides for the house when they modified it in 1994. In moving the garage closer to the house, they would not gain a whole lot but would eat up more of the yard and eat up additional hardcover with the driveway. The structure itself is not increasing in tremendous size, they are shifting and trying to center it. The stairs are what is making it the 4.5 and moving the structure itself provides more breathing room. He believes the height restriction is 30 feet from the highest grade and this structure will come in at 19 feet and perhaps 26 off the back side. The height of the home is about 28 feet. Crosby stated it keeps in character with the neighborhood. They are dealing with a very tiny lot and he thinks it is extremely reasonable and he is okay with the project as is. Walsh said it is a trade-off. Do they want more hardcover to then be in compliance with the side setback? From a lake quality standpoint, he would rather have less hardcover. Mr. Prueter said in regards to the water shed, he asked to show the survey and noted there is an underground swale that goes from the rear of the garage all the way to the street to carry water, which was part of the renovation in 1994. The intention is to have gutters and bring the water down to the swale and move it along and control the water flow. The neighbor’s initial concern was having water flow out the back and down to the neighboring property. Mr. Prueter’s proposal addresses that. Johnson said when he went to the property, one of the neighbors have a gutter going out into the road. When he checked in with Staff, it is railroad property and is not City jurisdiction. Johnson moved to deny LA21-000023, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, Variances, based on the increase massing in an existing non-conforming location. Motion failed. Crosby moved to adopt LA21-000023, 3215 Crystal Bay Road, Variances. Johnson would like to add that there is a storm water plan approved by the City Engineer. Edwards said it would have to be approved when they come to apply for the building permit. Johnson asked: to add gutters on, as well? Edwards replied yes, that is often one of the comments he will provide. Crosby is comfortable with adding that. Motion seconded by Seals. VOTE: Ayes 3, Nays 1 (Johnson). MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE Curtis said at the April 12, 2021, Mr. Thull presented his request for a permit to place a private dock on the City’s right-of-way pursuant to the City code. In addition there were several members of the public present offering input. Following the discussion, Council tabled the application and directed the applicant to work with other Big Island property owners to develop a solution or policy addressing dock access needs for inland property owners. Meetings have been held with a small group of Big Island neighbors on April 28 and May 5, 2021. The applicant provided a written summary included in the packet as Exhibit A and they have not yet developed a solution. Other comments received were from Ms. Farnes and are included in the packet. Walsh noted they heard from many people at the last meeting and to avoid repetition he would prefer updates; he and Crosby went to the island and walked it all so they have visual, firsthand thoughts. Joseph Thull said at the last Council meeting, he came with a dock request and the Council asked the residents to work together and not just solve it for one person but find a solution preventing this from coming up season after season. That became a complex scenario and they are trying to figure out the needs of today and how to adopt the future plan. The neighbors have met numerous times, traded proposals, and had good, open discussions. On May 5, 2021 they had a discussion and the resolution went from finding a dock for Mr. Thull’s location and turned into solving this for approximately 7 interior lot owners which changes the dynamic of what they are trying to solve. It was decided to send communication broadly to other residents because they might be impacted; Mr. Thull went from being a rather unpopular person to being even more unpopular as he bore that effort. They notified those residents that this meeting was happening so they can get an update and send meeting minutes from the last meeting for context. Mr. Thull noted there are currently approximately 7 vacant lots without a dock permit and 3 owners currently looking for a solution. There are 7 right-of-ways of which 3-4 are better- suited options. Scenarios include designing one dock, one right-of-way, one lot owner; another is one dock, one right-of-way, with a shared dock. The third scenario is where feasible and if necessary, multiple docks, and multiple property owners; some lots are bigger than others. He said it is likely that the City needs to look at those right-of-ways and assess each one and showed them on screen. Nancy Farnes, 230 and 460 Big Island, requested that Mr. Thull drop the application to revoke the permit she has had for 35 years and he said no. Now they are talking about 5-8 other locations and the hardship affects 210, 220, 230, and 260. They have 2 large cruisers and it is actually 34 feet rather than 38 feet. With another dock and boats, it also encroaches on Jud’s property. She feels the property values will go down hundreds of thousands substantially, and will also affect neighboring properties if they cram more boats in there. Walsh noted they are trying to talk about solutions and ideas and Ms. Farnes is saying she just does not want anything there. He asked her when was the last time she put a dock there? Ms. Farnes replied it has been about 6 years. At the prior meeting she explained that they have had medical issues and while they used to almost live there, now they are only able to get out there twice a MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued year or so. Their children enjoy going there and neighbors have been kind enough to allow the use of their dock. The only solution she could come up with in reading everyone’s emails and feedback is just to deny the application, table it, and bring up the bigger picture of what it appears the application is about. It involves many people at Big Island. Walsh replied that is actually not true. The application is about the dock placement on that specific area and has nothing to do with anybody else. The Council brought that up because they see an issue here that needs to be addressed. The situation was going to take a dock that Ms. Farnes has had for all those years even though they do not have a right to. That is the issue they are trying to address and solve. Ms. Farnes said if the City wants to deny and take away…which they have already done. Walsh noted they have not done anything yet. He asked if she has any solutions or ideas beyond just tabling it. Ms. Farnes replied to table it because it is a broader picture that involves more people. After reading approximately 20-30 emails and many conversations, there just is not a clear-cut solution. Walsh stated that is why they are listening to everyone’s ideas and solutions. Ms. Farnes is talking about 230 Big Island between her property and Jud’s. Mike Loughlin, 120 Big Island, is adjacent to the existing 90 foot right-of-way where the existing dock is now. He said as the Council saw, the existing dock and situation on that property has been haphazard at best as far as storage and the way the conditions are. Walsh asked if he is talking about the 90 foot right-of-way. Mr. Loughlin is talking about 220 Big Island’s access dock that ran through the swamp and has been piled up there for a couple of years. The concern is that in the document that was given for access there, it was supposed to be kept clean and presentable; obviously that has not happened. Going forward if there is a solution, he asked how it will be worded to make sure the inland dock owners keep the land pristine and do not have winter storage to look at. Walsh replied the Council has dealt with the issue on Crystal Bay Road and the model used there was they received a license to use the dock but had to store the dock on their own property rather than City property. After being out there (to Big Island), Walsh thinks they may have to bring a barge out to get rid of some things in the public right-of-way, such as the docks and metal in the swamp. Those are definite concerns. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Loughlin noted there is a Minnehaha Watershed Creek District permit tied to that; he apologized that he does not have any solutions as they just found out about the meeting the previous Thursday. Initially he thought it would all be done at the other end of the island and now he has heard rumors that they may want to put a 100 foot dock out there with 7 property owners sharing it. Walsh said no one has proposed a 100 foot dock, but he shares those concerns about what is being stored on City property, as down by the area Mr. Thull is proposing the next door neighbor is storing his dock on City property, as well. Walsh is not familiar with the Watershed District permit. Mr. Loughlin said it is part of the documents filed with the County pursuant to this agreement with the 220 Big Island property owner. Curtis thinks there was some City-approved filling and mitigation done to make that usable as part of improving that area to get walkable, clear access. Mr. Loughlin noted another question brought up by a property owner, who thinks in 1975 a study was done about buildable lots within Orono, including the island. He asked if the lots in question are even buildable lots. Walsh replied everything is buildable; there is just so much space to build within. Mr. Loughlin said according to that property owner, there are lots on the island that are not buildable. Curtis noted the statute has changed to allow parameters for development of small lots. There are some lots that potentially do not qualify and would need variances but the statute did change which is different than what historically was allowed. Mr. Loughlin said the easement between his property and the property next door - the two closest properties already have access there. At the other end where the 7 lots are, there are three existing right- of-ways going down to the lake and the closest accessibility is at that end of the island. Walsh said there is a nice pathway all the way from Judson’s house to the right-of-way next to Mr. Loughlin’s house. The two people that have licenses right now have yearly applications so there is the ability to combine and change things to make it different. Mr. Loughlin advocated that the properties access the closest point from their property. Cheryl Uran, 140 Big Island, stated her property abuts the 90 foot right-of-way and said 20-or-so years ago this issue came up. David Lovelace owned a huge portion of an inland lot and wanted a dock permit. At the time, Gabriel Jabbour was mayor and they wanted to put 4 docks in by 140 Big Island. It is 90 feet but most of it is wetland; she noted they were railroaded and did not get a say. People wanted to put two MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued docks by Fred Bunchen’s property, which was approved, as well as a permit to have a dock by Ms. Uran’s property. She noted they filled, took out trees, leveled brush, and left it in a huge pile just down from the cabin. Walsh asked who is “they”? Ms. Uran replied she does not know who did it, Gabriel was in charge and was the one pushing for it by the Uran’s property because Fred did not want it by his property. She said it is like the same issue is coming up again and again and is getting pushed down by her property. Walsh replied they need to remember there are already two licenses for people to dock near her property. He is not pushing anything there, as there are already two people that can put docks there. Ms. Uran said they had heard ‘massive docks’ and that is what gets people going. She thinks the problem does need to be addressed and she is in favor of one right-of-way, one resident, and one dock. Share the pain, she does not see why they have to have it all down by their property. Johnson thinks there is support for that. The Council hopes the property owners come up with a solution but if they do not, there is a good sense of a solution from the Council’s vantage point. Ganging them all up on one family is not a realistic way to solve it in Johnson’s mind. Ms. Uran said it is nice to hear that it will be taken into consideration. People are also concerned about having a dock next to them: will someone come roaring in on an ATV and disturb things? Ms. Uran stated having the dock next to them did not decrease their property values. Yes, it is inconvenient and nobody wants the dock by them. She clarified during a wet season, the dock near her is almost underwater. Ms. Uran would love to see this get solved, as well, and she is not sure there will be a solution everyone will agree on. Suzy Thiss said she and her husband Peter live at 270 Big Island, right next to Bay Place. She read the minutes from the last meeting and attended a planning session; she would like to understand what the permit says as it transfers from one person to the next person. As Walsh understands, whoever applies for it and gets approved, the other person gets knocked off. Ms. Thiss asked what the Council thinks about that. Walsh said it was set up oddly and they are trying to solve that problem, as well. Ms. Thiss thinks the application should be denied and something more realistic put in place. She took a look at the map and said there is a place on Cruiser’s Cove that is adjacent to park land; that particular MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued access is not next door to anyone’s cottage or home and she finds that might be a good solution and have it capped at 7 boats. Walsh asked if the Thiss’ are next to Judson’s. Ms. Thiss replied it goes Judson’s, Farnes’, Saari’s, and then Thiss’. She said having a public/rental dock next to the park in Cruiser’s Cove makes sense to her. Peter Thiss noted there is a defined road and people utilize it in the winter for construction materials and it is accessible for all the houses up there. He noted it is a low-impact area. Going down through Ms. Farnes’ and Jud’s it is literally a drainage ditch, it floods, will not be accessible in heavy rains, and becomes a real problem. Ms. Thiss has walked through there and is full of water, nettles, snakes, and lizards. Mr. Thiss believes the other area proposed is low impact, easy, does not affect any residents, and will work for everybody. Crosby asked how close the area on Cruiser’s Cove would be to where the boats are anchored and docked. Ms. Thiss said the Deggendorf family has a family dock, there is one cottage and a sign on the dock that says “private.” She thinks putting a private sign on is a good solution and pointed out someone could walk on her dock, as well. Barnhart looked at the resolution that previously approved the dock; the way is written is: should there be any other requests from inland property owner to use the site, the permit is automatically revoked. He clarified it is not an approval or denial question, it is when a request comes forward the Council at that time felt the need to look at it more comprehensively like they are doing now. Walsh said once the applicant puts an approval in, they get it and the other person is out. Barnhart replied once they make the request, the other person is out and the Council decides who gets it. John Uran, 140 Big Island, is right next to the 90-foot easement. He asked if the Council puts a dock in down there, would they guarantee that they would not fill in the wetland to make docks down there. Walsh can guarantee he is not going to fill in any wetlands down there. Mr. Uran remembered one time Orono said they would not fill any wetland for anyone. He said they filled in 5-8 feet of the wetland on the 90-foot easement; someone needs to take a survey of that wetland and the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued road they put in has sunken down and with a hard rain the road is all filled up. Right now there is a dock that has been laying there for 6 years and is an eyesore. Walsh agrees. Mr. Uran asked the Council not to fill up wetlands and keep their word. Walsh sat with Edwards and Olson the week before to talk about how to get the docks off the public property. Mr. Uran felt bad for the people that want a dock. He spoke with them and said he does not have any objections to one dock down there as the guy has not had a dock there in 6 years. He said one boat, one dock, he would be all for. Chris Bollis, 370 Big Island and 220 Stubbs Bay Road, noted there is a lot of misinformation floating around the island. It might be helpful if the City sent a legal notification telling people that this situation is trying to be resolved so everyone is notified officially that Council is trying to work with residents to find a solution. Mr. Bollis does not know if it should rest on the City to provide a dock for an inland property owner; he thinks a private solution would be better, possibly an easement from a property owner. Or the recreational seasonal zoning code could be modified to allow an inland owner to rent dock space from an existing shoreline owner. He noted the ideas are different than the others and he is throwing them out here to see what happens. Johnson thinks that is where they started, the Thull’s tried to find a deal and that suggestion would have been easiest for everyone. Paul Marabellis, 130 Big Island, thinks the solution the City should look seriously at is going to the southwest of this property. The property is just a stone’s throw from the lake to the southwest, and abuts Three River’s Park land. If the City could work out a deal with Three River’s it could solve a lot of problems. He does not think it is reasonable to ask someone to go all the way up to the north shore, for example. On Big Island there is an advantage to having your boat close-at-hand, both for security and for convenience. Karen Backes, 170 Big Island, is not a property owner with a right-of-way next to them, so the resolution does not affect her per se. As the Council has heard, there are a lot of options being tossed around and misunderstandings among people. She agreed it would be helpful to have something that says what the City is trying to do. When she looks at the plotting of the properties, she does not see 7 inland properties – she sees 7 inland owners but 17 inland properties. Could those be sold off individually and then they are talking about docks for 17 properties rather than 7? She does not know but thinks they need to be aware and talk about it. Ms. Backes has an opinion on putting things on Party Bay; being on that end of the property, they already deal with people coming to their cabins asking where the bus stop is, how to catch MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued a taxi, or asking for a ride. Many people on the island spend time walking in the park district picking up toilet paper, condoms, and broken bottles. She thinks putting an unmanned dock in Party Bay where there is not a cabin - as there is for the Deggendorfs - invites people to come there unless the City puts a beautiful paved path to the new facilities being built there. Right now people do not even need a dock, they just go to shore and do their business and she does not think that is a great idea. Ms. Backes advocates for the one-to-one and spreading it out. She also focuses on the environmental impacts to the wetlands of increased traffic. If someone needs to get from one end of the island to the other, they will not walk but use motorized vehicles. That area between Jud’s and Farnes’ property is a low spot which gets full of water, mud, and there is not a way to commute when that happens; people then go through the other neighbors’ property. Ms. Backes thinks putting the docks closest to where the property is so there is less traffic and disturbing of nature. Big Island is quiet and peaceful and she hopes this gets resolved and there is not conflict and a battle. Judson Champlin said there is no requirement that people get a dock, they just need reasonable access, so he does not know that the Council has to worry about getting all 17 interior lots a dock. Many of the proposals are a zero-sum situation where someone is losing and someone is winning. It is usually being taken from the exterior owners and being given to the interior owners. He is a free-market guy when he can be and loved the solution of an easement being granted and he guarantees there are easements available, it is just that the price is too high right now. That should not be a reason for the City to come in and give people docks. One suggestion was to allow renting of the dock, and the Council did make one exception for the easement and he would encourage doing something similar solely for people to access their interior lot property. That way it is a win-win. Another solution would be some type of long-term lease on a patch of property that someone could put a dock on. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, owns the property right next to the Thull’s. He does not think himself, Joe, or Sara wants to ruin anybody’s life. He has lived next to areas that are public property and in the long-run it does not really hurt so much. Proximity to the property would be good if they will be asked to remove the docks; this is part of the reason why they poo-pooed Cruiser’s Cove. Mr. Hanna thinks there will be relatively low usage as most of his usage has been in the winter cross-country skiing. If he ever had a dock he is not sure how many times he would go out there but it would be super fun to have it, a safe place to put the boat rather than pulling it up on shore. He appreciates the Council’s effort in trying to work things out here and noted the property owners are not trying to get something for nothing here, they are just trying to get to the land short of buying an amphibious car. He does not want to take anything away from the existing home owners but is curious about the future. He and the Thull’s would be good stewards of things if they were given the chance out on the island. Mr. Thull shared that proximity to their lot would be more advantageous than so many feet away in Cruiser’s Cove. He asked the Council to consider that if they are required to remove the dock which will be a bit of a challenge. He appreciates the residents being open-minded in this process, as well. Walsh closed the conversation to bring things to the Council for discussion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Johnson thinks the City has established a history of providing some dock access to those lots; he is in favor of that as they are lawful lots. He would have liked to hear the solution from the people out there as this is not that complicated to him, those are City-owned sites, the old fire lanes and access points…the City and the citizens of Orono own them. To Johnson, a 24-foot long singular dock at each one of those – he heard some families say one dock, one boat – he is in favor of having one dock to two property owners (one on each side). The complication with that would be sharing the dock and he has zero interest in the City of Orono owning these docks. They could not even get cooperation to sort out even these few people and he is a little concerned about introducing one on each side because then they have to get along in sharing the dock. Johnson thinks that is a reasonable expectation but they need to own the dock. One at each fire lane, up to a 24-foot long boat, the dock is three 8-foot sections for 24 feet, and the property owners can pick any of those access points to go to. The City’s job is not to provide the route to their place once they get on shore, but it is to provide the dock for them to get on shore. With the Crystal Bay Road property the City decided there will be no storage of docks on City property. He suggested a permit fee; the City should have a one-year permit, and extinguish the previous agreement that was put in place. Walsh said at the Bay Place access there is one dock allowed now. Basically what they would be saying is there will still be one dock but will give two people (one on each side) access. Someone needs to apply for that – for example, the Thull’s – and the City will say the Thull’s have the permit and can put the dock in but someone gets to use the other side. Then it would depend on who wants the second permit. He would suggest whoever had it the first year gets the first option but must apply for it by January 1, then it is open for whoever wants to apply for that dock and permit. To Walsh, where the 90 foot spot it, there are two licenses or approvals there so they could have one dock with two people sharing it, or because there are already two docks, perhaps they have two docks with two on each side for four boats. Mr. Loughlin said the dock at 130 Big Island is already an easement across his property so it does not get included in the wetland right-of-way. Walsh asked him to explain that…the dock has an easement through Mr. Loughlin’s property? Mr. Loughlin replied yes, there is a 10 foot easement for them to access and put a dock there. Walsh asked what the name of the resident was? Mr. Loughlin replied Scheftel. Walsh clarified that is a private easement and they have an agreement with Mr. Loughlin. Mr. Loughlin said it is a private easement and from that point over it is basically wet all year round. Walsh asked who has the agreement with the City to put a dock in there? Curtis said there are two properties tied to the other resolution. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Loughlin said the way 220 Big Island delineates a 10 foot path to that dock and from the path going out is a single dock. Walsh asked if that is a recent easement. Mr. Loughlin stated it is part of the 4456 Resolution. There is a map that goes with it and the City has delineated a road specifically for that dock that is 10 feet wide on the 90-foot right-of-way. Walsh said that is on Mr. Loughlin’s property. Mr. Loughlin replied no, Scheftel’s easement is on his property. The 220 Big Island address of Doherty’s is in 90-foot right-of-way. In looking at the map, there is a 10 foot road identified through the lot and is the egress access for a single dock. Walsh said this is the first he has heard about it and asked if it is a recent easement that the Scheftel’s have through his property. Mr. Loughlin said it is from 1971. Walsh noted they just enacted something that one could not do in Orono previously, and that was get an easement from an inland piece of property. It was illegal to do and the City just changed it for Big Island; he was clarifying whether it was something Mr. Loughlin took advantage of last year or if it was older than that. Curtis clarified the resolution that granted the other dock permit is tied to 130 and 220 which are the linear, interior lots shown on screen. Walsh asked if that is a permanent easement. Curtis stated it is not an easement, it is a resolution granting a permit for a dock. They can share one dock or if they disagree they could each have their own dock at that location. Walsh asked if that is a permanent resolution? Curtis replied it is until the City revokes it. It does not have exactly the condition that Resolution 2038 has where it is automatically revoked, but it does say the City has a right to revisit on an annual basis. Walsh said they could do the same thing as Bay Place and get rid of that agreement and do a new agreement with the Doherty agreement. They can put a new agreement that there can be one dock with one person on each side, either through a lottery or through a first-come-first-serve. He stated they have one in front of the Council today and they can probably solve that one today. It does not sound like the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued existing permit owner who has not had a dock there in 6 years will put a dock in this year either, unless he is wrong. He would be in favor of giving it to the Thull’s with the caveat that they must share one side of it…he would give Nancy Farnes first choice to see if she wants to have access to share the dock with the Thull’s. Nancy Farnes said there were good ideas here that they can solve this for themselves. For instance, exclusively for Big Island, because there are no roads but rather a lake. Is it possible for the City to pass an ordinance just to rent a dock for a person across the way? Walsh said that is a good conversation and he does not know if they have talked about making an exception for Big Island inland dock owners to build a rent-a-spot from someone with lakeshore on Big Island. Ms. Farnes suspects if they took a vote, everyone would say yes to that. Crosby asked can’t neighbors rent docks from each other anyways? Walsh replied they cannot rent. Johnson said the problem with relying on that is that they cannot even cooperate on this right now when the Council asked them to go back and work it out. This rental thing will be a moving target and he can appreciate that someone who owns real estate in Orono and happens to be on Big Island wants guaranteed access to their place every year and not beholden to the rental rates decided collectively out there. He is all for allowing people to cooperate out there and he thinks it already does on its own. However, when they are not finding cooperation; that is how they got here. Walsh said they could always have a neighbor allow one to use their dock, nothing stops them from that. Ms. Farnes said that is correct. Walsh said to Johnson’s point, the Council can solve Bay Place today which will be two people. Ms. Farnes has not put a dock there for 6 years anyways and if she wants to use it, she has the first choice to share the dock. Ms. Farnes does not know how the two other cruisers will fit. She provided a diagram from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and it only fits barely a 16 foot boat. Walsh stated she must remember this is City property and they are not guaranteeing one can bring a 35 foot boat in there. Ms. Farnes is talking about her neighbors who have two cruisers and the diagram just does not fit to have. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Walsh said a 20 foot dock should fit just fine; he went out and looked at it. Just because their property goes at a diagonal does not mean they can draw a diagonal across the front of Orono’s property and say one cannot put a dock there. Ms. Farnes said that is true but she also sees that Mr. Thull is the only one who wants that request and this entire room would prefer another arrangement. There are offers of people to rent a dock to Thull and she does not know what the going rent would be but is sure it would be much less than a permit. She does not know how the City can justify collecting money and permits and lotteries when there is no maintenance of docks. Walsh said no one stops Ms. Farnes from renting a spot from one of the neighbors, either. She has the same opportunity. Ms. Farnes said if one does not pay for them, they do not maintain anything, and are not responsible or liable for anything, and not paying for the dock…she questions if that is a viable solution in a situation that really is not a hardship – they have access. Walsh stated Ms. Farnes’ situation was just to deny them and have no one have a dock there. That does not seem to work very well. Ms. Farnes said that is correct and it has worked fine for 50 years and she is not going to argue. Walsh noted every 50 years starts with year one. This is going to be year one of the next 50 years. Ms. Farnes said should the City choose that option, the value will go down to $30-$40,000. Walsh said they have already heard that is not the case. He clarified Ms. Farnes never had guaranteed access to begin with, she is making up something that she did not have. Ms. Farnes is not going to argue this as they have already had this discussion. Johnson agreed and thinks they should move forward. They have all learned a lot but at the end of the day, the City Council must make choices. Ms. Farnes said at the end of the day on her permit, if the Council is doing that, she would like a survey and would like them to take care of all the soil-filling from the erosion of the roads and grounds, and there are snakes there to go up to the house, and all the trees, and the encroachment, and all of it. Johnson said to be clear, what the City Council is providing is right of access to a dock access point. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Ms. Farnes noted in the City Codes it states that “we” are financially liable and responsible to maintain it – the abutting neighbors which would be Jud, Saari’s, and Ms. Farnes. They have maintained it. Johnson stated that is a good point and there is a code review committee that looks at different codes and perhaps they need to review it and extend it to anybody that uses that access point, as well. Ms. Farnes said, or the City can come out and maintain all of it. Walsh noted they can put that as part of the license of using the dock. Dave Saari, 260 Big Island, is exactly adjacent and apologized that his boat lifts have been on City property, that has not been his intent nor has it been there in years past – he has a new dock guy and it will be off by this weekend. What they are not addressing is the larger hole, there are 17 pieces of property that could be affected and have an adverse reaction to this singular look of Bay Place. Bay Place cannot be the only place on the island they look at and he thinks they still need to come back to having a much larger view. Johnson indicated access points around the island make logical sense and Mr. Saari could not agree more, that was his early concern and point that has not been addressed as they are singularly looking at a location. He suggested west-side of the island properties would have access on the west side and east-side properties would have access on the east. There is a larger solution than simply looking at a single location adjacent to his property. Walsh said sometimes they need to do one bite at a time. If there were twice as many people, he wonders if they will have more agreement? At least the Council is hearing some ideas and vetting some of this and sometimes it tells the Council they cannot come to any solution better than what Johnson thought of or what has done before in trying to make it a bit better through these access points. Johnson stated in the other permit the docks have to conform with LMCD and if the LMCD allows it, that is a function of the permit to demonstrate that it meets the setbacks. What is put in there makes sure it is done the best way, the right way, the fairest way they can do it. He does not think they even need to get into the business of saying which one because people out there can decide for themselves; but there is just one dock and it is limited to two boats. Mr. Saari understands and thinks, what if there are 17 potential property owners looking for that same solution. Johnson said they will run out of docks. There is a cap as to how many they can do with this plan. Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (Bay Place) and 2643 Thoroughbred Lane, and would like the Council to consider that adjacent to the City’s right-of-way is private property, and when the docks are being removed in the fall there should be no trespass on private property. Similar to the docks not being stored MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued on City right-of-way, an individual’s dock (whoever owns it) has to remove it from City right-of-way without trespassing on adjacent private property lines. Walsh thinks that would go without saying. Knowing how hard it is to know where property lines are, it would behoove everyone to have some kind of marker so people know. Ms. Champlin noted that is part of the discussion – who is going to do that surveying and demarcation of the private property lines. She said they actually got it wrong and all the trees she thought were to be cut down are actually still on her property so they will stay. Walsh thinks it would behoove them to demark the north and south start and end of the back access. If Ms. Champlin is worried about her property, she should mark her property. Ms. Champlin stated they will get a survey with markers from their shoreline up to the road that connects all the right-of-ways. Walsh would put the onus on her if she is worried about someone being on her property, to mark the boundaries of that property. Ms. Champlin noted there is a lot of wildlife and when there is a storm the wildlife brings ducks and cranes and she would like to keep it preserved and not very developed. If the City does not mind that she has a lot of markers demarking whose property is whose, they should not be responsible for corralling people and keeping them on the City right-of-way. The Council agreed. Mr. Thull would like some clarifications. What he thinks he heard Johnson say is that they would prefer one right-of-way and one dock owner, shared, but are open to different right-of-ways as they are there for the access. Johnson replied that is right. Mr. Thull thinks in the LMCD in terms of length of dock to get out to 3-4 feet of water, can the dock be to 4 feet of water? Johnson thinks they keep it at the distance until they figure it out. They are trying to do a reasonable length (which is somewhat arbitrary) but three sections is 24 feet. Perhaps there is a better location and one of these access points may be better without having to go way out which is less intrusive to the neighbors. If they can at least limit the scope for the neighbors, and if that is not a possibility, someone would have to come back to the Council and say that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Crosby stated that can be in the discussion later and there has to be a reasonableness to it. Walsh said the Council needs to make a decision about approving or not approving. Johnson clarified they would deny Mr. Thull’s application and introduce a new one? Barnhart thinks he heard some expansion of the dock licensing program that the City employs for Crystal Bay Road, which has its own built-in infrastructure. He would come back with an expansion of that license – it is not a permit – to identify future dock sites and employs the same application. Walsh suggested starting with Bay Place. He suggested directing Staff and the City Attorney to draft a new license for that Bay Place with the Thull’s doing the initial application and with Ms. Farnes as the second – unless she does not want it. It would be a one-year license along the same lines as Crystal Bay. Barnhart said hopefully the Council would approve the Thull’s application for a license at the next meeting. The length and other things are kind of employed by the LMCD so that question has already been answered. He would come back with a license application by Mr. Thull. Walsh said the Council should probably make a motion to dissolve the current license or permit that is there. Attorney Mattick stated they will bring back the revised ordinance and asked Barnhart if that is correct. Barnhart can look into it. Johnson said they would have to modify it a little bit, one of which was a 10 year term and these would be one year and would specify dock length. Attorney Mattick thinks because they will modify the ordinance, it would be best to bring back the amended ordinance with the changes the Council wants with the new application and they take care of it in one fell swoop. Walsh said they would just table it now until the next meeting. Then they can deal with the other sites as they move forward. Johnson asked Mr. Thull if this is the one he wants it to be. Mr. Thull asked if it is possible to come back and say a location may be a better option? It is not a problem for Johnson or Walsh. Walsh does not have a problem looking at other locations but he wants to deal with this one while they are here with Bay Place. He asked Mr. Thull if he wants a dock there. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Thull thinks there are a couple of other locations. Walsh asked if they should deny his application for Bay Place as he cannot come back and pick-and- choose at this point. Johnson thinks Mr. Thull is responding to his point saying that he is open to any of them. Walsh said in the meantime, let’s put together the Bay Place one and if other people want to come apply for it, they can come as it will be first-come-first-serve. If Mr. Thull wants to come back and bring a different location the Council will probably have to go out and look at the locations themselves and will not be able to make those decisions at the next Council meeting. Mr. Thull appreciates the Council trying to solve this today. Walsh said being boots-on-the-ground out there is worth a million pictures. Seeing it firsthand was everything to understand and if there are more places to see, which there are because there are lots of places to walk out there. Mr. Thull asked about moving forward with this one and if there is an option for a better place. Walsh said Mr. Thull can always give up the one he has. Johnson clarified Walsh is saying take this one and if they can work out another one. Mr. Hanna, 490 Big Island, said regarding the 24 foot thing, he thinks a minimum boat in Minnetonka is about 20 feet. He thinks 24 might be a bit short as the bow would only be a small way from shore; there are a lot of 80 foot docks and 50 foot lots but it gives a little room for error. Walsh said the Council is trying to be cognizant of the neighbors, which is most important right now. He said it is a work in progress…if they need more because shore is 12 inches deep, he thinks the LMCD has a rule that one can overhang the dock by 4 feet. He would rather start short and get longer if needed. Ms. Farnes said it is her understanding that Mr. Thull asked to table for a couple of weeks. Walsh stated the Council is tabling it because there is nothing to make a decision on tonight. Ms. Farnes said now the Council told him to grab it, don’t revoke her permit, and she is confused as to where they are at. Walsh clarified what the Council has done. Unless something changes, Mr. Thull is going to get dock access and will share it with Ms. Farnes if she wants to share it. If at another time Mr. Thull comes back MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 34 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued and says he found another great place to put a dock, he receives another license and gives up that one then someone else can come and take his spot over there. Ms. Farnes said the Council won’t deny the application and let him come back if he finds something better. Walsh said they are going to redo the code for that spot at Bay Place. Ms. Farnes clarified they will not redo the code to let people rent. The Council said no. Walsh noted someone can go get free space from someone anytime. Ms. Farnes said $60,000 for a little on bricks 35 years ago on the permit is not free, and it was there 42 years prior. Walsh stated Ms. Farnes still has dock access if she wants it. No one is taking that away from her. Ms. Farnes said traffic, boats, nature disrupted, everything disrupted. Walsh clarified they are not adding people to the lake or Big Island – it is the same amount of people. He said there is no need to argue, the Council has made a decision on this spot and are moving it forward. If Ms. Farnes wants to share a spot with the Thull’s, she gets first shot to have that. If she does not want it, that is okay and someone else can have access to that second spot. It is Ms. Farnes’ decision. Ms. Farnes thinks they all would have voted for renting a dock and the easements they have already gone through. Attorney Mattick noted Staff has received the Council’s direction and will bring it back. Walsh stated the Council would take a 5 minute break at 8:04 p.m. Walsh brought the meeting back to order at 8:09 p.m. 15. LA21-000024 – LORRAINE GOODWALD, 706 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES Barnhart said the property owner at 706 North Arm is requesting side, lake, and average lakeshore setbacks (ALS) variances to replace an existing irregular shaped deck with a rectangular one that is 18x8 feet. The Planning Commission ultimately recommended denial because the request before them at the tie was an 8x36 foot deck which covered the entire back wall of the house. Both proposals – the original and the current one – require a hardcover variance. The Planning Commission recommended denial because they were uncomfortable recommending an increase of any hardcover. Hardcover levels at the property are already 33% and the proposal for the Planning Commission was 34.4%. After that meeting, the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 34 15. LA21-000024 – LORRAINE GOODWALD, 706 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES – Continued applicant retooled the proposal and reduced the size of the deck; this does increase hardcover over the existing level by about 30 square feet. The applicant wants to get to the same hardcover level and has agreed to remove 30 feet of the impervious surface patio below the deck; Staff supports that change, so the variances requested are for the side, lake, and ALS setbacks and hardcover would be at the 33% which it is currently at right now. Staff recommends approval. Walsh asked if the design is to be determined or what it looks like now. Barnhart showed the irregular shape of the deck on screen and said right outside the door it is about 3 feet and it is hard for a wheelchair to get out. The applicant is proposing to make the deck smaller and remove some hardcover below the deck. Walsh asked about the 0-75. Barnhart showed the 0-75 lakeyard which kind of cuts through the house, and showed the ALS line that cuts about the last 7-8 feet of the house and the entire deck. All of this side of the house is within the lakeyard and within the ALS. This is a bigger encroachment than what is existing but the hardcover level is the same. The objective from the applicant is to make a more usable deck because there is a challenge opening the door and getting out on to the deck. The applicant’s mother needs a wheelchair and that is part of the goal with this improvement – to make it a little more accessible. Johnson asked if it is protruding out the same as it was before. Barnhart believes one portion is about the same, and another portion is not. Lorraine Goodwald, applicant, said the current deck is 8 feet and then it circles in to about 3 feet 11 inches, so when she opens the door she is at the most narrow portion. She is proposing to stay at the 8 feet, not encroach any more towards the lake, and basically just square it off. She would like to be able to open the door and safely maneuver her mother’s wheelchair without reclining it. She would like it to be functional as right now it is not functional, it is more like a balcony. Walsh noted this entire thing is just about the deck. Ms. Goodwald replied it is just about the deck, she is not asking for stairs, roof, nothing else. Walsh said the entire deck is in the 0-75 and the applicant is basically going to scrape the deck and put a new deck there. To him, as long as it is not closer to the lake, whatever square footage that deck is, they can have the square footage. He clarified whatever the square footage is of the current deck, she can have that square footage for a square or rectangular shaped deck. Otherwise they are adding more square footage in the 0-75. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 34 15. LA21-000024 – LORRAINE GOODWALD, 706 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES – Continued Barnhart asked to clarify and said squaring this off will have a portion of the deck closer to the lake. Walsh said they would be getting rid of some of the 0-75 and there will be a bit that is closer but no closer than the other point. Johnson clarified Walsh is saying if this deck is 100 square feet right now, the applicant can have her 100 square feet in any configuration she wants, as long as it does not protrude farther than the farthest point. Ms. Goodwald noted she has windows there. Walsh said that is the problem when there is a 0-75 and the Council could just say no, she could just make it lower and square it off. They are giving her something here. Barnhart asked to assume that this amount of deck is the same area of the existing deck; this would be acceptable even though a portion of it extends closer to the lake. Walsh is just thinking they could have the same square footage of the deck the applicant has today but cannot get any closer than the closest point. She can create the shape herself. Ms. Goodwald said the pavers really do not matter. Barnhart said the pavers matter from a hardcover standpoint. They can’t exclude 100 square feet of deck when it is above an impervious surface. If it is above grass they can exclude that 100 square feet from the hardcover calculation. Walsh noted that is irrelevant because right now they are giving the applicant the same amount of deck. Barnhart thinks he is hearing the same amount of deck square footage as provided that no portion of the deck is more than that dimension from the existing corner. Walsh said yes, whatever that distance is. Barnhart noted the Council has given him direction and he will come back with a revised plan and a resolution for approval with those parameters. 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION Curtis said the application is regarding approval for two separate, non-conforming accessory buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor expansions or changes to the volume. The first is a carriage house and the second is a boat house. Regarding the boat house, the applicant has requested hardcover within the 75-foot setback, side yard setback, lake setback, and ALS variances in order to expand the envelope of MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued the existing building as part of an in-kind replacement and moving it 9 feet further from the lake in order to meet flood plain regulations. It does result in the corners of the new flat roof expanding outward from the sloped portions of the existing roof in the new location and will be 2.5 feet farther from the side lot line (it is currently 2.5 feet and they are proposing 5 feet). The drawings show the existing outline of the boat house as it is today in purple. The footprint is essentially the same configuration, there are three areas where there is a small foundation expansion which is for a shear wall which Curtis believes is an architectural feature. Regarding the carriage house, the applicant is proposing to raise the floor inside the living space as well as the floor inside the garage to allow for some more accessible ceiling dimensions. The footprint is going to stay the same, the location will stay the same, the roof will expand in some places and will lose encroachment in others. Curtis said it is hard to go through it piece-by-piece and the applicant has provided some good exhibits illustrating what they are changing. The applicant is looking for rear and side yard setback variances for the carriage house. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 2021 and following the public hearing they voted 5-to-1 in favor of a motion to approve the variances subject to the boat house not having hardcover landings and the property owner signing the standard plumbing covenant. Commissioner Libby was the dissenting voter and did not provide reasoning for his nay vote. No comments were received from neighbors; Staff is recommending approval and a resolution has been drafted for the Council’s consideration. Jeff Lindgren, 6514 108th Trail, Brooklyn Park, stated this is a fairly substantial project and currently there are three structures on the site and they propose to take down all three because they are not safe and are unlivable. The current owner is looking to build a new home on the site in the future. They are trying to take care of the two smaller structures first as they do not want to cut off access once the new house is up and these two are connected with sewer. Working with Curtis, they found that the current boat house is in the flood plain and they want to be sensitive to those issues and thought it would be best to move that one back and also give more breathing room on the property line for fire code reasons. The footprint stayed the same as for living space – actually it is a bit under – the current architectural features on those walls are from a detail they are trying to get. The current boat house has a good sized overhang around the perimeter; the homeowner would like to build a more contemporary home so they are trying to create these two structures to be congruent with the home. The idea is to have a flat roof on the boat house and to make sure they are meeting energy code they had to raise the hill-height or the wall height around the perimeter given the current structure was hand-framed and had about 4 inches of insulation space. They are trying to find the middle ground by raising the side and lowering the overall height from a viewing standpoint. Regarding the carriage house, it has stayed the same size. The current floor is a bit lower and the back wall is pregnant and is diving in due to water intrusion issues. The thought process is to raise it up to get positive drainage, the current garage doors are at 6.5 feet and they are trying to raise those to a 7 foot height to allow vehicles to enter and enough ceiling height for an operational garage door. They are trying to be cognizant in keeping the roof lower than where it was and using special materials to keep energy efficiency up. Overall they are trying to bring massing down while maintaining a structure that is usable. Johnson asked if there is a stoop on the drawing. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 26 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Mr. Lindgren said that is a proposed patio; as long as they meet hardcover calculations it can be put in that location. Walsh said the proposed carriage house is getting bigger on two sides because of the proposed patio wrapping around. Mr. Lindgren replied the patio is getting bigger, but the structure is not getting bigger. He said currently it is a floating deck and there is a bridge there. They are filling that area in because it is a valley. Johnson clarified that is allowable hardcover. Curtis replied that is correct. Crosby asked how far in they are moving the boat house from where it is now. Curtis stated it is 9 feet from the lake and 2.5 feet from the side. Walsh said on the carriage house they are tearing it down and rebuilding in the exact same footprint, not going any higher. Mr. Lindgren replied not in total height, no. They are changing the height of the outside for energy efficiency and head room which is also pushing up the height of the main level because of the water intrusion in the garage. Walsh is asking because they are in a non-conforming spot and the Council has had that issue many times in getting higher in a non-conforming situation. Johnson clarified just one little corner is higher and the rest of it is lower. Crosby is okay with that. Walsh thinks that is reasonable. The rule is that one cannot move boat houses; they used to not even be able to renovate them but now they can be renovated. However, the City does not allow them to be moved so they will have to work with the existing footprint there. Mr. Lindgren said they were advised to move the boat house per recommendation of the City because of the flood plain. Curtis stated the flood plain contour cuts through the existing building, so they need to elevate the floor out of the flood plain and fill. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 27 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh said the problem is they are creating their own practical difficulty by doing that because they do not have to do anything to this. Curtis said if they renovate it to a certain extent, they need to bring it into conformance with the flood plain regulations. Walsh noted they are creating their own practical difficulty by renovating it. Curtis noted they could always demolish it. Walsh said they could get rid of it if they want to. He has never seen anything where the City has allowed anyone to move a boat house or even a storage facility between the 0-75. Johnson asked if Mr. Lindgren is fine keeping it where it is. Mr. Lindgren said the structure would fit where it is currently today and he can take off some wing walls to make it fit. However, he will have pushback for raising the floor of it because it does not meet today’s standards. Then he would not be able to renovate it. He asked if that is the City or the watershed. Curtis replied it is FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Mr. Lindgren noted FEMA would not allow him to renovate it. Walsh asked to define renovation. Mr. Lindgren could put new walls and floors in. Mr. Lindgren would have to apply for a permit to do that and a permit would not be granted if he does not have a FEMA or watershed permit. Walsh is torn on that because he is against anyone moving any boat house, even away from the lake. Mr. Lindgren asked his theory on that. Walsh said because then everyone wants to move a boat house. He reminded people that in the past one could not even renovate they just had to tear them down. Now they can be fixed up and that may be the only thing Mr. Lindgren can do is fix it up barring any permits. He does not know and is torn on that as he does not want to open up Pandora’s box with people coming in and wanting to move their boat house. Johnson has less of a hard time with that. He thinks getting it out of the flood zone is not to the applicant’s convenience, it is just a good practice. He does not think there should be any enlargement of the structure but moving it back and farther from the property line - he thinks it is a good practice not having things in the flood plain. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 28 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh stated they could also just get rid of the part that is in the flood zone. Curtis asked about options. Similar to 855 Old Crystal Bay Road, they had a couple cabins on the lake, redeveloped the lot, and received variances to keep the “sauna” building in the same foot print in the same location, but the City granted them a variance so they were able to elevate the floor level to meet FEMA. It did result in variances similar to this one with the flat roof, changing from a pitched roof. Johnson asked to look at the side elevation of the existing on screen. He said the front of it was at 931.2 and asked what the flood zone line is. Curtis replied it is 931.5. Johnson said that is 3 inches. Curtis said this property is in the flood plain and would need to be brought into conformance which would mean elevating the entire structure. Crosby asked how much they would have to elevate it. Mr. Lindgren said there are two floor elevations in the current structure; one is a step up at the entry point and one that steps up into the main part of the structure. He thinks it is at 933.2 and 934.1 are the two floor elevations currently. Johnson said the flood zone is the lowest opening. Curtis said there is a low floor and a low opening. The low floor requirement is 932.5, that is the floor elevation. On Lake Minnetonka one foot is required. Crosby asked if there is room to elevate it out of the flood zone. Curtis noted it would expand the top or elevate it up if they needed to have the living space or head room. Crosby is always conflicted over these because he is empathetic over the possible flood situation; however he also understands the steadfast rules of not moving boat houses. Crosby would be in favor of letting the applicant raise it to get it out of the flood zone. Tim Holland, homeowner, looked at both options of raising it and thought that moving it back was better for the neighbor’s view which is why they lowered the roof, also. They were trying to be neighborly. Crosby would be more inclined with moving it backwards but in the same respect, with the long rule of not moving boat houses, they create a problem later when everyone wants their boat house moved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 29 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh can see some flexibility in saying the applicant can raise it up and they have to live with what is there, or saying they could cut off whatever is in the flood plain and add that on to the back side of the structure. Johnson agrees. Crosby said in adding things to the backside that is in essence what they are proposing to do in getting it out of the flood plain. Mr. Lindgren showed on screen the non-conforming portion and the proposal of setting that in another portion of the structure. Walsh does not remember the sauna project they talked about and asked if he was here for that. Curtis thinks Walsh expressed similar concerns and they talked through the flood plain compliance and the reduction of the peak height to the flat roof. She does not want to put words in his mouth but she thinks that is where he saw that there was a practical difficulty. This project is not identical, but is similar. Mr. Lindgren noted the City shared this information before they went down this venture. He remembers reading through those documents and it was more similar than not. Curtis noted the other project had two structures, there was one by the house that was rebuilt and another by the lake. Johnson noted Walsh is consistent, it was the same thing where they flattened out the roof and the Council said okay because the peak height is still lower, it was not a massing increase and it made sense to get it out of the flood zone. Walsh does not remember that, but he noted they are trying to tell him there is precedent for doing this. Curtis replied yes, they did not move the building but in this instance they are pulling it back from the lake in light of the neighbors. Walsh clarified they did not move the building? Johnson said no, the Council allowed them to increase their overall height to not move it out so the finished floor would be above the flood plain. He thinks Walsh said he would rather not have them move it and increase the height than have them move it a quarter of an inch. Mr. Lindgren asked if there are flood plain and flood zone differences? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 30 of 34 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Curtis said there are different regulations about where one is within the flood way or the flood plain. Attorney Mattick said the idea in dealing with a flood plain, even when one replaces a non-conformity in- kind, if they are in the flood area, they are still expected to raise it up. It is not in-kind in the flood area, they either need to raise it up or move it back. That is what Curtis has been instructing them to do here. It is a little different than some of the non-conformities the Council deals with because not all of them have the flood plain issue. Seals noted there is history where the Council has raised it up and not moved it. Attorney Mattick said they have allowed that, but they have to raise it up to rebuild it. Seals is a strict believer of like-and-kind because once they move left or right, it is a hot mess and Pandora’s Box. She is supportive of raising it so it is in compliance with FEMA and everywhere else, and they have done it before, while keeping the same footprint. She said it is great that they want to be kind to their neighbors. Crosby said the reality is the neighbor will be looking at a much nicer structure when this is done. Walsh agrees to keep it in the same footprint and raise it up. Johnson asked if they are talking 1-1.5 feet? Curtis said they need to raise the structure out of the flood plain and also maintain a fill elevation of the 931.5. She does not know the exact height. Mr. Lindgren said the issue with raising it is he will have almost a step-and-a-half to get to that new level and he cannot add any elevation to the exterior around the perimeter of it from a landing standpoint to get in. Walsh said that would be a practical difficulty and they would have to give that to the applicant. Mr. Lindgren thinks he may have some issues with watershed. Curtis does not know but knows he will need to get their permission to fill within the flood plain and depending on how much they will have to mitigate the fill. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to table LA21-000026. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Walsh said they would bring it back before the Council on May 24, 2021. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 31 of 34 17. LA21-000025 – ERIC VOGSTROM O/B/O ERIC VOGSTROM, WILLIAM, AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW Barnhart said the applicants wish to remove the conditions on the final plat that prohibit a connection of 2709 Walters Port to Pence Lane. Those conditions were applied as part of a platting process. Staff sees that same process to remove those conditions. It would be a platting process which would include a sketch plan, preliminary, and final plat. Staff can support the removal of these conditions via the formal platting process if Pence Lane is improved to a private road standard which includes 24 foot wide pavement, a 50 foot wide right-of-way, and a terminating cul-de-sac. The proposal shows the terminating cul-de-sac, no improvements are proposed or shown on the existing Pence Lane, and it should be pointed out that the existing segment of Pence Lane right-of-way is only 30 feet so there would be a challenge getting to the 50 feet. The applicant has argued that the road is already a private road and the Council received a number of comments and letters from the attorneys of the applicant and the neighboring properties. Staff maintains any situation that increases the non-conformity should not be approved without adjustments and that is where the cul-de-sac and improvements to Pence Lane come in. Staff is looking for non- binding feedback. Walsh understands that Bill, Sue, and Eric could put the cul-de-sac down farther and have the roads come off there to their house and would not need any approvals to do that. Barnhart noted they would need some approvals because the existing parcel would need some re-platting. Walsh said they would not need the City’s approval to put a cul-de-sac down there generally, they do not need a variance or anything like that. Barnhart said the platting would be an issue and there may be some hardcover issues applied. Part of the reason this plan works is both lots 1 and 2 meet the hardcover and structural limitations for this property. In making lot 2 smaller, he thinks it will bump up against some hardcover issues and perhaps also for lot 1. Walsh said after the Planning Commission, Walsh, Barnhart, and Eric sat at the white board and said if they wanted to make just one road coming down and put the cul-de-sac down there with driveways off it they would not need any approvals. However, that would be very intrusive, it would not look great, and would then present itself as a practical difficulty to say a better solution for everybody from a viewing standpoint would be to put the cul-de-sac up on Pence Lane on the private drive and have two separate ones come off there. Barnhart said there are some advantages to putting it there. He noted there were some concerns from the property owner about the cul-de-sac near their property. He said nobody will necessarily be happy but this does offer some of the solutions Walsh talked about. Walsh asked by doing this, what kind of variances do they really need? Barnhart said by doing this, there is some question about Pence Lane being a private road or driveway. Pending the solution of that, if it is considered a private driveway and they want to approve it to a private road they may be looking at a variance from the Pence Lane width issue. They could argue that is a 17. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 32 of 34 LA21-000025 – ERIC VOGSTROM O/B/O ERIC VOGSTROM, WILLIAM, AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW practical difficulty because it is already a fixed boundary. Lots 1 and 2 are conforming from hardcover, lot area, lot width, and structural coverage so from that perspective it is a big hill to climb. That is why Staff supports this proposal. The Planning Commission did have some challenges with the parallel driveways; to address those comments, one applicant had talked about doing some cross-sections to better illustrate how that would look. Walsh thinks the biggest issue was they did not look very far apart and where would the snow go; in reality, they are 10 feet apart. He asked the arguments against putting the Pence Lane cul-de-sac up where the private drive is. Barnhart does not have any arguments against it. Crosby thinks the one neighbor in the back had some concerns visually. Pence Lane on the other side of the gates is keeping it at the same width so they do not need to encroach any more. Barnhart said if it is a private road, it needs to be 24 feet wide. Crosby said ideally if they had the cul-de-sac there, perhaps they do not have to expand on the other side and can keep that the same width as one neighbor has trees (probably on their property ) and another neighbor has a fence (probably on their property). They would keep that as-is in this design. Walsh agrees and thinks it looks much better doing it there than trying to put it anywhere down there because then they run into issues. However, since this is a sketch plan without all the issues or variances needed, if this plan goes to Planning Commission, what kind of variances will they need? Barnhart said right now the only one he can think of is the width of Pence Lane. Staff’s recommendation is that they pave Pence Lane to 24 feet wide, and the cul-de-sac be conforming to City standards. When they come back with an application it may trigger some variances. Walsh said that would be the cleanest way to go. Crosby agreed with Walsh this seems like the most reasonable plan. If the cul-de-sac was on the other side it would be right in front of the Heuler’s home which is not great for them, either. Johnson said from a safety standpoint having the cul-de-sac farther down makes the most sense. Jay Lindgren, Dorsey and Whitney law firm, is here on behalf of Bill and Sue Dunkley. He would like the Council to hear from the applicant’s position, when they come in with an application it will just be for a re-plat within that area. It is their firm belief that they do not need to widen Pence Lane, it is an existing roadway. He has put all of the records within the packet on page 22 that shows from 1947 on, this was a roadway; that legal conclusion is in there and he thinks it is sound. He noted their view is the conclusion MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 33 of 34 17. LA21-000025 – ERIC VOGSTROM O/B/O ERIC VOGSTROM, WILLIAM, AND SUSAN DUNKLEY 2709 WALTERS PORT AND 2710 PENCE LANE, SKETCH PLAN REVIEW that even the practical aspects of widening Pence Lane as a private roadway is not needed. The only reason one would widen it even under a variance setting is for the health and safety issues. Regarding the cul-de-sac, they are happy to work with the neighbor moving it over a bit. Someone in the chambers asked if there would be any merit in a fire truck turnaround instead of a cul-de- sac. Walsh said the City has said no to hammerhead turnarounds. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REPORT Barnhart reported they have a fairly normal Planning Commission meeting coming up so the Council will see those at the beginning of June. They are working on sign ordinance. He thanked the Council for approving the plumbing ordinance as that will help quite a few property owners and the boat storage for an enforcement standpoint. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. It has been busy, they went into closed session and talked about that. Some of the applications have been higher maintenance than normal, but they are moving along. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT Edwards reported on the construction side, the construction season is underway and City projects are happening. There are water shutoffs and transitions, sewer transitions happening this week along with the milling overlay. The Three Rivers project on the Dakota Trail extension starts this week. Johnson asked if they found resolution for the fire that was caused. Edwards noted they did send the bill, he does not know if they have received the check yet. He knows the home owner asked for some clarification and they sent someone out to show them the damage done to the street. They based the bill on exactly what it cost the City in materials and labor to fix the one patch on the side of the road that they could say directly happened when the fire trucks were there. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Johnson said he and Walsh were on the committee to review architectural firms for the Public Works facility; Edwards and Walsh interviewed the firms and chose Oertel. They specialize in City facilities and municipal buildings. Johnson moved to begin working with Oertel subject to the review and negotiation of the contract. Walsh said he will authorize Staff and Attorney Mattick to let them know the City will accept the proposal and go through their contract. If they can go through the AIA document and send their MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 34 of 34 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT – Continued comments to Walsh and Edwards, then they can combine their notes and go back to them. The motion is to accept them and move forward to process through that, subject to getting through the contract. Walsh seconded the motion. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Walsh would like to keep this at the Council-level the entire way through the process, for public meetings, and everything. Crosby noted he and Walsh went out to Big Island. He wished everyone a Happy Mother’s Day. Seals had nothing to report. ADJOURNMENT Walsh moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 9:19 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Council Work Session Monday, May 10, 2021 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals, and Matt Johnson. Staff members present were City Administrator/Engineer/Public Works Director Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. Potential Land Use Classification Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart presented this item. He noted based on the direction of the Council last month, he has created two new land use categories. There was discussion about the effects and benefits for the changes with adding the two new tiers and keeping Navarre the same. Mayor Dennis Walsh mentioned that he likes the different breakouts presented but would also like to look deeper into the presented lots to make sure it all makes sense. Matt Johnson also commented that it may make sense to address the listed properties now and look at the others on the list in more depth later. Barnhart explained the process the applicants would have to go through in order to meet each bracket. Discussion followed regarding how the process works. Barnhart will initiate the public process and will bring it to the Planning Commission and then he will bring it back to Council at a later date. 2. Upcoming Topics Discussion – Update (added) City Administrator/City Engineer Adam Edwards mentioned that there may be two topics for future work sessions up for discussion. One of the topics is drone regulations. Edwards noted discussion could involve having the Chief come in to give input when the Council wants to proceed. Council recommended bringing it to a work session when there is a need to address it for the community. The other item is the Request for Proposal (RFP) cycle for Professional Services. Edwards mentioned that the RFP schedule had recently ended and that he is looking for input from the Council regarding the process going forward. The City Council advised that staff create a new schedule noting that as Professional Services near the end of their contracts the Council would like to discuss and evaluate overall services provided prior to beginning the RFP Process. Adjourned: 5:35 p.m. Council Work Session Monday, May 10, 2021 5:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 CITY OF ORONO: ATTEST: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor _________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Commented [AC1]: Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, May 10, 2021 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 116439 to 116519, totaling $263,803.17. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #116467 Dock & Lift $9,032.00 Payment for installing dock at Lydiard Beach and swim raft at Sandy Beach. #116508 THN Enterprises $7,500.00 Installation of rip rap at Frederick and Carman St right of way. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims list as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Exhibits A. Check Register Item No.: 3 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 05/20/2021 116439 05202021 101-21705 457 - 05/16/2021 1,691.00 Total 116439:1,691.00 International Union Local #49 05/20/2021 116440 05202021 101-21707 LOCAL 49 DUES - 5/2021 280.00 Total 116440:280.00 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 05/20/2021 116441 05202021 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 168 5/2021 317.50 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 05/20/2021 116441 05202021 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 40 5/2021 1,302.48 Total 116441:1,619.98 MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-05/20/2021 116442 05202021 101-21718 PEHSCP - 5/16/2021 2,490.36 Total 116442:2,490.36 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 05/20/2021 116443 05202021OB 101-21705 OBRA - 5/16/2021 517.65 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 05/20/2021 116443 05202021RO 101-21705 ROTH - 05/16/2021 200.00 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 05/20/2021 116443 05202021US 101-21705 457 - 05/16/2021 780.00 Total 116443:1,497.65 OPEIU - LOCAL 12 05/20/2021 116444 05202021 101-21707 UNION DUES - LOCAL 12 5/2021 574.00 Total 116444:574.00 ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 05/20/2021 116445 05202021 101-21705 457 - 05/16/2021 1,770.00 Total 116445:1,770.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 05/20/2021 116446 05202021 101-21704 PERA 05/03/21-05/16/21 37,850.24 Total 116446:37,850.24 PAYCHEX 05/24/2021 116447 1352467 710-49970-416 KIOSKS X3 75.00 Total 116447:75.00 2ND WIND EXERCISE INC 05/24/2021 116448 21-068227 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT SERVICE WORK Police Department 104.49 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116448:104.49 ADVANCED FIRST AID INC 05/24/2021 116449 0421-213 101-42110-240 AED BATTERY Police Department 549.00 Total 116449:549.00 ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 05/24/2021 116450 101488 651-49910-221 BATTERIES, PORTABLE CHARGER Storm Water 913.35 Total 116450:913.35 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 05/24/2021 116451 2002012202 101-41900-319 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 12/20 Central Services 566.50 Total 116451:566.50 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 05/24/2021 116452 10228552 701-49800-221 SNOWPLOW UNDERBODY REPAIR 623.97 Total 116452:623.97 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268338 651-49910-304 MS4 PERMITT REAUTHORIZATION Storm Water 1,320.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268339 435-48973-304 2020 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 20-001 2020 Street Improvements 160.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268340 602-16500 21-014 2021 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 1,663.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268341 101-43280-304 PENCE LANE Special Services 126.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268342 101-43280-304 LA19-000022 WILLOW BAY SANCTUARY Special Services 68.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268343 601-16500 21-021 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT 2,272.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268344 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 750.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268344 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 250.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268344 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE GENERAL Engineering 620.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268345 101-43170-304 MISC ENGINEERING Engineering 60.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268347 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 21-001 7,023.46 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268349 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 836.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268350 710-49970-401 CITIZEN PROBLEM REPORTER 300.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268351 602-16500 21-019 LS15 GERENATOR SURVEY 3,467.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268352 602-16500 UTILITY DESIGN FOR NEW PW FACILITY 1,031.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268352 601-16500 UTILITY DESIGN FOR NEW PW FACILITY 1,031.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.05/24/2021 116453 0268353 601-16500 WALTERS POINT MAIN IMPROVEMENT 21-022 4,699.00 Total 116453:25,678.46 BUSINESS ESSENTIALS 05/24/2021 116454 WO-1127391 101-41900-201 COPY PAPER Central Services 174.35 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116454:174.35 CALIBRE PRESS 05/24/2021 116455 2134840 101-42110-437 TRAINING Police Department 119.00 Total 116455:119.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0000G-186 101-41600-307 GENERAL MATTERS 04/21 Law/Legal Services 3,015.80 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0004G-174 101-42110-307 POLICE MATTERS 04/21 Police Department 330.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0201G-108 101-41600-307 MISC RECORDINGS 04/21 Law/Legal Services 1,141.55 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0702G-5 101-41600-307 VERIZON LEASE AGREEMENT Law/Legal Services 99.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0719G-2 101-43280-307 LA21-000004 1150 PINE VIEW/2600 SIXTH AVE Special Services 180.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0725G-2 101-43280-307 LA21-000014 ORONO CROSSINGS Special Services 880.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0727G-2 101-43280-307 LA21-000017 480 BIG ISLAND Special Services 110.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0728G-1 101-43280-307 LA20-000053 2060 WAYZATA BLVD W Special Services 110.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0729G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000016 1405 REST POINT RD Special Services 165.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0730G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000018 3500 BAYSIDE RD Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0731G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000019 3440 BAYSIDE RD Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0732G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000020 4085 WATERTOWN RD Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0733G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000021 1485 6TH AVE N Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0734G-1 101-43280-307 LA21-000022 15 STUBBS BAY RD Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0735G-1 101-43280-307 LAA21-000037 ORCHARD CREEK Special Services 165.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0800-69 101-42400-307 STAFF MEETINGS 04/21 Building & Zoning 346.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0801G-69 101-41600-307 COUNCIL MEETINGS 04/21 Law/Legal Services 940.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0802G-69 101-42400-307 B&Z ASSISTANCE 04/21 Building & Zoning 1,105.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 05/24/2021 116456 0803G-58 101-41600-308 ORDINANCES Law/Legal Services 333.52 Total 116456:9,334.87 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 05/24/2021 116457 2542625 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 608.00 Total 116457:608.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 043021 101-42110-402 CAR WASH #261 Police Department 15.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 050421 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - SONNEK Police Department 222.82 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 050421-1 101-19999 21-039 PW FACILITY UTILITY PERMITS 1,656.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 050521 701-49800-212 FUEL FOR BOAT 16.69 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 050521-1 101-42110-321 PHONE CASE -J. WITTKE Police Department 27.95 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051121 710-49970-416 AUDIO COVERSION SOFTWARE 42.96 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051121-1 101-42110-321 PHONE CASE - J MCCOY Police Department 25.78 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051121-2 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 3.49 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051221 101-41500-433 GFOA MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL Finance Department 170.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051821 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - STENSRUD AND LANGE Police Department 380.66 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 05/24/2021 116458 051921 710-49970-416 MICROFILM SCANNER SOFTWARE LICENSE RE 473.00 Total 116458:3,034.35 CEMSTONE 05/24/2021 116459 C2334572 101-41900-404 CEMENT FOR FLAG POLES - CH/PD Central Services 566.50 Total 116459:566.50 Century Link 05/24/2021 116460 050421 601-49400-321 WATER PLANT PHONE/INTERNET 4/4/21-5/3/21 Water 130.54 Total 116460:130.54 CenturyLink 05/24/2021 116461 222609855 614-49840-329 INTERNET 04/08/21-05/07/21 Cable Franchise 1,056.54 Total 116461:1,056.54 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/24/2021 116462 0017111 101-42110-402 #259 SERVICE Police Department 48.35 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/24/2021 116462 0017142 101-42110-402 #253 AUTO MAINTENANCE Police Department 48.35 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/24/2021 116462 0017146 101-42110-402 #264 SERVICE Police Department 82.82 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 05/24/2021 116462 0017163 101-42110-402 #254 SERVICE Police Department 374.09 Total 116462:553.61 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 05/24/2021 116463 210430 101-43000-224 BLACKTOP PATCHING Public Works Department 643.13 Total 116463:643.13 CUSTOM POOLS 05/24/2021 116464 05192021 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00414 2535 OLD BEACH 2,500.00 Total 116464:2,500.00 DELTA DENTAL 05/24/2021 116465 RIS0003486 101-21709 484213 JUNE 2021 DENTAL 2,810.79 DELTA DENTAL 05/24/2021 116465 RIS0003486 101-15998 484213 JUNE 2021 DENTAL 68.74 Total 116465:2,879.53 DITTER INC.05/24/2021 116466 I8213 101-41900-404 ANNUAL SERVICE ON FURNACES Central Services 872.10 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount DITTER INC.05/24/2021 116466 I8214 101-41900-404 POST OFFICE FURNACE MAINT/FILTER Central Services 90.00 Total 116466:962.10 DOCK & LIFT INC 05/24/2021 116467 510953 225-45200-580 DOCK - LYDIARD BEACH 6,533.00 DOCK & LIFT INC 05/24/2021 116467 510953 225-45200-580 SWIM RAFT - SANDY BEACH 2,499.00 Total 116467:9,032.00 EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 05/24/2021 116468 0126234-IN 101-45200-225 SIGN - ADOPT A PARK CASCO Parks 35.00 Total 116468:35.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 05/24/2021 116469 833112 101-42400-340 MAY PH Building & Zoning 53.64 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 05/24/2021 116469 833915 602-16500 21-014 SEWER REHAB BID ADVERT 147.41 Total 116469:201.05 Emergency Medical Products Inc 05/24/2021 116470 2255998 101-42110-221 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 48.58 Total 116470:48.58 GARRETT, WARREN 05/24/2021 116471 34712 101-41900-403 CITY HALL IRRIGATION START UP Central Services 157.56 Total 116471:157.56 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6080/1 101-41900-223 PVC FOR FLAG POLE INSTALL Central Services 11.17 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6091/1 101-41900-201 BATTERIES FOR COMPUTER MOUSE Central Services 17.99 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6112/1 101-41900-223 ROPE FOR FLAG POLES Central Services 59.25 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6117/1 101-41900-223 QUICK LINKS FOR FLAG POLES Central Services 13.14 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6131/1 101-45210-201 CLUBHOUSE SUPPLIES Golf Course 49.00 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6136/1 101-41900-223 MULCH FOR FLAG POLE RESTORATION Central Services 4.33 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6137/1 101-41900-223 NUTS AND BOLTS FOR FLAG POLES Central Services .69 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6160/1 101-45210-201 CLUBHOUSE SUPPLIES Golf Course 43.00 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6161/1 101-45210-201 CLUBHOUSE SUPPLIES Golf Course 13.98 GOPHER ACE 05/24/2021 116472 6209/1 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 3.58 Total 116472:216.13 HARTMAN COMPANIES INC 05/24/2021 116473 10772 101-45200-404 ANTIONE SWAMP WHITE OAK 2021 Parks 1,120.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116473:1,120.00 HEALTH PARTNERS 05/24/2021 116474 104863952 101-42110-135 HEALTH INS 6/2021 - POLICE CONT Police Department 717.47 HEALTH PARTNERS 05/24/2021 116474 104863952 101-15998 COBRA HEALTH INS 6/2021 5,956.84 HEALTH PARTNERS 05/24/2021 116474 104863952 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 6/2021 40,022.08 Total 116474:46,696.39 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 05/24/2021 116475 1000165450 101-42110-414 PD RADIO LEASE 4/21 Police Department 2,398.15 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 05/24/2021 116475 1000165473 101-43000-414 PW RADIO UPDATES AND PROGRAMMING OF R Public Works Department 1,271.60 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 05/24/2021 116475 1000166110 710-49970-401 NETWORK SUPPORT 5-2021 58.00 Total 116475:3,727.75 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 05/24/2021 116476 1000165291 101-41600-309 JAIL CHARGES-APR/2021 Law/Legal Services 466.05 Total 116476:466.05 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 05/24/2021 116477 051921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 17-3886 3880 SHORELINE DR 700.00 Total 116477:700.00 JAY MCCOY 05/24/2021 116478 051221 101-42110-226 CLOTHING REIMBURSEMENT - MCCOY Police Department 77.99 JAY MCCOY 05/24/2021 116478 051221 101-42110-437 MEAL REIMB TRAINING - MCCOY Police Department 13.74 Total 116478:91.73 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 05/24/2021 116479 3153531 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GC Golf Course 609.60 Total 116479:609.60 JR'S ADVANCED RECYCLERS 05/24/2021 116480 104153 603-49500-442 SPRING CLEAN UP 2021 1,522.50 Total 116480:1,522.50 KYLE KIRSCHNER 05/24/2021 116481 051321 101-42110-317 XERXES FOOD/PILLS Police Department 51.23 KYLE KIRSCHNER 05/24/2021 116481 051321 101-42110-437 MEALS REIMBURSEMENT - 14, 07, 19, 12, 29 Police Department 50.47 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116481:101.70 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 05/24/2021 116482 22354812 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 406.89 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 05/24/2021 116482 22354813 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,933.34 Total 116482:3,340.23 MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 05/24/2021 116483 0001124337 602-49450-383 WASTEWATER CHARGES 06/2021 Sewer 58,379.16 Total 116483:58,379.16 MN DEPT OF HEALTH 05/24/2021 116484 051321 601-20802 2021 2ND QTR WATER CONNECTION FEE 2,692.44 Total 116484:2,692.44 Modern Power Solutions LLC 05/24/2021 116485 690 701-49800-403 REPAIR UNIT 856 394.00 Total 116485:394.00 Morrie's Auto Body & Glass 05/24/2021 116486 BSCB512523 101-42110-550 SQUAD #248 REMOVE DECALS Police Department 201.00 Total 116486:201.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 05/24/2021 116487 1300600-00 101-45210-223 GOLF IRRIGATION SPRINKLER Golf Course 269.08 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 05/24/2021 116487 1300913-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 6.32 Total 116487:275.40 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATI 05/24/2021 116488 00356967 101-41900-352 CITY CODE UPDATES Central Services 484.00 Total 116488:484.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 05/24/2021 116489 331001 101-41900-223 CLEANING SUPPLIES Central Services 25.14 Total 116489:25.14 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.05/24/2021 116490 6732000620 101-21710 PERA LIFE 6/2021 304.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116490:304.00 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303291037 710-49970-221 COMPUTER - FRONT COUNTER 372.99 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303299286 710-49970-221 PRINTER CABLE - SQUADS 20.85 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303300716 101-42110-221 ANTENNA - PD BREAKROOM Police Department 16.97 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303307360 710-49970-221 WIRELESS MICE 65.67 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303307620 710-49970-221 USB EXTENSION CABLES 7.99 Newegg Business Inc 05/24/2021 116491 1303307721 710-49970-221 WEB CAM - CONFERENCE RM 2 52.35 Total 116491:536.82 NORLINGS 05/24/2021 116492 38731 101-41900-404 CITY HALL & PD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Central Services 1,216.00 NORLINGS 05/24/2021 116492 38732 101-45200-404 LIVINGSTON PARK MAINTENANCE Parks 518.00 NORLINGS 05/24/2021 116492 38733 101-45200-404 CRYSTAL BAY PARK LANDSCAPE MAINTENANC Parks 322.00 NORLINGS 05/24/2021 116492 38734 101-45200-404 ANTOINE PARK MAINTENANCE Parks 322.00 NORLINGS 05/24/2021 116492 38736 101-45200-404 LYDIARD BEACH MAINTENANCE Parks 322.00 Total 116492:2,700.00 NORTHERN SPECIALITIES INC 05/24/2021 116493 00091113 101-45200-404 GATES AT LURTON Parks 687.00 Total 116493:687.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 05/24/2021 116494 043021 101-42110-402 04/21 CAR WASHES Police Department 77.00 Total 116494:77.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 05/24/2021 116495 043021 101-42110-402 04/21 CAR WASHES Police Department 125.82 Total 116495:125.82 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1702600390 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 71.77 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1702600390 710-49970-221 INK CARTRIDGE 35.61 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1732881430 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 39.99 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1732889460 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 31.56 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1732889470 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 74.81 OFFICE DEPOT 05/24/2021 116496 1732889480 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 8.89 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116496:262.63 QUADIENT INC 05/24/2021 116497 050221 101-41900-322 POSTAGE Central Services 1,012.19 QUADIENT INC 05/24/2021 116497 N8873650 101-41900-401 POSTAGE MACHINE/INSERTER 6/16/21 - 09/15/2 Central Services 483.63 Total 116497:1,495.82 RDO EQUIPMENT 05/24/2021 116498 P3280414 701-49800-403 UNIT #430 BACKHOE REPAIR TASK 53304 11.67 RDO EQUIPMENT 05/24/2021 116498 W5756201 701-49800-403 UNIT #430 BACKHOE REPAIR TASK 5330430173 671.10 Total 116498:682.77 RED ROCK FIRE 05/24/2021 116499 2192 101-45200-404 SAGA HILL PRESCRIBED BURN Parks 2,060.00 Total 116499:2,060.00 RICHARDSON, DALE 05/24/2021 116500 051921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 17-3898 2060 WAYZATA BLVD 700.00 Total 116500:700.00 RIDGEWAY, MARIE 05/24/2021 116501 1317 101-42110-437 TRAINING Police Department 200.00 Total 116501:200.00 St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 05/24/2021 116502 27809-1-299 101-42110-226 COVID UNIFORMS Police Department 144.09 St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 05/24/2021 116502 30334-1-3111 101-42110-226 COVID UNIFORMS Police Department 193.76 Total 116502:337.85 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 CM288994 101-42110-226 IRRITANT Police Department 89.94- STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1496414 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 97.96 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1496575 101-42110-580 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT - 40MM PROJECTILE Police Department 148.96 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1496925 101-42110-226 UNIFORM EQUIPMENT Police Department 55.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1496929 101-42110-226 IRRITANT Police Department 89.94 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1498305 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 249.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1498490 101-42110-550 SQUAD TEAR DOWN Police Department 948.96 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1500008 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 50.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I1501038 101-42110-226 UNIFROM EQUIPMENT Police Department 109.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 05/24/2021 116503 I15900009 101-42110-226 BATTERIES/IRRITANT Police Department 70.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116503:1,731.79 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/24/2021 116504 0621LIFE 101-15998 LIFE INS-COBRA-JUNE/2020 111.75 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/24/2021 116504 0621LIFE 101-21710 LIFE INS-JUNE/2021 1,167.50 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 05/24/2021 116504 0621STD 101-21714 STD-MAY/2021 875.00 Total 116504:2,154.25 TESSMAN COMPANY 05/24/2021 116505 S334489-IN 701-49800-221 REPLACEMENT SHOE BRUSH 38.00 Total 116505:38.00 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-21713 LTD 06/2021 1,776.13 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-42400-135 EAP 06/2021 Building & Zoning 1.68 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-42110-135 EAP 06/2021 Police Department 4.20 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-45200-135 EAP 06/2021 Parks .84 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 601-49400-135 EAP 06/2021 Water .84 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-41300-135 EAP 06/2021 Administration .84 THE HARTFORD 05/24/2021 116506 0621LTD 101-43000-135 EAP 06/2021 Public Works Department .84 Total 116506:1,785.37 THE HOME DEPOT 05/24/2021 116507 7312053 101-41900-223 FLAG POLE INSTALL Central Services 153.27 Total 116507:153.27 THN ENTERPRISES 05/24/2021 116508 2218 101-45200-404 RIP RAP FREDERICK AND CARMAN Parks 7,500.00 Total 116508:7,500.00 THOMSON WEST 05/24/2021 116509 844269341 101-42110-311 DATA PROCESSING Police Department 255.00 Total 116509:255.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 05/24/2021 116510 M26441 101-45200-319 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES 5/3/21 Parks 151.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 05/24/2021 116510 M26441 101-41300-319 CC MEETING MINUTES 4/26/21 Administration 213.00 Total 116510:364.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount TROUP, IAN 05/24/2021 116511 051521 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00241 890 OLD CRYSTA 700.00 Total 116511:700.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 05/24/2021 116512 536230 101-45210-404 MAINTENANCE SHED GARAGE DOOR 2021 Golf Course 1,625.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 05/24/2021 116512 537710 701-49800-222 GARAGE DOOR OPENERS 255.12 Total 116512:1,880.12 TWIN CITY SEED COMPANY 05/24/2021 116513 48962 101-45200-223 PARKS SEED Parks 730.50 TWIN CITY SEED COMPANY 05/24/2021 116513 49445 101-45200-223 PARKS FERTILIZER Parks 144.60 TWIN CITY SEED COMPANY 05/24/2021 116513 49553 101-45200-223 PARKS SEED Parks 672.50 Total 116513:1,547.60 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900621247 101-41900-223 RUGS CITY HALL/ CC Central Services 58.00 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900621248 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900621248 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900621248 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 127.76 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900622618 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900622618 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900622618 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 103.01 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900623977 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900623977 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70 UNIFIRST CO 05/24/2021 116514 0900623977 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 106.01 Total 116514:470.38 VANDEPUTTE, MARY 05/24/2021 116515 05192021 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00504 3760 NORTHERN 700.00 Total 116515:700.00 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-42110-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Police Department 1,640.05 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-41900-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Central Services 291.74 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-42400-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Building & Zoning 70.70 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-43000-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Public Works Department 35.01 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-45200-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Parks 35.01 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-45210-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Golf Course 63.07 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-45220-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Brush Site 36.20 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 601-49400-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Water 166.17 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 5/11/2021 - 5/24/2021 May 20, 2021 02:33PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 602-49450-321 INTERNET 5/7/21-6/6/21 Sewer 166.17 VERIZON WIRELESS 05/24/2021 116516 9879182565 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT PURCHASES - PD PHONES Police Department 169.97 Total 116516:2,674.09 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 05/24/2021 116517 881501 701-49800-403 TIRE REPAIRS UNIT 431 & 615 131.43 Total 116517:131.43 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 05/24/2021 116518 3502878833 101-45210-381 GC SECURITY 6/1-6/30/21 Golf Course 41.82 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 05/24/2021 116518 3502878833 101-45220-381 BRUSH SITE 4/1-5/1/21 Brush Site 32.54 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 05/24/2021 116518 3502878833 101-43000-381 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 04/01-5/01/21 Public Works Department 167.87 Total 116518:242.23 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.05/24/2021 116519 740892 101-45210-415 GOLF CART RENTAL-18 CARS Golf Course 1,647.00 YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.05/24/2021 116519 740952 101-45210-415 GOLF UTILITY CART RENTAL Golf Course 295.00 Total 116519:1,942.00 Grand Totals: 263,803.17 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Garbage Hauler Licenses for the license period of June 1, 2020 to May 31, 2021. 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Garbage Hauler licenses as listed in Exhibit A for the license period of June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022. The Garbage Hauler License Applicants in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Garbage Hauler licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of June 1, 2021 to May 31, 2022. Exhibits A. Listing of Garbage Hauler Licenses Item No.: 4 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Garbage Hauler Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda License# Business Name Payment Amount GH21-000001 Waste Management 135 GH21-000002 Randy’s Sanitation 390 GH21-000003 Republic Services 255 Exhibit A Garbage Hauler License Applicants AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for a transient merchant license for Mark Lazarchic/Renaissance Fireworks Inc. TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE Applicant: Mark Lazarchic/Renaissance Fireworks Inc. Activity: Sale of Consumer Fireworks Location: 3435 Shoreline Drive Date: June 26 through July 5, 2021 Time: 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 2. Background. Mr. Lazarchich has submitted an application for a transient merchant license to sell fireworks from a tent located in the parking lot at 3435 Shoreline Drive. Orono's City code currently allows a transient merchant to be licensed initially for 10 days, with the option for the City Council, at its sole discretion, to grant an extension for up to 50 additional days. In addition, the code limits the hours of activity from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Mr. Lazarchic has also submitted the attached request for Council approval to allow 7 additional days of activity and an additional 1 hour of evening sales each day. The transient merchant and sale of consumer fireworks applications have been reviewed by staff and the Long Lake Fire Chief with recommendation for approval of the activity as well as the requested an additional day and additional hours of operation; provided no problems are reported. Council approved a transient merchant license for Renaissance Fireworks in 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 for the sale of consumer fireworks for additional days at the same location with the hours of operation from 10:00am - 9:00 pm. 3. Recommendation. Staff recommends approval or the transient merchant license as requested. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the listed license with 1 additional day and with the hours of operation from 10:00 a.m. – 9:00 p.m. Exhibits A. Draft Transient Merchant License Item No.: 5 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Transient Merchant License – Renaissance Fireworks Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda TRANSIENT MERCHANT LICENSE 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.O. Box 66, Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Phone: 952-249-4600 / Fax: 952-249-4616 / www.ci.orono.mn.us DATE ISSUED: May 24, 2021 DATES OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT ACTIVITY: June 25, 2021 through July 5, 2021 NAME OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT: Mark Lazarchic Renaissance Fireworks PHONE NUMBER: 612-840-3240 LOCATION OF TRANSIENT MERCHANT SALES: 3435 Shoreline Drive (near Liquor Store in Navarre in 30’ x 30’ tent) TYPE OF PRODUCT: Minnesota Legal Fireworks CONDITIONS: 1. Building permit for tent (30’ x 30’) must be obtained from the City of Orono. 2. Temporary sign permit must be obtained from the City of Orono. 3. “Permit for Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks” issued by the City of Orono must be on site and available for inspection upon request. 4. Permit holder must comply with all rules and regulations of the Minnesota State Statutes, Minnesota Uniform Fire Codes and City of Orono Municipal Code. 5. Business must be conducted between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. 6. Fire extinguishers shall be installed per NFPA-10. 7. “No Smoking” signs must be posted in clear view at all customer entrances. 8. Applicant must provide the name and phone numbers for at least two “Emergency Contacts” in case of after hour’s emergency. Emergency contact names and phone numbers must be confirmed to the Long Lake Fire Marshal at the time of fire safety inspection. Number provided on application: Mark Lazarchic, 612-840-3240. 9. Personnel to be provided on-site 24 hours per day, or all fireworks must be locked in a secure location. 10. Transient merchant activities are approved initially for 10 days. Provided no problems are reported, 4 additional days of business are approved. 11. All trash and debris must be removed from site and the use of other businesses dumpsters are not permitted per signed agreement. 12. By acceptance of this permit, the permit holder, on behalf of any and all organizations and private persons, is granted authority to operate under the permit, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Orono from all claims arising from said activities as set forth on the application submitted. 13. The Orono Police Department through its police officers is empowered to revoke this permit at any time for any safety concerns that are not immediately resolved by the permit holder or a representative of the permit holder. The revocation of the permit shall cause the immediate cancellation of the activities originally authorized by this permit. (City Seal) _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By:A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donations. A donation of $200 from Robert Hardin was received with a thank you to the Orono Police Department. 2. Background. The Police Department has received a $200 donation from Robert Hardin. Robert Hardin wants to thank the police officers. The $200 donation will be used toward the purchase of exercise equipment in the fitness area. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to accept the $200 donation. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion for approval to accept $200 donation from Robert Hardin and thank you for your kind and generous donation. Item No.: 6 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Approval to Accept Donation Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the 2021 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project. 2. Background. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer treatment for the majority of communities (including Orono) in metropolitan area. Since 2005, MCES has identified Orono as one of the communities who contribute excessive Inflow and Infiltration (I & I). The City has been executing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation project annually to reduce I&I. Each year the City works to identify inflow and infiltration points within the sanitary sewer system thought our annual inspection program. These sites then inform our rehabilitation efforts for the year. In 2020 the City received a excessive flow work plan assignment from MCES based on excessing flows in 2019 for $363,540. I&I mitigation projects in 2020-24 may be used to accomplish the assignment. 3. Scope. The project includes the lining of 8,032 feet of sewer main. (Exhibit A) 4. Cost. The city received Bids from 5 contractors (Exhibit B). The low bid was for $ 213,387.75 from Visu-Sewer. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of NTE $22,500 for construction oversight. (Exhibit C) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Engineering $ 24,900.00 Not to exceed, Previously approved Visu-Sewer Construction $ 213,387.75 Pending award Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $ 22,500.00 Not to exceed Total $ 260,787.75 5. Funding. The project is funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The CIP and Annual Public works plan have $290,000 allocated for this year’s project. The projected 2020 yearend balance is $1,662,915. The city applied for a 2020 I/I grant from MCES and has provisionally been allocated $50,000 which can be used to fund a portion of this project. 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend council award the project. While the overall cost of the project exceeds the original planning estimates the work needs to be done and will be used to comply with our exceedance work assignment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to award the 2021 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project to Visu-Sewer for $213,387.75 and to authorize Bolton and Menk to perform design and construction oversight for a fee not to exceed $ 22,500. Exhibits A. Project Map B. Bid Summary C. Bolton and Menk Proposal. Item No.: 7 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: 2021 Sewer Rehabilitation Award (21-014) Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A. Exhibit B. Bid Tab 2021 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Contractor Total Amount Bid Visu-Sewer $213,387.75 Insituform $234,992.10 Hydro-Klean $250,863.30 Granite Inliner $262,321.00 Sak Construction $277,084.00 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate 2021 Sewer Improvements Construction Services.docx May 18, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2021 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project - Construction Phase Services Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction phase of the 2021 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the public with timely and accurate information. Construction Observation Construction observation will be provided. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction-related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction-related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: • Administering a pre-construction meeting • Administering project meetings • Preparation of pay estimates • Contractor communications • Liaison with City Staff and Council Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the City of Orono’s contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and in GIS. 2021 Sewer Improvements Project May 18, 2021 Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate 2021 Sewer Improvements Construction Services.docx Fee Estimate Based on the scope of Construction Services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed fee of $22,500 to be billed on an hourly basis. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval to commence the planning and engineering of the 2022 Street Maintenance Project. 2. Background. At the April 26th, 2021 Council Work Session the Council provided direction for 2021 street projects. 3. Scope. Planning and engineering will consist of topographic surveying, utility inspections, design, permitting, public input and solicitation of bids for select roads. 4. 2022 Roads. The table below list the streets identified for potential projects in 2022 with planning level estimates for each project. 5. Engineering and Design Cost. Bolton and Menk has provided a scope of services for a fee estimate not to exceed $65,000 (Exhibit A). 6. Funding. The engineering as well as the eventual projects will be funded with a combination of the Pavement Management Fund, Utility Funds, and Stormwater Fund. a. Funding Needs Estimates. Fund Cost Estimate Est. 2021 End of Year Fund Balance Pavement Fund $ 1,005,300 $ 0 Stormwater Fund $ 168,930 $ 1,300,00 Sanitary Sewer Fund $ 76,500 $ 1,662,915 Water Fund $16,500 $ 125,122 Total $ 1,267,230 Item No.: 8 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: 2022 Street Maintenance Planning and Engineering Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Street Estimated Cost Pavement Stormwater Sanitary Water Total Crystal Bay Neighborhood: Arbor, Crystal, Prospect, Railroad, Spates Avenues $ 224,900 $ 33,735 $ 24,000 $ 0 $282,635 Park –Oak- Linden $ 59,900 $ 8,985 $ 15,000 $ 0 $83,885 West Lake Street $ 37,600 $ 10,920 $ 3,000 $ 0 $51,520 High Lane $ 15,500 $ 2,325 $ 0 $ 0 $17,825 Chippewa Lane $ 65,500 $ 9,825 $ 0 $ 0 $75,325 Kelley Parkway (West Half) $ 85,700 $ 25,710 $6,000 $ 16,500 $133,910 Dickenson Street $ 165,600 $ 24,840 $ 6,000 $ 0 $196,440 Orono Lane $48,100 $ 7,215 $ 4,500 $ 0 $59,815 Highwood $ 81,000 $ 12,150 $ 0 $ 0 $93,150 Dakota Avenue $ 44,300 $ 6,645 $ 0 $ 0 $50,945 Lakeview Terrace & Country Club $ 177,200 $ 26,580 $ 18,000 $ 0 $221,780 2022 projects TOTAL $ 1,005,300 $168,930 $76,500 $16,500 $1,267,230 b. Pavement Fund. Adequate funding for the 2022 projects is based on several assumptions: one, an increase in the pavement levy for 2021 to $850,000; two, available positive fund balances from 2020 of approximately $200,000; and three, that $125,000 of water tower lease revenue is dedicated to street maintenance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Move to direct the City Engineer to move forward with planning for the 2022 street maintenance projects and acceptance of the Bolton and Menk’s proposal for design and engineering services for the 2022 Street Maintenance projects. Exhibits A. Bolton and Menk Construction Proposal H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate - 2022 Street Improvements.docx May 18, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2022 Street Improvements – Design and Bidding Services Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and design fee estimate for the proposed 2022 Street Improvements Project. It is our understanding that the scope of the project will consist primarily of reclamation and mill and overlays on the following streets: • Park Avenue, Oak Street, and Linden Avenue (Tonkawa Road Neighborhood) • West Lake Street • High Lane • Chippewa Lane • Arbor Street, Crystal Avenue, Prospect Avenue, Railroad Avenue, and Spates Avenue (Crystal Bay Neighborhood) • Kelley Parkway (West Half) • Dickenson Street • Orono Lane • Highwood Lane • Fairview Cottage Lane • Dakota Avenue • Long Lake Boulevard • Country Club Road • Lakeview Terrace Proposed Scope of Engineering Services To assist the City with this improvement project, Bolton & Menk proposes the following scope of services: Staff Design Meetings – Our team will work with City staff to develop the scope of the project and to get input on design details. The goal of these meetings is to ensure that the project is designed consistent with City standards and that the City’s maintenance practices and operations are considered throughout the design process. 2022 Street Improvements May 18, 2021 Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate - 2022 Street Improvements.docx Detailed Design and Bidding – Once the final scope of the project is determined, Bolton & Menk will prepare detailed plans and specifications for the project. This work will include coordination with private property owners as needed. Upon authorization, the project will be advertised for competitive bids. Bolton & Menk will administer the bidding process and will ultimately make recommendations to the City Council about awarding the project. Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to-exceed fee of $65,000 to be billed on an hourly basis. This fee assumes that no survey work will be required to complete the plans. If necessary, we will provide you with quotes for soil borings by a sub-consultant. Once the Construction Contract is awarded, Bolton & Menk will prepare a separate scope and fee estimate for construction phase services. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer Prepared By: Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the council item is to gain council approval to appoint a new Public Works Superintendent. 2. Background. The Public Works Superintendent was created as means to replace the Public Works Director duties from the old Public Works Director/City Engineer Position. At the April 12th meeting the City Council approved the new position description and authorized staff to begin the recruiting process. 3. Position Scope. The Public Works Superintendent position retains the duties of the Public Works Director position less the engineering, parks and the capital improvement plan responsibilities. The position is Grade 13 and FLSA exempt. 4. Recruitment. The selection process for the position involved advertising the position, application screening, and interviews. The selection committee consisted of the City Administrator, Finance Director and Councilmember Seals. 5. Recommended Candidate. The recommended candidate is Mr. David (DJ) Goman. DJ has been the City’s Streets and Stormwater Supervisor for the past 5 years and prior to that was the Spring Park Superintendent for 15 years. 6. Recommended Compensation. I recommended that Mr. Goman be appointed to the position of Public Works Superintendent effective May 25th, 2021. a. Salary. Starting salary of $86,422.02/ yr (Grade 13, Step 4) b. Benefits. For purposes of employment benefits, DJ will be credited with a start date of June 29th 2016. DJ will retain accrued vacation and sick leave he earned as a Public Works Supervisor. Any comp time in this current account will be paid out as he transitions to the Public Works Superintendent position. 7. Vacant Position. This appointment will create a vacancy in the Streets and Stormwater Supervisor positon. Staff will initiate recruiting efforts to fill this position as soon as possible. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to appoint Mr. David (DJ) Goman as the Public Works Superintendent. Item No.: 9 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Public Works Superintendent Appointment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the council item is to gain council approval for the following Position Description updates and Scorings. 2. Background. The recent collective bargaining agreement negotiations and some of the organizational turnover have resulted in the need to review and rescore several of the staff job descriptions. The process included positions supervisor reviewing and making updates to the job description based on current responsibilities. The job descriptions were then reviewed and approved by the Finance Director and City Administrator. 3. Reviews. The following table summarizes the results of the position description reviews and rescoring. Position Justification Description Review Result Current Score Re- scoring Result Existing Grade (Score) Proposed Grade (Score) IT Technician Local 12 Request Retitle position to “IT Manager” 250 290 10 (234-299) 10 (234-299) Management Assistant No change to Job Description 149 149 7 (144-164) 7 (144-164) Accountant Job Description revised to reflect area position leads rather than assists 294 306 10 (234-299) 11 (300-345) Parks and Golf Course Superintendent New Position The new position description was previously approved. Rescoring of the description was not completed at that time. 273 335 10 (234-299) 11 (300-345) 4. Impact to Current Staff. For the two positions with recommended grade changes the staff will be adjusted to a step in the new grade that that has the closed level of compensation to their current step and they will then be eligible to progress through the remaining steps per the City Personnel Handbook and applicable collective bargaining unit agreements. Changes will not result in reduced compensation for existing employees. Position Employee Current Grade and Step Proposed Grade and Step Accountant Maggie Grade 10, Step 4 Grade 11, Step 2 Parks and Golf Course Superintendent Joey Brettingen Grade 10, Step 3 Grade 11, Step 1 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the grade adjustments listed above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the grade adjustments listed above. Item No.: 10 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Position Reviews and Rescoring Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: Exhibits: A. IT Manager Job Description B. Accountant Job Description C. Parks and Golf Course Superintendent Position The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF ORONO Position Title: IT Manager Document Date: May 24, 2021 Department: Finance Accountable to: Finance Director FLSA Status: Exempt Nature of Work This position is responsible for the coordination, installation, and maintenance of the City’s technology-related hardware, software, and networking systems, including minor phone system changes and security systems. Supervision Received and Exercised This position reports to the Finance Director and does not supervise other positions. 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. • Install, configure and maintain network equipment including: PC’s, Ipads, cell phones, MDC’s, ticket printers, other related hardware, network printers, phone system and software applications. • Work with network consultants in the maintenance and design of network infrastructure, cloud services and remote access. • Troubleshoot end user connectivity errors, remote access issues, hardware application, internet, and other network errors. • Support security systems including, doors, cameras, parking lot lighting and other electronic security systems. • Support audio visual systems in the Council Chambers and EOC including ensuring equipment is in working order prior to meetings. • Support remotes systems including golf course, water plant, fuel system, SCADA, Mound substation and other locations using city owned equipment. • Provide/Coordinate end user training. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Research, recommend, and order hardware and software. • Setup user accounts on domain including email, contacts, rights/permissions and remote access as needed. • Ensure data/network security through compliance with LOGIS security policy, performance of periodic security scans, software patching and deployment for servers and clients, website filtering, email scanning and data backup. • Support law enforcement video systems including: squad, weapon and body cam video systems. • Maintain Police property room hardware/software, remote connections, IP phone system, and computer hardware/software inventory. Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Knowledge: • Computers and Electronics — Knowledge of electronic equipment, and computer hardware and software, including applications, programming, networks and security and file rights. • 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. • English Language — Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar. Skills: • Reading Comprehension — Understand written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents. • 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. • Critical Thinking — Use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems. Able to prioritize problems by level of need. • Complex Problem Solving — Identify complex problems and reviewing related information to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions. • Monitoring — Monitor/Assess performance of yourself, other individuals, or organizations to make improvements or take corrective action. Abilities: • Written Comprehension — Able to read and understand information and ideas presented in writing. • 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. • Deductive Reasoning — Able to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers that make sense. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer Minimum Requirements • Technical degree or certification in computer science, data processing, microcomputers, or related field required. • Two (2) years of experience in a technical computer support position, including troubleshooting hardware and software problems in a Windows Server environment. Desirable Qualifications • Knowledge of a Windows Server network environment. • Experience with client software applications like: Office, Adobe, Laserfiche, Cartegraph and other applications. Physical Demands and Working Environment This position operates in an office environment, where employees are protected from weather conditions or contaminants, but not necessarily occasional temperature changes. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer CITY OF ORONO Position Title: Accountant Document Date: May 24, 2021 Department: Finance Accountable to: Finance Director FLSA Status: Exempt Nature of Work The primary duties and responsibilities for the Accountant include providing assistance to the Finance Department in the areas listed below, as well as additional duties as assigned. Supervision Received and Exercised This position reports to the Finance Director and may guide the work of the Payroll and Utility Billing Clerk. 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. • Responsible for the Accounts Payable process, including: administration of the electronic approval system, invoice approval queue assignment, coding review, and reporting. • Oversee all aspects of the Accounts Receivable and Cash Receipting processes, including: review of data entry completed by support staff and reporting. • Prepare bank deposits and daily and monthly reconciliation of cash. • Assist with maintenance of the general ledger and sub ledgers, including: preparation of journal entries for approval, ledger reconciliation and reporting. This includes bank reconciliation, permit payment reconciliation, insurance and payroll review, and credit card statement reconciliation. Perform variance analysis to ensure proper account posting and identify potential trends. • Perform as the lead staff person during the annual financial audit, including: preparation of work papers, audit team communications, filing completed audit with the State of Minnesota, and preparation of the CAFR, in accordance with the GFOA’s Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Work with the Finance Director to prepare the annual budget including: preparation of budget worksheets and reports for department directors and the City Council, preparation of the annual budget document in accordance with the GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award Program, filing the budget with the State of Minnesota, and submission of the budget for the award. • Facilitate preparation of the Capital Improvements Plan (CIP), including: providing economic and budget impact statements to departments as needed, preparation five-year projections for selected departments and assisting the Finance Director in drafting the plan. • Develop, recommend, implement and monitor policies, plans, objectives, procedures and internal controls for effective functioning of the City's financial operations to meet all accounting and reporting requirements and reduce the risk of theft and/or fraud. • Review and monitor the work of the Utility Billing and Payroll functions including commenting on work and providing guidance. • Prepare and present financial reports to City Council, including: quarterly financial updates, budgeting, and the Capital Improvement Plan at council meetings and work sessions. • Letter of Credit and Escrow tracking and reconciliation. Review refunds for accuracy and outstanding bills prior to processing. • Under direction of the Finance Director evaluate, configure and maintain financial systems/platforms. Train other staff on the financial systems/platforms. • Update the public on the finance department’s work via the finance webpages on City website and through newsletter articles. • Perform special accounting projects and financial analysis as required. Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities Knowledge: • Economics and Accounting — Knowledge of economic and accounting principles and practices, the financial markets, banking and the analysis and reporting of financial data. • Mathematics — Knowledge of arithmetic, algebra, statistics, and their applications. • English Language — Knowledge of the structure and content of the English language including the meaning and spelling of words, rules of composition, and grammar. • Clerical — Knowledge of administrative and clerical procedures and systems such as word processing, managing files and records, stenography and transcription, designing forms, and other office procedures and terminology. • Computers and Electronics — Knowledge of electronic equipment, and computer hardware and software, including applications and programming. 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. • Mathematics — Use mathematics to solve problems. • Reading Comprehension — Understand written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents. • Writing — Communicate effectively in writing as appropriate for the needs of the audience. The City of Orono is an Equal Opportunity Employer • Critical Thinking — Use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions or approaches to problems. Abilities: • Mathematical Reasoning — Able to choose the right mathematical methods or formulas to solve a problem. Oral Comprehension — Able to listen to and understand information and ideas presented through spoken words and sentences. • Written Comprehension — Able to read and understand information and ideas presented in writing. • Number Facility — Able to add, subtract, multiply, or divide quickly and correctly. • Deductive Reasoning — Able to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers that make sense. Minimum Requirements • Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting, Finance, or Business. • Three (3) years of related experience, or equivalent training and experience. Desirable Qualifications • Three (3) years of related experience in municipal government desirable. • CPA Physical Demands and Working Environment This position operates in an office environment, where employees are protected from weather conditions or contaminants, but not necessarily occasional temperature changes. *Essential Function City of Orono Job Description Job Title: Parks and Golf Course Superintendent Department: Parks Reports To: City Administrator/City Engineer FLSA Status: Exempt Summary: Responsible for Administering all functions of the Parks Department including the improvement and maintenance of city parks, trails, natural/open space, grounds, playground equipment, lake access points, and golf course as well as overseeing the recreation and events planning with in the parks system. This position is supervised by the City Administrator/ City Engineer, and provides direct supervision to clubhouse manager, assistant superintendent, grounds keepers indirect supervision of clubhouse attendants. Duties and Responsibilities include the following. Other duties may be assigned. 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. 1. Plans, coordinates, supervises, and reviews the activities of the department including daily, periodic, and emergency maintenance and repair activities to maintain the City’s parks, trails, golf course, and public spaces in safe and operational/useable condition.* 2. Plans and coordinates parks and city events and recreational activities.* 3. Develops an annual budget covering all functions of the Parks Department, and monitor expenditures to ensure compliance with the budget.* 4. Supervises Parks and Golf Course staff to include hiring, training motivating, evaluating, and disciplining in accordance with city personnel policy and applicable collective bargaining.* 5. Ensures accurate tracking and reporting of service requests, tasks, and work orders in the cities workflow management system to ensure requests are completed in a timely manner and the work effort required to maintain specific assets is recorded.* 6. Works closely with GIS staff and the City Engineer to ensure the GIS mapping system and the asset management system are kept up to date.* 7. Renders technical advice, both written and verbal, to the City Council and Advisory Boards and Commissions and attends the City Council meetings and others as necessary.* 8. Assists City Engineer in the development of a multi-year capital improvement plan and program to address the city's parks, trails and Golf Course infrastructure development, maintenance, and replacement needs.* 9. Investigates citizen complaints and responds to citizen requests and issues.* 10. Prepares and reviews specifications for equipment and vehicles purchased by the City.* 11. Conducts special projects as assigned.* 12. Serves as the city’s tree inspector and assistant weed inspector. 13. Periodically conducts field inspections of city parks, trail and golf course to ensure assets are properly maintained and repaired; identifies deficiencies; and issues work orders to subordinates or contractors to correct these deficiencies.* *Essential Function 14. Plans, monitors, and continually evaluates the effectiveness of the maintenance, repair, and replacement activities for the streets, fleet, facilities, storm sewer and utilities.* 15. Provides, and sets the example for, excellent customer service.* 16. Utilizes computer technology for work management, information management and communications.* 17. Prepares all necessary reports required by other government agencies.* 18. Maintains records in accordance with the retention schedule.* 19. Manages contacts and contractors providing repair and maintenance services for city infrastructure facilities and equipment.* 20. Establishes and maintains safety program ensuring the department is fully compliant with all OSHA regulations.* 21. Prepares short term and long term goals and objectives for public works.* 22. Performs other duties and assumes other responsibilities as assigned. Supervisory Responsibilities: Manages and supervise a total of twenty including subordinate supervisors the Parks Department. Is responsible for the overall direction, coordination, and evaluation of these units. Carries out supervisory responsibilities in accordance with the organization's policies and applicable laws. Responsibilities include interviewing, hiring, and training employees; planning, assigning, and directing work; appraising performance; rewarding and disciplining employees; addressing complaints and resolving problems. Qualifications: To perform this job successfully, an individual must be able to perform each essential duty satisfactorily. The requirements listed below are representative of the knowledge, skill, and/or ability required. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. Language Ability: Ability to read, analyze, and interpret general business periodicals, professional journals, technical procedures, or governmental regulations. Ability to write reports, business correspondence, and procedure manuals. Ability to effectively present information and respond to questions from groups of managers, clients, customers, and the general public. Math Ability: Ability to work with mathematical concepts such as probability and statistical inference, and fundamentals of plane and solid geometry and trigonometry. Ability to apply concepts such as fractions, percentages, ratios, and proportions to practical situations. Reasoning Ability: Ability to solve practical problems and deal with a variety of concrete variables in situations where only limited standardization exists. Ability to interpret a variety of instructions furnished in written, oral, diagram, or schedule form. Computer Skills: To perform this job successfully, an individual should have knowledge of word processing software, spreadsheet software, and project management software. Education/Experience: *Essential Function Bachelor's degree with major work in turf management, horticulture, or park management. Five (5) years of experience in parks or golf course maintenance. Two (2) years of experience as crew leader, field supervisor, or equivalent. • Certified tree inspector or able to require within 6 month of employment • Current state certification or licensing as a pesticide applicator within 6 month of employment. Specialized Training: Desirable Qualifications: • Ten (10) supervisory experience. • Certified Arborist Knowledge, Skills, and Other 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. • Management of Personnel Resources — Motivate, develop, and direct people as they work, identifying the best people for the job. • Time Management — Manage one's own time and the time of others. • Critical Thinking — Use logic and reasoning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of alternative solutions, conclusions, or approaches to problems. • Reading Comprehension — Understand written sentences and paragraphs in work related documents. • Complex Problem Solving — Identify complex problems and reviewing related information to develop and evaluate options and implement solutions. *Essential Function Abilities: • Oral Comprehension — Able to listen to and understand information and ideas presented through spoken words and sentences. • Oral Expression — Able to communicate information and ideas in speaking so others will understand. • Problem Sensitivity — Able to tell when something is wrong or is likely to go wrong. It does not involve solving the problem, only recognizing there is a problem. • Written Comprehension — Able to read and understand information and ideas presented in writing. • Deductive Reasoning — Able to apply general rules to specific problems to produce answers that make sense. • Inductive Reasoning — Able to combine pieces of information to form general rules or conclusions (includes finding a relationship among seemingly unrelated events). • Information ordering — Able to arrange things or actions in a certain order or pattern according to a specific rule or set of rules (e.g., patterns of numbers, letters, words, pictures, mathematical operations)." Physical Demands: The physical demands described here are representative of those that must be met by an employee to successfully perform the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is regularly required to talk or hear. The employee is frequently required to stand, walk, sit, use hands. The employee is occasionally required to reach with hands and arms, climb or balance, and stoop, kneel, crouch or crawl. The employee must occasionally lift and/or move up to 50 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, ability to adjust focus, and ability to see color. Work Environment: The work environment characteristics described here are representative of those an employee encounters while performing the essential functions of this job. Reasonable accommodations may be made to enable individuals with disabilities to perform the essential functions. While performing the duties of this job, the employee is frequently exposed to outdoor weather conditions. The noise level in the work environment is usually moderate. Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for Council approval of settlement agreement with the homeowners at 2602 West Lafayette Rd. 2. Background. In 2018 the City reconstructed West Lafayette Road. Subsequently the home owners at 2602 West Lafayette Road that the project had increased surface water runoff on their property. The city does not agree that the project caused any additional surface water runoff to that property and in fact reduces the runoff through the installation of curb and gutter that redirects street runoff away from the property. However after meetings and correspondence with the homeowner’s attorney, City Attorney, city Administrator and City Engineer; in 2019 the City offered to settle the matter for what it would have cost the city to install a drain tile. In November 2020 the homeowner’s attorney reengaged the City Attorney on the matter and the City provided a final offer. In April 2021, the homeowners indicated a 3. Proposed Settlement. The release and settlement agreement is attached at Exhibit A. 4. Cost. The cost to the City for the release the settlement is $6,365.00 5. Funding. Funding will come from the Stormwater Fund. The projected 2021 EOY balance for the fund is 1,300,000 6. Staff Recommendation. The release and settlement agreement has been negotiated by and drafted by our City Attorney. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached Release and Settlement Agreement. Exhibits A. Release and Settlement Agreement Item No.: 11 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: West Lafayette Road Agreement Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 215054v1 RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT ("Agreement") is entered into the _____ day of _____________, 2021, by and between PAUL EKHOLM AND LAURA EKHOLM, husband and wife ("Owner"), and CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("City") (individually a "Party" or collectively the "Parties"). WHEREAS, City undertook a public improvement project along West Lafayette Road and Owner, owns property adjacent to West Lafayette Road at 2602 West Lafayette Road; and WHEREAS, since that time, the Owner claims that the road construction has resulted in additional water on Owner’s property causing the Owner to install drain tile to remove additional water; and WHEREAS, the City does not admit nor believe that the road construction caused additional water on Owner’s property; and WHEREAS, in an effort to settle all past and outstanding issues, the Parties have agreed to the terms of this Agreement and on an amount to be paid by the City to the Owner in settlement of any and all issues relating to the West Lafayette Road improvement project. NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, and in consideration of the mutual agreements contained herein, the Parties, expressly intending to be bound, agree as follows: A. SETTLEMENT 1. The City will pay to the Owner the total sum of Six Thousand Three Hundred Sixty Five and no/100ths ($6,365.00) Dollars ("Settlement Amount") for the parcels. Payment shall be made at closing occurring five (5) days after the date of this Agreement. 2. The Parties acknowledge and agree that this Agreement and the payment of the Settlement Amount are the result of a compromise and shall not be, nor shall there ever be deemed or construed to be, an admission by any party of any liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility on its part or on the part of its predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, or shareholders. The Parties expressly deny any such liability, wrongdoing, or responsibility. B. MUTUAL RELEASES The Parties agree that in consideration hereof, the Parties and their respective predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, or shareholders hereby mutually release each other and each other's respective predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, 215054v1 directors, or shareholders from any and all claims, counterclaims, debts, demands, actions, causes of action, liabilities, or controversies whatsoever, whether at law or in equity, whether in contract, in tort, or under statute, arising out of or related to any issues that were or could have been brought before any state, local, or federal court, or state or federal agency, or in any arbitration proceeding, whether now known or unknown, liquidated or unliquidated, up to and as of the Effective Date. C. LEGAL COUNSEL Each of the Parties represents that they have executed the Agreement voluntarily and that in the execution of this Agreement, and the negotiations leading thereto, it had the opportunity to consult legal counsel of its own selection. Prior to the execution of this Agreement by each Party, the Party's attorney, if any, reviewed this Agreement and advised the Party with respect to making the settlement and release provided herein and of executing this Agreement. The Parties affirm that the terms of this Agreement have been completely read, understood, and voluntarily accepted; and that the Parties have executed this Agreement as a free and voluntary act of their own free will and without any threat, force, fraud, duress or coercion of any kind. D. APPLICABLE LAW This Agreement and the provisions herein shall be deemed to have been executed under the laws of the State of Minnesota and Minnesota law governs all substantive matters pertaining to the interpretation and enforcement of the terms of this Agreement, except such matters as are governed by federal law. Any dispute about this Agreement shall be venued exclusively in the state or federal courts located in Hennepin County, Minnesota E. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 1. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding of the Parties with respect to the subject matter and supersedes any and all prior agreements and understandings. There are no representations, promises, or agreements pertaining to the terms or subject matter of this Agreement, whether express or implied, that are not set forth in this Agreement. 2. This Agreement does not provide and is not intended to provide third parties with any remedy, claim, liability, reimbursement, cause of action, or other privilege. 3. This Agreement is binding on the Parties’ predecessors, successors, assigns, agents, employees, representatives, partners, principals, attorneys, parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, officers, directors, or shareholders. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of the Party represents and warrant that he/she has the authority to bind such party to the terms of this Agreement. 4. Titles to sections and the like are used merely for convenience and will not be taken as an interpretation of the contents of those provisions or as an attempt to enlarge, limit, or define terms covered by this Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions shall nevertheless continue in full force and effect. 215054v1 5. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by written agreement executed by authorized representatives of both City and Owner. 6. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts, which together will constitute the original Agreement. Facsimile and scanned (PDF) copies of signature pages shall be as effective as originals. 7. In construing the terms of this Agreement, or in determining the rights of the Parties hereto, no party shall be deemed to have solely drafted or created this Agreement. 8. The individuals who execute this Agreement expressly state that they are authorized to enter into this Agreement on behalf of their respective Party. F. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement shall be effective upon execution of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement through their authorized representatives. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signatures on following pages.] 215054v1 Dated: ________________, 2021 CITY OF ORONO By ____________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor And ____________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk STATE OF MINNESOTA ) : ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this ____ day of ____________, 2021, by Dennis Walsh and Anna Carlson, respectively the Mayor and City Clerk, for the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. __________________________________ Notary Public 215054v1 Dated: ________________, 2021 OWNER By ___________________________________ Paul Ekholm By ___________________________________ Laura Ekholm STATE OF MINNESOTA ) : ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) This foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me on this _____ day of _____________ 2021, by Paul Ekholm and Laura Ekholm, husband and wife. __________________________________ Notary Public Drafted By: Campbell Knutson Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone (651) 452-5000 LCMK AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. The current request is to waive Planning Commission review of a Conditional Use Permit and/or Variance for the modified application pursuant to City Code Sections 78-122 and 78-912. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on March 17, and considered to be complete on March 30th. Due to the tabling on May 10th the 60-day deadline has been extended until July 28, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. On May 10th the Council discussed the applicant’s request for variances for two separate accessory buildings. The Council supported the setback variances relating to the reconstruction of the carriage house, however did not support relocation of the boathouse away from the lake. In order to comply with the Floodplain Regulations and maintain the same location and footprint, the applicant will either need to elevate the boathouse on fill (which will require a variance) or create a floodable foundation which requires a conditional use permit. The applicant and property owner are in the process of evaluating the project to determine their best path forward. Because both options require an additional public hearing, staff is requesting the Council waive the Planning Commission’s review of the public hearing and hold the public hearing following the required publication. The Ordinance allows the Council to waive Planning Commission review, by unanimous consent. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council vote to waive reference of the additional public hearing to the Council on June 14th. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to waive the Planning Commission’s review of the forthcoming land use application relating to LA21-000026 (Boathouse). Exhibits Exhibit A. City Code Sections Exhibit B. Draft Council Minutes 05/10/2021 Exhibit C. Council Staff Report 05/10/2021 Item No.: 12 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: #LA21-000026, JALIN Design LLC o/b/o Tim Holland, 1395 Orono Lane, Variances Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:15 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-122. References to board. Before authorization of any variances by the council, the request shall be referred to the board of appeals and adjustments for study concerning the effect of the proposed variance upon the comprehensive municipal plan and on the character and development of the neighborhood; and for its recommendation to the council for the granting of such variance so as to relieve such practical difficulties to the degree considered reasonable without impairing the intent and purpose of this chapter. The board of appeals and adjustments shall recommend such conditions related to the variance regarding the location, character and other features of the proposed building, structure or use as it may deem advisable. The council by unanimous action may waive reference to the board. (Code 1984, § 10.08(2)(A); Ord. No. 88 3rd series, § 2, 6-27-2011) Sec. 78-912. Reference to planning commission. Before the council may grant conditional use permits for such conditional uses as prescribed in the district regulations of this chapter, the request shall be referred to the planning commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed use on the ordinance and on the character and development of the neighborhood and for recommendation in regard to granting such conditional use and its conditions, if any, or for the denial of such conditional use. The council may by unanimous action waive reference to the planning commission. (Code 1984, § 10.09(2)) MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION Curtis said the application is regarding approval for two separate, non-conforming accessory buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor expansions or changes to the volume. The first is a carriage house and the second is a boat house. Regarding the boat house, the applicant has requested hardcover within the 75-foot setback, side yard setback, lake setback, and ALS variances in order to expand the envelope of the existing building as part of an in-kind replacement and moving it 9 feet further from the lake in order to meet flood plain regulations. It does result in the corners of the new flat roof expanding outward from the sloped portions of the existing roof in the new location and will be 2.5 feet farther from the side lot line (it is currently 2.5 feet and they are proposing 5 feet). The drawings show the existing outline of the boat house as it is today in purple. The footprint is essentially the same configuration, there are three areas where there is a small foundation expansion which is for a shear wall which Curtis believes is an architectural feature. Regarding the carriage house, the applicant is proposing to raise the floor inside the living space as well as the floor inside the garage to allow for some more accessible ceiling dimensions. The footprint is going to stay the same, the location will stay the same, the roof will expand in some places and will lose encroachment in others. Curtis said it is hard to go through it piece-by-piece and the applicant has provided some good exhibits illustrating what they are changing. The applicant is looking for rear and side yard setback variances for the carriage house. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 19, 2021 and following the public hearing they voted 5-to-1 in favor of a motion to approve the variances subject to the boat house not having hardcover landings and the property owner signing the standard plumbing covenant. Commissioner Libby was the dissenting voter and did not provide reasoning for his nay vote. No comments were received from neighbors; Staff is recommending approval and a resolution has been drafted for the Council’s consideration. Jeff Lindgren, 6514 108th Trail, Brooklyn Park, stated this is a fairly substantial project and currently there are three structures on the site and they propose to take down all three because they are not safe and are unlivable. The current owner is looking to build a new home on the site in the future. They are trying to take care of the two smaller structures first as they do not want to cut off access once the new house is up and these two are connected with sewer. Working with Curtis, they found that the current boat house is in the flood plain and they want to be sensitive to those issues and thought it would be best to move that one back and also give more breathing room on the property line for fire code reasons. The footprint stayed the same as for living space – actually it is a bit under – the current architectural features on those walls are from a detail they are trying to get. The current boat house has a good sized overhang around the perimeter; the homeowner would like to build a more contemporary home so they are trying to create these two structures to be congruent with the home. The idea is to have a flat roof on the boat house and to make sure they are meeting energy code they had to raise the hill-height or the wall height around the perimeter given the current structure was hand-framed and had about 4 inches of insulation space. They are trying to find the middle ground by raising the side and lowering the overall height from a viewing standpoint. Regarding the carriage house, it has stayed the same size. The current floor is a bit lower and the back wall is pregnant and is diving in due to water intrusion issues. The thought process is to raise it up to get positive drainage, the current garage doors are at 6.5 feet and they are trying to raise those to a 7 foot height to allow vehicles to enter and enough ceiling height for an operational garage door. They are trying to be cognizant in keeping the roof lower than where it was and using special materials to keep MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ energy efficiency up. Overall they are trying to bring massing down while maintaining a structure that is usable. Johnson asked if there is a stoop on the drawing. 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Mr. Lindgren said that is a proposed patio; as long as they meet hardcover calculations it can be put in that location. Walsh said the proposed carriage house is getting bigger on two sides because of the proposed patio wrapping around. Mr. Lindgren replied the patio is getting bigger, but the structure is not getting bigger. He said currently it is a floating deck and there is a bridge there. They are filling that area in because it is a valley. Johnson clarified that is allowable hardcover. Curtis replied that is correct. Crosby asked how far in they are moving the boat house from where it is now. Curtis stated it is 9 feet from the lake and 2.5 feet from the side. Walsh said on the carriage house they are tearing it down and rebuilding in the exact same footprint, not going any higher. Mr. Lindgren replied not in total height, no. They are changing the height of the outside for energy efficiency and head room which is also pushing up the height of the main level because of the water intrusion in the garage. Walsh is asking because they are in a non-conforming spot and the Council has had that issue many times in getting higher in a non-conforming situation. Johnson clarified just one little corner is higher and the rest of it is lower. Crosby is okay with that. Walsh thinks that is reasonable. The rule is that one cannot move boat houses; they used to not even be able to renovate them but now they can be renovated. However, the City does not allow them to be moved so they will have to work with the existing footprint there. Mr. Lindgren said they were advised to move the boat house per recommendation of the City because of the flood plain. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Curtis stated the flood plain contour cuts through the existing building, so they need to elevate the floor out of the flood plain and fill. 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh said the problem is they are creating their own practical difficulty by doing that because they do not have to do anything to this. Curtis said if they renovate it to a certain extent, they need to bring it into conformance with the flood plain regulations. Walsh noted they are creating their own practical difficulty by renovating it. Curtis noted they could always demolish it. Walsh said they could get rid of it if they want to. He has never seen anything where the City has allowed anyone to move a boat house or even a storage facility between the 0-75. Johnson asked if Mr. Lindgren is fine keeping it where it is. Mr. Lindgren said the structure would fit where it is currently today and he can take off some wing walls to make it fit. However, he will have pushback for raising the floor of it because it does not meet today’s standards. Then he would not be able to renovate it. He asked if that is the City or the watershed. Curtis replied it is FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency). Mr. Lindgren noted FEMA would not allow him to renovate it. Walsh asked to define renovation. Mr. Lindgren could put new walls and floors in. Mr. Lindgren would have to apply for a permit to do that and a permit would not be granted if he does not have a FEMA or watershed permit. Walsh is torn on that because he is against anyone moving any boat house, even away from the lake. Mr. Lindgren asked his theory on that. Walsh said because then everyone wants to move a boat house. He reminded people that in the past one could not even renovate they just had to tear them down. Now they can be fixed up and that may be the only thing Mr. Lindgren can do is fix it up barring any permits. He does not know and is torn on that as he does not want to open up Pandora’s box with people coming in and wanting to move their boat house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Johnson has less of a hard time with that. He thinks getting it out of the flood zone is not to the applicant’s convenience, it is just a good practice. He does not think there should be any enlargement of the structure but moving it back and farther from the property line - he thinks it is a good practice not having things in the flood plain. 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh stated they could also just get rid of the part that is in the flood zone. Curtis asked about options. Similar to 855 Old Crystal Bay Road, they had a couple cabins on the lake, redeveloped the lot, and received variances to keep the “sauna” building in the same foot print in the same location, but the City granted them a variance so they were able to elevate the floor level to meet FEMA. It did result in variances similar to this one with the flat roof, changing from a pitched roof. Johnson asked to look at the side elevation of the existing on screen. He said the front of it was at 931.2 and asked what the flood zone line is. Curtis replied it is 931.5. Johnson said that is 3 inches. Curtis said this property is in the flood plain and would need to be brought into conformance which would mean elevating the entire structure. Crosby asked how much they would have to elevate it. Mr. Lindgren said there are two floor elevations in the current structure; one is a step up at the entry point and one that steps up into the main part of the structure. He thinks it is at 933.2 and 934.1 are the two floor elevations currently. Johnson said the flood zone is the lowest opening. Curtis said there is a low floor and a low opening. The low floor requirement is 932.5, that is the floor elevation. On Lake Minnetonka one foot is required. Crosby asked if there is room to elevate it out of the flood zone. Curtis noted it would expand the top or elevate it up if they needed to have the living space or head room. Crosby is always conflicted over these because he is empathetic over the possible flood situation; however he also understands the steadfast rules of not moving boat houses. Crosby would be in favor of letting the applicant raise it to get it out of the flood zone. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Tim Holland, homeowner, looked at both options of raising it and thought that moving it back was better for the neighbor’s view which is why they lowered the roof, also. They were trying to be neighborly. Crosby would be more inclined with moving it backwards but in the same respect, with the long rule of not moving boat houses, they create a problem later when everyone wants their boat house moved. 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Walsh can see some flexibility in saying the applicant can raise it up and they have to live with what is there, or saying they could cut off whatever is in the flood plain and add that on to the back side of the structure. Johnson agrees. Crosby said in adding things to the backside that is in essence what they are proposing to do in getting it out of the flood plain. Mr. Lindgren showed on screen the non-conforming portion and the proposal of setting that in another portion of the structure. Walsh does not remember the sauna project they talked about and asked if he was here for that. Curtis thinks Walsh expressed similar concerns and they talked through the flood plain compliance and the reduction of the peak height to the flat roof. She does not want to put words in his mouth but she thinks that is where he saw that there was a practical difficulty. This project is not identical, but is similar. Mr. Lindgren noted the City shared this information before they went down this venture. He remembers reading through those documents and it was more similar than not. Curtis noted the other project had two structures, there was one by the house that was rebuilt and another by the lake. Johnson noted Walsh is consistent, it was the same thing where they flattened out the roof and the Council said okay because the peak height is still lower, it was not a massing increase and it made sense to get it out of the flood zone. Walsh does not remember that, but he noted they are trying to tell him there is precedent for doing this. Curtis replied yes, they did not move the building but in this instance they are pulling it back from the lake in light of the neighbors. Walsh clarified they did not move the building? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Johnson said no, the Council allowed them to increase their overall height to not move it out so the finished floor would be above the flood plain. He thinks Walsh said he would rather not have them move it and increase the height than have them move it a quarter of an inch. Mr. Lindgren asked if there are flood plain and flood zone differences? 16. LA21-000026 – JALIN DESIGN, LLC O/B/O TIM HOLLAND, 1395 ORONO LANE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION – Continued Curtis said there are different regulations about where one is within the flood way or the flood plain. Attorney Mattick said the idea in dealing with a flood plain, even when one replaces a non-conformity in- kind, if they are in the flood area, they are still expected to raise it up. It is not in-kind in the flood area, they either need to raise it up or move it back. That is what Curtis has been instructing them to do here. It is a little different than some of the non-conformities the Council deals with because not all of them have the flood plain issue. Seals noted there is history where the Council has raised it up and not moved it. Attorney Mattick said they have allowed that, but they have to raise it up to rebuild it. Seals is a strict believer of like-and-kind because once they move left or right, it is a hot mess and Pandora’s Box. She is supportive of raising it so it is in compliance with FEMA and everywhere else, and they have done it before, while keeping the same footprint. She said it is great that they want to be kind to their neighbors. Crosby said the reality is the neighbor will be looking at a much nicer structure when this is done. Walsh agrees to keep it in the same footprint and raise it up. Johnson asked if they are talking 1-1.5 feet? Curtis said they need to raise the structure out of the flood plain and also maintain a fill elevation of the 931.5. She does not know the exact height. Mr. Lindgren said the issue with raising it is he will have almost a step-and-a-half to get to that new level and he cannot add any elevation to the exterior around the perimeter of it from a landing standpoint to get in. Walsh said that would be a practical difficulty and they would have to give that to the applicant. Mr. Lindgren thinks he may have some issues with watershed. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Curtis does not know but knows he will need to get their permission to fill within the flood plain and depending on how much they will have to mitigate the fill. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to table LA21-000026. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Walsh said they would bring it back before the Council on May 24, 2021. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding approval of variances for two separate nonconforming accessory buildings in order to reconstruct them with minor expansions/changes. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on March 17, and considered to be complete on March 30th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on May 29, 2021. Background/ Summary. Regarding the boathouse, the applicant has requested side yard, lake, and average lakeshore setback variances in order to expand the envelope of an existing accessory building as part of an in-kind replacement in order to meet floodplain regulations. This results in the corners of the new flat roof expanding outwards from the sloped portions of the existing roof with the building in a new location ±9 feet further from the lake and ±2 feet further from the side lot line. In the drawings below and in exhibit B, the existing condition outline is purple, and the proposed is in blue. Carriage House Boathouse Regarding the carriage house, the applicant is proposing to raise the roof inside the first floor to allow for more current garage ceiling dimensions. To accomplish this the applicant is proposing a minor roof and side wall change, resulting in a new envelope expansion slightly above the existing roof on the street side, and beyond the pitch of the roof on the lake side requiring rear and side yard variances. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On April 19, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 5 to 1 (Libby) in favor of a motion to approve the requested variances subject to the following conditions: a. The boathouse shall not have hardcover landings. b. The property owner shall sign the standard plumbing covenant regarding the plumbing within the boathouse. The dissenting Commissioner did not provide their reasoning for their vote. 4. Public Comment. No comments from the neighbors were received. Item No.: # Date: 10 May 2021 Item Description: #LA21-000026, JALIN Design LLC o/b/o Tim Holland, 1395 Orono Lane, Variances – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Resolution Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 04/19/2021 Exhibit A. Application & Owners’ Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. MCWD Email Exhibit G. Resol. No. 2444 Exhibit H. Aerial Photo Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To formally release the Developers Agreement for Fox Island. 2. Background. In July, 2006, the City Council approved the final plat for Fox Island, a 6 unit single family neighborhood, subject to the approval of a development agreement, which was signed in April 2007. This development agreement was recorded against each of the lots in the subdivision. All work required under the development agreement was completed, and the Letter of Credit was released in October, 2010. Given the work has been completed, it is appropriate to release the Development Agreement from the 6 lots. These releases will be recorded against the lots. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the releases. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve the releases. Exhibits A. Releases for signature B. Final Plat Item No.: 13 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Release of Fox Island Development Agreement Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 215397v1 (reserved for recording information) RELEASE OF DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT RELEASE OF DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT granted this 24th day of May, 2021, by the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”). WHEREAS, the City and Hashem Abukhadra, Trustee of the Irrevocable Trust Agreement of Suad Azhari u/t/a dated March 23, 1990, have entered into a Developer’s Agreement dated April 12, 2007 and recorded October 9, 2008 as Hennepin County Document No. A9192174 (“Agreement”); and WHEREAS, the City has been requested to release and discharge the property legally described on Exhibit A (“Property”) from the Agreement; WHEREAS, all requirements of the Agreement have been met as to the Property and there is no longer a need to have the Agreement recorded against the Property. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City of Orono, Minnesota: The Property described on Exhibit A is released and discharged from the Agreement. ADOPTED this 21st day of May, 2021. [Remainder of the page is intentionally left blank. Signature page is to follow.] Council Exhibit A Fox Island 2 215397v1 CITY OF ORONO By: __________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor By: __________________________________ Adam T. Edwards, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _____ day of ____________, 2021 by Dennis Walsh and by Adam T. Edwards, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ____________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 SMM 3 215397v1 EXHIBIT A Lots 1-6, Block 1, Fox Island, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the recorded plat thereof. (Abstract) Council Exhibit B Fox Island AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To consider changes to the city code pertaining to issuing licenses allowing for the placement of docks on right of way on Big Island. 2. Background. On May 10, 2021, the City Council directed staff to prepare changes to the city code that would allow for the issuance of licenses for prospective residents to place a dock on 1 of 7 Big Island rights of way. Recommended modifications to the existing dock license section are provided in Exhibit A, with changes tracked. The draft ordinance utilizes the existing dock license process and procedure, and incorporates the parameters directed by the Council, including: 1 year duration (Line 116) The dock may extend no more than 24 feet from shore (Lines 79-82) (Comment 1) 1 boat/ dock per licensee (Line 107) 1 dock per site, 2 boats per dock (Line 65) (Comment 2) 3. Staff Comments (1). In the development of the original dock license section, care was taken to “not reinvent the wheel” is prescribing regulations already employed by the LMCD, including dock length. Staff recommends that the section regulating dock length (Lines 77-80) refer only to the LMCD regulations. (2). Council direction was for one dock per dock site, and two boats sharing this dock. This is reflected in the ordinance (lines 44-45). Staff recommends that the city own and install docks with residents getting a license for a spot on the dock. It will be very difficult to regulate and manage a dock license system with one of the licensees also being the owner of the dock, while requiring them to share. The city already owns and maintains docks on several lake access points as well as the docks at the Big island Park. The city could use the license fee to recoup the costs of owning and maintaining the docks. The Council will need to determine the license fee. The license fee for the city docks on Crystal Bay Road are $325.00 per year. 4. Public Comment. One resident has provided written comment regarding the length of the dock, attached as Exhibit C. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve or amend the draft ordinance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the ordinance and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Ordinance B. Minutes from 5-10-21 CC meeting C. Public Comment D. Draft license agreement E. Big Island Dock Map Item No.: 14 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000040 Text Amendment related to dock licenses and Big Island Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report Title IV - BUSINESS, LICENSING, LIQUOR REGULATION Chapter 38 - AMUSEMENTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS ARTICLE VI. PUBLIC LAKESHORE, LAKESHORE RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND DOCKS Orono, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 1 of 5 ARTICLE VI. PUBLIC LAKESHORE, LAKESHORE RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND DOCKS 1 Sec. 38-900. Definitions. 2 For purposes of this section, the following terms shall have the meaning given them. 3 Big Island Dock means a dock installed following receipt of a license for placing a dock within the right of way 4 platted on Big Island. 5 Dock shall mean any wharf, pier, boat ramp, boat slip, or other structure constructed or maintained in, upon, 6 or into the water of a lake from either public property or public rights-of-way. 7 Dock accessories shall mean all structures and materials used in conjunction with a dock including but not 8 limited to boat lifts, buoys, fences or other obstructions and permanent or semipermanent steps, ramps or other 9 structures leading to the shoreline. 10 Dock site shall mean the property designated in the license issued pursuant to this section and as designated 11 on the dock location map to be maintained by the city. 12 Public property or public rights-of-way shall mean all publicly owned property and all public rights-of-way 13 that are immediately adjacent to a lakeshore, as designated on the dock location map to be maintained at all times 14 by the city pursuant to this section. 15 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 16 Sec. 38-901. License required. 17 No person shall erect, place, keep, or maintain a dock or other structure from public property or public 18 rights-of-way without a dock license. 19 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 20 Sec. 38-902. Applications. 21 Applications for dock licenses shall contain the following information and such other information as the city 22 deems necessary: 23 (1)Full name of applicant; 24 (2)Address;25 (3)Preferred dock location on the dock location map and dock specifications; 26 (4)Boat license number of any boats to be moored at the dock. 27 (5)An application fee as established by the city council. The application fee shall be refunded if the28 applicant is not awarded a dock license.29 (6)Proof of ownership of residential lot.30 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 31 Council Exhibit A LA21-40 Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 2 of 5 Sec. 38-903. Eligible applicants. 32 33 A. Crystal Bay Road. 34 Property owners of land adjacent to city owned lakeshore parcels as described in the table below are eligible 35 to apply for a dock license for said site or sites. Only one individual per household may apply for a dock license and 36 only one license shall be issued per city owned parcel. 37 Residential Lot Dock site PID 3445 Crystal Bay Road Is eligible for 1711723430123 3435 Crystal Bay Road Is eligible for 1711723430119 3415 Crystal Bay Road Is eligible for 1711723430117 3407 Crystal Bay Road Is eligible for 1711723430115 38 B. Big Island 39 The city has identified 7 lake accesses on Big Island on the official Dock site map maintained in the office of 40 the city clerk. Inland lot of record owners on Big Island may apply for a dock license on city right of way. 41 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 42 Sec. 38-904. Application approval and denial. 43 The dock administrator shall provide a recommendation to the city council who shall approve or deny all 44 applications. No application shall be approved if there are any outstanding noncompliance orders against the 45 applicant or if the proposed dock will not comply with all terms of the City Code. 46 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 47 Sec. 38-905. Terms of license. 48 Before a dock license is issued, the applicant must sign a license agreement containing the following terms 49 and conditions and other provisions as the council may require. 50 (1) Rights and liabilities. Except as otherwise provided, a city dock license entitles the license holder to the 51 exclusive use and control of the dock site and the same rights, obligations and liabilities as a private 52 property owner. In addition to the provisions of this section, all dock license sites shall fully comply 53 with LMCD regulations and all applicable state laws and regulations. 54 (2) Indemnification. Dock license holders shall be solely responsible for the dock license site and all 55 activities thereon. The license holder shall indemnify, defend and hold the city, its officers, boards, 56 commissions, agents and employees harmless from and against any and all lawsuits, claims, causes of 57 action, liability, and costs, of any nature that the city may at any time, directly or indirectly, suffer, 58 sustain in any way connected with the grant of a dock license or activities on the dock license site. 59 (3) Docks. The license holder shall maintain only one dock at the dock license site. 60 (4) License plates. Dock license plates shall be issued by the city after approval of the license application. 61 The license plate must be securely fixed to the streetside end of the lic ensed dock. License plates shall 62 be maintained by the licensee and shall remain the property of the city. 63 Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 3 of 5 (5) Transferability. Dock licenses may not be sold, assigned, licensed, or otherwise transferred in any way 64 to any person, partnership or corporation, except that the license may be transferred to a purchaser of 65 the license holder's residential property within the city . Dock space may not be rented. 66 i. Big Island Dock licenses may not be transferred. 67 (6) Removal of docks. Upon termination of a dock license, the license holder must completely remove the 68 licensed dock and all accessory items, including but not limited to stairs leading to the dock from the 69 public property or public right-of-way. Any dock or accessory item that has not been removed will be 70 removed by the city and all costs the responsibility of the last license holder for that dock site. 71 (7) Dock construction; specifications and dimensions. 72 a. Docks on dock sites shall comply with LMCD regulations. 73 i. Big Island Docks. Docks within Right of way on Big Island shall not extend more than 24 feet 74 from the Ordinary High Water Line (OHW). The dock administrator may refer, and the city council 75 may grant exceptions where there are unusual circumstances and such an exception will not 76 have a detrimental impact on the lake. The city council may impose conditions on any exception 77 granted under this subsection. 78 b. Docks shall be constructed of materials approved by the dock inspector; docks shall be of plank 79 or rail construction; and all dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock; 80 c. Docks shall not be located closer than ten feet to a neighboring dock license site or private 81 property line. The dock administrator may refer, and the city council may grant exceptions where 82 there are unusual circumstances and such an exception will not have a detrimental impact on the 83 lake. The city council may impose conditions on any exception granted under this subsection. 84 i. The setback requirement to a neighboring dock license site shall not apply to dock licenses 85 issued on Big Island. 86 d. Docks may not be permanently installed. 87 (8) Dock accessories. All dock accessories must be approved in writing prior to use at a dock site. 88 (9) Dock storage. Docks must be removed from the water no later than November 1. Docks and dock 89 accessories may not be stored on the dock site between November 1 and April 1 of the following year. 90 (10) Declaration of watercraft—Requirements. Watercraft that are moored at a city dock or multiple slip 91 site must be declared on the dock license application. The applicant must provide the city with a copy 92 of the current DNR watercraft registration or U.S. Coast Guard documentation or recently applied for 93 DNR watercraft registration or U.S. Coast Guard documentation for each watercraft, at the time of 94 application. This DNR registration or U.S. Coast Guard documentation must verify that the watercraft is 95 in the name of the licensee. If a declared watercraft is removed from the city dock program, the site 96 holder may substitute a replacement watercraft upon providing the city with required documentation 97 as stated above. Newly declared replacement watercraft may be subject an additional LMCD fee. 98 a. Allowable mooring of non-owned watercraft. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the dock 99 licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, two times in a calendar year. 100 Unless permitted under the preceding two subsections, no watercraft shall be moored at a city dock 101 site. 102 b. A license holder may only have one boat per dock. Two license holders may share a dock allowing a 103 total of two boats. 104 (11) Subject to inspections. All licensed docks are subject to inspection at reasonable times by the 105 dock inspector or his or her designee. 106 Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 4 of 5 (12) City access. The city shall be free to enter the dock site for any reason at any reasonable time and to 107 perform maintenance and regulatory functions to be specified in the terms of the dock license 108 agreement. 109 (13) Costs. All costs of maintaining licensed docks and dock accessories are the responsibility of the license 110 holder. 111 (14) Term. All dock licenses on Crystal Bay Road shall be valid for ten years. 112 a. Big Island Dock licenses expire November 1 of each year. Big Island licenses received, but not used 113 by virtue of not placing a dock by July 1 shall be deemed abandoned, and a license site may be 114 reissued. 115 (15) License fee. The city council shall establish license fees. License fees shall not increase during the term 116 of a license. A licensee must pay a license fee in full at the beginning of the term of the license or on a 117 prorated annual basis by April 1 of each calendar year of the term of the license. Failure to pay the 118 license fee by April 1 shall result in the termination the license agreement. 119 In the event the licensee paid a license fee at the beginning of the term, and the license is terminated, the 120 city may refund a prorated amount of the license fee, based on the number of years remaining at the time of 121 refund request, unless the licensee owes the city for costs and expenses as outlined in the license 122 agreement. 123 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 124 Sec. 38-906. Administration. 125 (a) Dock administrator. The city council shall appoint a dock administrator who shall be responsible for the 126 administration of the city dock licensing program to include: processing applications, and maintaining the 127 dock location map. 128 (b) Dock location map. There shall be on file with the city a map maintained by the dock administrator showing 129 the approved locations of docks on public land and public rights-of-way. The map shall contain the following 130 information: 131 (1) Locations of public property and public rights-of-way; 132 (2) Specific dock locations; 133 (3) A numerical designation for each dock location to correspond with a list of license holders; 134 (4) Restrictions applicable to certain areas of shoreline; 135 (5) Shoreline access points; 136 (6) Shoreline areas available for winter storage. 137 (c) Inspections; license revocation. The dock administrator or designee shall from time to time inspect any dock 138 erected or maintained on public property or public rights -of-way. If there are any violations of the City Code, 139 state statute or state regulation, the dock license holder shall be notified in writing of the way or ways the 140 dock or dock area does not comply. The license holder shall have 14 days to remove the dock or otherwise 141 bring the dock license site into compliance. If the violation is not corrected after 14 days, the license shall be 142 revoked and all property removed from the dock license site unless, within the 14 days, the dock 143 administrator receives from the license holder a written request for a hearing. 144 (d) [Appeals.] Appeals from any decision of the dock administrator shall be as provided for in section 2 -41 of the 145 City Code. 146 Commented [JB1]: License fee amount for Big Island Docks? The Crystal Bay licenses are $325 per year. Created: 2021-05-05 16:16:04 [EST] (Supp. No. 19, Update 2) Page 5 of 5 (Ord. No. 239 3rd series, § 1, 3-9-2020) 147 148 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE Curtis said at the April 12, 2021, Mr. Thull presented his request for a permit to place a private dock on the City’s right-of-way pursuant to the City code. In addition there were several members of the public present offering input. Following the discussion, Council tabled the application and directed the applicant to work with other Big Island property owners to develop a solution or policy addressing dock access needs for inland property owners. Meetings have been held with a small group of Big Island neighbors on April 28 and May 5, 2021. The applicant provided a written summary included in the packet as Exhibit A and they have not yet developed a solution. Other comments received were from Ms. Farnes and are included in the packet. Walsh noted they heard from many people at the last meeting and to avoid repetition he would prefer updates; he and Crosby went to the island and walked it all so they have visual, firsthand thoughts. Joseph Thull said at the last Council meeting, he came with a dock request and the Council asked the residents to work together and not just solve it for one person but find a solution preventing this from coming up season after season. That became a complex scenario and they are trying to figure out the needs of today and how to adopt the future plan. The neighbors have met numerous times, traded proposals, and had good, open discussions. On May 5, 2021 they had a discussion and the resolution went from finding a dock for Mr. Thull’s location and turned into solving this for approximately 7 interior lot owners which changes the dynamic of what they are trying to solve. It was decided to send communication broadly to other residents because they might be impacted; Mr. Thull went from being a rather unpopular person to being even more unpopular as he bore that effort. They notified those residents that this meeting was happening so they can get an update and send meeting minutes from the last meeting for context. Mr. Thull noted there are currently approximately 7 vacant lots without a dock permit and 3 owners currently looking for a solution. There are 7 right-of-ways of which 3-4 are better- suited options. Scenarios include designing one dock, one right-of-way, one lot owner; another is one dock, one right-of-way, with a shared dock. The third scenario is where feasible and if necessary, multiple docks, and multiple property owners; some lots are bigger than others. He said it is likely that the City needs to look at those right-of-ways and assess each one and showed them on screen. Nancy Farnes, 230 and 460 Big Island, requested that Mr. Thull drop the application to revoke the permit she has had for 35 years and he said no. Now they are talking about 5-8 other locations and the hardship affects 210, 220, 230, and 260. They have 2 large cruisers and it is actually 34 feet rather than 38 feet. With another dock and boats, it also encroaches on Jud’s property. She feels the property values will go down hundreds of thousands substantially, and will also affect neighboring properties if they cram more boats in there. Walsh noted they are trying to talk about solutions and ideas and Ms. Farnes is saying she just does not want anything there. He asked her when was the last time she put a dock there? Ms. Farnes replied it has been about 6 years. At the prior meeting she explained that they have had medical issues and while they used to almost live there, now they are only able to get out there twice a Council Exhibit B LA21-40 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued year or so. Their children enjoy going there and neighbors have been kind enough to allow the use of their dock. The only solution she could come up with in reading everyone’s emails and feedback is just to deny the application, table it, and bring up the bigger picture of what it appears the application is about. It involves many people at Big Island. Walsh replied that is actually not true. The application is about the dock placement on that specific area and has nothing to do with anybody else. The Council brought that up because they see an issue here that needs to be addressed. The situation was going to take a dock that Ms. Farnes has had for all those years even though they do not have a right to. That is the issue they are trying to address and solve. Ms. Farnes said if the City wants to deny and take away…which they have already done. Walsh noted they have not done anything yet. He asked if she has any solutions or ideas beyond just tabling it. Ms. Farnes replied to table it because it is a broader picture that involves more people. After reading approximately 20-30 emails and many conversations, there just is not a clear-cut solution. Walsh stated that is why they are listening to everyone’s ideas and solutions. Ms. Farnes is talking about 230 Big Island between her property and Jud’s. Mike Loughlin, 120 Big Island, is adjacent to the existing 90 foot right-of-way where the existing dock is now. He said as the Council saw, the existing dock and situation on that property has been haphazard at best as far as storage and the way the conditions are. Walsh asked if he is talking about the 90 foot right-of-way. Mr. Loughlin is talking about 220 Big Island’s access dock that ran through the swamp and has been piled up there for a couple of years. The concern is that in the document that was given for access there, it was supposed to be kept clean and presentable; obviously that has not happened. Going forward if there is a solution, he asked how it will be worded to make sure the inland dock owners keep the land pristine and do not have winter storage to look at. Walsh replied the Council has dealt with the issue on Crystal Bay Road and the model used there was they received a license to use the dock but had to store the dock on their own property rather than City property. After being out there (to Big Island), Walsh thinks they may have to bring a barge out to get rid of some things in the public right-of-way, such as the docks and metal in the swamp. Those are definite concerns. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Loughlin noted there is a Minnehaha Watershed Creek District permit tied to that; he apologized that he does not have any solutions as they just found out about the meeting the previous Thursday. Initially he thought it would all be done at the other end of the island and now he has heard rumors that they may want to put a 100 foot dock out there with 7 property owners sharing it. Walsh said no one has proposed a 100 foot dock, but he shares those concerns about what is being stored on City property, as down by the area Mr. Thull is proposing the next door neighbor is storing his dock on City property, as well. Walsh is not familiar with the Watershed District permit. Mr. Loughlin said it is part of the documents filed with the County pursuant to this agreement with the 220 Big Island property owner. Curtis thinks there was some City-approved filling and mitigation done to make that usable as part of improving that area to get walkable, clear access. Mr. Loughlin noted another question brought up by a property owner, who thinks in 1975 a study was done about buildable lots within Orono, including the island. He asked if the lots in question are even buildable lots. Walsh replied everything is buildable; there is just so much space to build within. Mr. Loughlin said according to that property owner, there are lots on the island that are not buildable. Curtis noted the statute has changed to allow parameters for development of small lots. There are some lots that potentially do not qualify and would need variances but the statute did change which is different than what historically was allowed. Mr. Loughlin said the easement between his property and the property next door - the two closest properties already have access there. At the other end where the 7 lots are, there are three existing right- of-ways going down to the lake and the closest accessibility is at that end of the island. Walsh said there is a nice pathway all the way from Judson’s house to the right-of-way next to Mr. Loughlin’s house. The two people that have licenses right now have yearly applications so there is the ability to combine and change things to make it different. Mr. Loughlin advocated that the properties access the closest point from their property. Cheryl Uran, 140 Big Island, stated her property abuts the 90 foot right-of-way and said 20-or-so years ago this issue came up. David Lovelace owned a huge portion of an inland lot and wanted a dock permit. At the time, Gabriel Jabbour was mayor and they wanted to put 4 docks in by 140 Big Island. It is 90 feet but most of it is wetland; she noted they were railroaded and did not get a say. People wanted to put two MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued docks by Fred Bunchen’s property, which was approved, as well as a permit to have a dock by Ms. Uran’s property. She noted they filled, took out trees, leveled brush, and left it in a huge pile just down from the cabin. Walsh asked who is “they”? Ms. Uran replied she does not know who did it, Gabriel was in charge and was the one pushing for it by the Uran’s property because Fred did not want it by his property. She said it is like the same issue is coming up again and again and is getting pushed down by her property. Walsh replied they need to remember there are already two licenses for people to dock near her property. He is not pushing anything there, as there are already two people that can put docks there. Ms. Uran said they had heard ‘massive docks’ and that is what gets people going. She thinks the problem does need to be addressed and she is in favor of one right-of-way, one resident, and one dock. Share the pain, she does not see why they have to have it all down by their property. Johnson thinks there is support for that. The Council hopes the property owners come up with a solution but if they do not, there is a good sense of a solution from the Council’s vantage point. Ganging them all up on one family is not a realistic way to solve it in Johnson’s mind. Ms. Uran said it is nice to hear that it will be taken into consideration. People are also concerned about having a dock next to them: will someone come roaring in on an ATV and disturb things? Ms. Uran stated having the dock next to them did not decrease their property values. Yes, it is inconvenient and nobody wants the dock by them. She clarified during a wet season, the dock near her is almost underwater. Ms. Uran would love to see this get solved, as well, and she is not sure there will be a solution everyone will agree on. Suzy Thiss said she and her husband Peter live at 270 Big Island, right next to Bay Place. She read the minutes from the last meeting and attended a planning session; she would like to understand what the permit says as it transfers from one person to the next person. As Walsh understands, whoever applies for it and gets approved, the other person gets knocked off. Ms. Thiss asked what the Council thinks about that. Walsh said it was set up oddly and they are trying to solve that problem, as well. Ms. Thiss thinks the application should be denied and something more realistic put in place. She took a look at the map and said there is a place on Cruiser’s Cove that is adjacent to park land; that particular MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued access is not next door to anyone’s cottage or home and she finds that might be a good solution and have it capped at 7 boats. Walsh asked if the Thiss’ are next to Judson’s. Ms. Thiss replied it goes Judson’s, Farnes’, Saari’s, and then Thiss’. She said having a public/rental dock next to the park in Cruiser’s Cove makes sense to her. Peter Thiss noted there is a defined road and people utilize it in the winter for construction materials and it is accessible for all the houses up there. He noted it is a low-impact area. Going down through Ms. Farnes’ and Jud’s it is literally a drainage ditch, it floods, will not be accessible in heavy rains, and becomes a real problem. Ms. Thiss has walked through there and is full of water, nettles, snakes, and lizards. Mr. Thiss believes the other area proposed is low impact, easy, does not affect any residents, and will work for everybody. Crosby asked how close the area on Cruiser’s Cove would be to where the boats are anchored and docked. Ms. Thiss said the Deggendorf family has a family dock, there is one cottage and a sign on the dock that says “private.” She thinks putting a private sign on is a good solution and pointed out someone could walk on her dock, as well. Barnhart looked at the resolution that previously approved the dock; the way is written is: should there be any other requests from inland property owner to use the site, the permit is automatically revoked. He clarified it is not an approval or denial question, it is when a request comes forward the Council at that time felt the need to look at it more comprehensively like they are doing now. Walsh said once the applicant puts an approval in, they get it and the other person is out. Barnhart replied once they make the request, the other person is out and the Council decides who gets it. John Uran, 140 Big Island, is right next to the 90-foot easement. He asked if the Council puts a dock in down there, would they guarantee that they would not fill in the wetland to make docks down there. Walsh can guarantee he is not going to fill in any wetlands down there. Mr. Uran remembered one time Orono said they would not fill any wetland for anyone. He said they filled in 5-8 feet of the wetland on the 90-foot easement; someone needs to take a survey of that wetland and the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued road they put in has sunken down and with a hard rain the road is all filled up. Right now there is a dock that has been laying there for 6 years and is an eyesore. Walsh agrees. Mr. Uran asked the Council not to fill up wetlands and keep their word. Walsh sat with Edwards and Olson the week before to talk about how to get the docks off the public property. Mr. Uran felt bad for the people that want a dock. He spoke with them and said he does not have any objections to one dock down there as the guy has not had a dock there in 6 years. He said one boat, one dock, he would be all for. Chris Bollis, 370 Big Island and 220 Stubbs Bay Road, noted there is a lot of misinformation floating around the island. It might be helpful if the City sent a legal notification telling people that this situation is trying to be resolved so everyone is notified officially that Council is trying to work with residents to find a solution. Mr. Bollis does not know if it should rest on the City to provide a dock for an inland property owner; he thinks a private solution would be better, possibly an easement from a property owner. Or the recreational seasonal zoning code could be modified to allow an inland owner to rent dock space from an existing shoreline owner. He noted the ideas are different than the others and he is throwing them out here to see what happens. Johnson thinks that is where they started, the Thull’s tried to find a deal and that suggestion would have been easiest for everyone. Paul Marabellis, 130 Big Island, thinks the solution the City should look seriously at is going to the southwest of this property. The property is just a stone’s throw from the lake to the southwest, and abuts Three River’s Park land. If the City could work out a deal with Three River’s it could solve a lot of problems. He does not think it is reasonable to ask someone to go all the way up to the north shore, for example. On Big Island there is an advantage to having your boat close-at-hand, both for security and for convenience. Karen Backes, 170 Big Island, is not a property owner with a right-of-way next to them, so the resolution does not affect her per se. As the Council has heard, there are a lot of options being tossed around and misunderstandings among people. She agreed it would be helpful to have something that says what the City is trying to do. When she looks at the plotting of the properties, she does not see 7 inland properties – she sees 7 inland owners but 17 inland properties. Could those be sold off individually and then they are talking about docks for 17 properties rather than 7? She does not know but thinks they need to be aware and talk about it. Ms. Backes has an opinion on putting things on Party Bay; being on that end of the property, they already deal with people coming to their cabins asking where the bus stop is, how to catch MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued a taxi, or asking for a ride. Many people on the island spend time walking in the park district picking up toilet paper, condoms, and broken bottles. She thinks putting an unmanned dock in Party Bay where there is not a cabin - as there is for the Deggendorfs - invites people to come there unless the City puts a beautiful paved path to the new facilities being built there. Right now people do not even need a dock, they just go to shore and do their business and she does not think that is a great idea. Ms. Backes advocates for the one-to-one and spreading it out. She also focuses on the environmental impacts to the wetlands of increased traffic. If someone needs to get from one end of the island to the other, they will not walk but use motorized vehicles. That area between Jud’s and Farnes’ property is a low spot which gets full of water, mud, and there is not a way to commute when that happens; people then go through the other neighbors’ property. Ms. Backes thinks putting the docks closest to where the property is so there is less traffic and disturbing of nature. Big Island is quiet and peaceful and she hopes this gets resolved and there is not conflict and a battle. Judson Champlin said there is no requirement that people get a dock, they just need reasonable access, so he does not know that the Council has to worry about getting all 17 interior lots a dock. Many of the proposals are a zero-sum situation where someone is losing and someone is winning. It is usually being taken from the exterior owners and being given to the interior owners. He is a free-market guy when he can be and loved the solution of an easement being granted and he guarantees there are easements available, it is just that the price is too high right now. That should not be a reason for the City to come in and give people docks. One suggestion was to allow renting of the dock, and the Council did make one exception for the easement and he would encourage doing something similar solely for people to access their interior lot property. That way it is a win-win. Another solution would be some type of long-term lease on a patch of property that someone could put a dock on. Ted Hanna, 490 Big Island, owns the property right next to the Thull’s. He does not think himself, Joe, or Sara wants to ruin anybody’s life. He has lived next to areas that are public property and in the long-run it does not really hurt so much. Proximity to the property would be good if they will be asked to remove the docks; this is part of the reason why they poo-pooed Cruiser’s Cove. Mr. Hanna thinks there will be relatively low usage as most of his usage has been in the winter cross-country skiing. If he ever had a dock he is not sure how many times he would go out there but it would be super fun to have it, a safe place to put the boat rather than pulling it up on shore. He appreciates the Council’s effort in trying to work things out here and noted the property owners are not trying to get something for nothing here, they are just trying to get to the land short of buying an amphibious car. He does not want to take anything away from the existing home owners but is curious about the future. He and the Thull’s would be good stewards of things if they were given the chance out on the island. Mr. Thull shared that proximity to their lot would be more advantageous than so many feet away in Cruiser’s Cove. He asked the Council to consider that if they are required to remove the dock which will be a bit of a challenge. He appreciates the residents being open-minded in this process, as well. Walsh closed the conversation to bring things to the Council for discussion. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Johnson thinks the City has established a history of providing some dock access to those lots; he is in favor of that as they are lawful lots. He would have liked to hear the solution from the people out there as this is not that complicated to him, those are City-owned sites, the old fire lanes and access points…the City and the citizens of Orono own them. To Johnson, a 24-foot long singular dock at each one of those – he heard some families say one dock, one boat – he is in favor of having one dock to two property owners (one on each side). The complication with that would be sharing the dock and he has zero interest in the City of Orono owning these docks. They could not even get cooperation to sort out even these few people and he is a little concerned about introducing one on each side because then they have to get along in sharing the dock. Johnson thinks that is a reasonable expectation but they need to own the dock. One at each fire lane, up to a 24-foot long boat, the dock is three 8-foot sections for 24 feet, and the property owners can pick any of those access points to go to. The City’s job is not to provide the route to their place once they get on shore, but it is to provide the dock for them to get on shore. With the Crystal Bay Road property the City decided there will be no storage of docks on City property. He suggested a permit fee; the City should have a one-year permit, and extinguish the previous agreement that was put in place. Walsh said at the Bay Place access there is one dock allowed now. Basically what they would be saying is there will still be one dock but will give two people (one on each side) access. Someone needs to apply for that – for example, the Thull’s – and the City will say the Thull’s have the permit and can put the dock in but someone gets to use the other side. Then it would depend on who wants the second permit. He would suggest whoever had it the first year gets the first option but must apply for it by January 1, then it is open for whoever wants to apply for that dock and permit. To Walsh, where the 90 foot spot it, there are two licenses or approvals there so they could have one dock with two people sharing it, or because there are already two docks, perhaps they have two docks with two on each side for four boats. Mr. Loughlin said the dock at 130 Big Island is already an easement across his property so it does not get included in the wetland right-of-way. Walsh asked him to explain that…the dock has an easement through Mr. Loughlin’s property? Mr. Loughlin replied yes, there is a 10 foot easement for them to access and put a dock there. Walsh asked what the name of the resident was? Mr. Loughlin replied Scheftel. Walsh clarified that is a private easement and they have an agreement with Mr. Loughlin. Mr. Loughlin said it is a private easement and from that point over it is basically wet all year round. Walsh asked who has the agreement with the City to put a dock in there? Curtis said there are two properties tied to the other resolution. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Loughlin said the way 220 Big Island delineates a 10 foot path to that dock and from the path going out is a single dock. Walsh asked if that is a recent easement. Mr. Loughlin stated it is part of the 4456 Resolution. There is a map that goes with it and the City has delineated a road specifically for that dock that is 10 feet wide on the 90-foot right-of-way. Walsh said that is on Mr. Loughlin’s property. Mr. Loughlin replied no, Scheftel’s easement is on his property. The 220 Big Island address of Doherty’s is in 90-foot right-of-way. In looking at the map, there is a 10 foot road identified through the lot and is the egress access for a single dock. Walsh said this is the first he has heard about it and asked if it is a recent easement that the Scheftel’s have through his property. Mr. Loughlin said it is from 1971. Walsh noted they just enacted something that one could not do in Orono previously, and that was get an easement from an inland piece of property. It was illegal to do and the City just changed it for Big Island; he was clarifying whether it was something Mr. Loughlin took advantage of last year or if it was older than that. Curtis clarified the resolution that granted the other dock permit is tied to 130 and 220 which are the linear, interior lots shown on screen. Walsh asked if that is a permanent easement. Curtis stated it is not an easement, it is a resolution granting a permit for a dock. They can share one dock or if they disagree they could each have their own dock at that location. Walsh asked if that is a permanent resolution? Curtis replied it is until the City revokes it. It does not have exactly the condition that Resolution 2038 has where it is automatically revoked, but it does say the City has a right to revisit on an annual basis. Walsh said they could do the same thing as Bay Place and get rid of that agreement and do a new agreement with the Doherty agreement. They can put a new agreement that there can be one dock with one person on each side, either through a lottery or through a first-come-first-serve. He stated they have one in front of the Council today and they can probably solve that one today. It does not sound like the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued existing permit owner who has not had a dock there in 6 years will put a dock in this year either, unless he is wrong. He would be in favor of giving it to the Thull’s with the caveat that they must share one side of it…he would give Nancy Farnes first choice to see if she wants to have access to share the dock with the Thull’s. Nancy Farnes said there were good ideas here that they can solve this for themselves. For instance, exclusively for Big Island, because there are no roads but rather a lake. Is it possible for the City to pass an ordinance just to rent a dock for a person across the way? Walsh said that is a good conversation and he does not know if they have talked about making an exception for Big Island inland dock owners to build a rent-a-spot from someone with lakeshore on Big Island. Ms. Farnes suspects if they took a vote, everyone would say yes to that. Crosby asked can’t neighbors rent docks from each other anyways? Walsh replied they cannot rent. Johnson said the problem with relying on that is that they cannot even cooperate on this right now when the Council asked them to go back and work it out. This rental thing will be a moving target and he can appreciate that someone who owns real estate in Orono and happens to be on Big Island wants guaranteed access to their place every year and not beholden to the rental rates decided collectively out there. He is all for allowing people to cooperate out there and he thinks it already does on its own. However, when they are not finding cooperation; that is how they got here. Walsh said they could always have a neighbor allow one to use their dock, nothing stops them from that. Ms. Farnes said that is correct. Walsh said to Johnson’s point, the Council can solve Bay Place today which will be two people. Ms. Farnes has not put a dock there for 6 years anyways and if she wants to use it, she has the first choice to share the dock. Ms. Farnes does not know how the two other cruisers will fit. She provided a diagram from the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) and it only fits barely a 16 foot boat. Walsh stated she must remember this is City property and they are not guaranteeing one can bring a 35 foot boat in there. Ms. Farnes is talking about her neighbors who have two cruisers and the diagram just does not fit to have. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Walsh said a 20 foot dock should fit just fine; he went out and looked at it. Just because their property goes at a diagonal does not mean they can draw a diagonal across the front of Orono’s property and say one cannot put a dock there. Ms. Farnes said that is true but she also sees that Mr. Thull is the only one who wants that request and this entire room would prefer another arrangement. There are offers of people to rent a dock to Thull and she does not know what the going rent would be but is sure it would be much less than a permit. She does not know how the City can justify collecting money and permits and lotteries when there is no maintenance of docks. Walsh said no one stops Ms. Farnes from renting a spot from one of the neighbors, either. She has the same opportunity. Ms. Farnes said if one does not pay for them, they do not maintain anything, and are not responsible or liable for anything, and not paying for the dock…she questions if that is a viable solution in a situation that really is not a hardship – they have access. Walsh stated Ms. Farnes’ situation was just to deny them and have no one have a dock there. That does not seem to work very well. Ms. Farnes said that is correct and it has worked fine for 50 years and she is not going to argue. Walsh noted every 50 years starts with year one. This is going to be year one of the next 50 years. Ms. Farnes said should the City choose that option, the value will go down to $30-$40,000. Walsh said they have already heard that is not the case. He clarified Ms. Farnes never had guaranteed access to begin with, she is making up something that she did not have. Ms. Farnes is not going to argue this as they have already had this discussion. Johnson agreed and thinks they should move forward. They have all learned a lot but at the end of the day, the City Council must make choices. Ms. Farnes said at the end of the day on her permit, if the Council is doing that, she would like a survey and would like them to take care of all the soil-filling from the erosion of the roads and grounds, and there are snakes there to go up to the house, and all the trees, and the encroachment, and all of it. Johnson said to be clear, what the City Council is providing is right of access to a dock access point. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Ms. Farnes noted in the City Codes it states that “we” are financially liable and responsible to maintain it – the abutting neighbors which would be Jud, Saari’s, and Ms. Farnes. They have maintained it. Johnson stated that is a good point and there is a code review committee that looks at different codes and perhaps they need to review it and extend it to anybody that uses that access point, as well. Ms. Farnes said, or the City can come out and maintain all of it. Walsh noted they can put that as part of the license of using the dock. Dave Saari, 260 Big Island, is exactly adjacent and apologized that his boat lifts have been on City property, that has not been his intent nor has it been there in years past – he has a new dock guy and it will be off by this weekend. What they are not addressing is the larger hole, there are 17 pieces of property that could be affected and have an adverse reaction to this singular look of Bay Place. Bay Place cannot be the only place on the island they look at and he thinks they still need to come back to having a much larger view. Johnson indicated access points around the island make logical sense and Mr. Saari could not agree more, that was his early concern and point that has not been addressed as they are singularly looking at a location. He suggested west-side of the island properties would have access on the west side and east-side properties would have access on the east. There is a larger solution than simply looking at a single location adjacent to his property. Walsh said sometimes they need to do one bite at a time. If there were twice as many people, he wonders if they will have more agreement? At least the Council is hearing some ideas and vetting some of this and sometimes it tells the Council they cannot come to any solution better than what Johnson thought of or what has done before in trying to make it a bit better through these access points. Johnson stated in the other permit the docks have to conform with LMCD and if the LMCD allows it, that is a function of the permit to demonstrate that it meets the setbacks. What is put in there makes sure it is done the best way, the right way, the fairest way they can do it. He does not think they even need to get into the business of saying which one because people out there can decide for themselves; but there is just one dock and it is limited to two boats. Mr. Saari understands and thinks, what if there are 17 potential property owners looking for that same solution. Johnson said they will run out of docks. There is a cap as to how many they can do with this plan. Aleya Champlin, 210 Big Island (Bay Place) and 2643 Thoroughbred Lane, and would like the Council to consider that adjacent to the City’s right-of-way is private property, and when the docks are being removed in the fall there should be no trespass on private property. Similar to the docks not being stored MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued on City right-of-way, an individual’s dock (whoever owns it) has to remove it from City right-of-way without trespassing on adjacent private property lines. Walsh thinks that would go without saying. Knowing how hard it is to know where property lines are, it would behoove everyone to have some kind of marker so people know. Ms. Champlin noted that is part of the discussion – who is going to do that surveying and demarcation of the private property lines. She said they actually got it wrong and all the trees she thought were to be cut down are actually still on her property so they will stay. Walsh thinks it would behoove them to demark the north and south start and end of the back access. If Ms. Champlin is worried about her property, she should mark her property. Ms. Champlin stated they will get a survey with markers from their shoreline up to the road that connects all the right-of-ways. Walsh would put the onus on her if she is worried about someone being on her property, to mark the boundaries of that property. Ms. Champlin noted there is a lot of wildlife and when there is a storm the wildlife brings ducks and cranes and she would like to keep it preserved and not very developed. If the City does not mind that she has a lot of markers demarking whose property is whose, they should not be responsible for corralling people and keeping them on the City right-of-way. The Council agreed. Mr. Thull would like some clarifications. What he thinks he heard Johnson say is that they would prefer one right-of-way and one dock owner, shared, but are open to different right-of-ways as they are there for the access. Johnson replied that is right. Mr. Thull thinks in the LMCD in terms of length of dock to get out to 3-4 feet of water, can the dock be to 4 feet of water? Johnson thinks they keep it at the distance until they figure it out. They are trying to do a reasonable length (which is somewhat arbitrary) but three sections is 24 feet. Perhaps there is a better location and one of these access points may be better without having to go way out which is less intrusive to the neighbors. If they can at least limit the scope for the neighbors, and if that is not a possibility, someone would have to come back to the Council and say that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Crosby stated that can be in the discussion later and there has to be a reasonableness to it. Walsh said the Council needs to make a decision about approving or not approving. Johnson clarified they would deny Mr. Thull’s application and introduce a new one? Barnhart thinks he heard some expansion of the dock licensing program that the City employs for Crystal Bay Road, which has its own built-in infrastructure. He would come back with an expansion of that license – it is not a permit – to identify future dock sites and employs the same application. Walsh suggested starting with Bay Place. He suggested directing Staff and the City Attorney to draft a new license for that Bay Place with the Thull’s doing the initial application and with Ms. Farnes as the second – unless she does not want it. It would be a one-year license along the same lines as Crystal Bay. Barnhart said hopefully the Council would approve the Thull’s application for a license at the next meeting. The length and other things are kind of employed by the LMCD so that question has already been answered. He would come back with a license application by Mr. Thull. Walsh said the Council should probably make a motion to dissolve the current license or permit that is there. Attorney Mattick stated they will bring back the revised ordinance and asked Barnhart if that is correct. Barnhart can look into it. Johnson said they would have to modify it a little bit, one of which was a 10 year term and these would be one year and would specify dock length. Attorney Mattick thinks because they will modify the ordinance, it would be best to bring back the amended ordinance with the changes the Council wants with the new application and they take care of it in one fell swoop. Walsh said they would just table it now until the next meeting. Then they can deal with the other sites as they move forward. Johnson asked Mr. Thull if this is the one he wants it to be. Mr. Thull asked if it is possible to come back and say a location may be a better option? It is not a problem for Johnson or Walsh. Walsh does not have a problem looking at other locations but he wants to deal with this one while they are here with Bay Place. He asked Mr. Thull if he wants a dock there. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued Mr. Thull thinks there are a couple of other locations. Walsh asked if they should deny his application for Bay Place as he cannot come back and pick-and- choose at this point. Johnson thinks Mr. Thull is responding to his point saying that he is open to any of them. Walsh said in the meantime, let’s put together the Bay Place one and if other people want to come apply for it, they can come as it will be first-come-first-serve. If Mr. Thull wants to come back and bring a different location the Council will probably have to go out and look at the locations themselves and will not be able to make those decisions at the next Council meeting. Mr. Thull appreciates the Council trying to solve this today. Walsh said being boots-on-the-ground out there is worth a million pictures. Seeing it firsthand was everything to understand and if there are more places to see, which there are because there are lots of places to walk out there. Mr. Thull asked about moving forward with this one and if there is an option for a better place. Walsh said Mr. Thull can always give up the one he has. Johnson clarified Walsh is saying take this one and if they can work out another one. Mr. Hanna, 490 Big Island, said regarding the 24 foot thing, he thinks a minimum boat in Minnetonka is about 20 feet. He thinks 24 might be a bit short as the bow would only be a small way from shore; there are a lot of 80 foot docks and 50 foot lots but it gives a little room for error. Walsh said the Council is trying to be cognizant of the neighbors, which is most important right now. He said it is a work in progress…if they need more because shore is 12 inches deep, he thinks the LMCD has a rule that one can overhang the dock by 4 feet. He would rather start short and get longer if needed. Ms. Farnes said it is her understanding that Mr. Thull asked to table for a couple of weeks. Walsh stated the Council is tabling it because there is nothing to make a decision on tonight. Ms. Farnes said now the Council told him to grab it, don’t revoke her permit, and she is confused as to where they are at. Walsh clarified what the Council has done. Unless something changes, Mr. Thull is going to get dock access and will share it with Ms. Farnes if she wants to share it. If at another time Mr. Thull comes back MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, May 10, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 16 14. LA21-000017 – JOSEPH & SARA THULL, 480 BIG ISLAND, PERMIT FOR DOCK ON CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY (BAY PLACE) – UPDATE – Continued and says he found another great place to put a dock, he receives another license and gives up that one then someone else can come and take his spot over there. Ms. Farnes said the Council won’t deny the application and let him come back if he finds something better. Walsh said they are going to redo the code for that spot at Bay Place. Ms. Farnes clarified they will not redo the code to let people rent. The Council said no. Walsh noted someone can go get free space from someone anytime. Ms. Farnes said $60,000 for a little on bricks 35 years ago on the permit is not free, and it was there 42 years prior. Walsh stated Ms. Farnes still has dock access if she wants it. No one is taking that away from her. Ms. Farnes said traffic, boats, nature disrupted, everything disrupted. Walsh clarified they are not adding people to the lake or Big Island – it is the same amount of people. He said there is no need to argue, the Council has made a decision on this spot and are moving it forward. If Ms. Farnes wants to share a spot with the Thull’s, she gets first shot to have that. If she does not want it, that is okay and someone else can have access to that second spot. It is Ms. Farnes’ decision. Ms. Farnes thinks they all would have voted for renting a dock and the easements they have already gone through. Attorney Mattick noted Staff has received the Council’s direction and will bring it back. Walsh stated the Council would take a 5 minute break at 8:04 p.m. Walsh brought the meeting back to order at 8:09 p.m. This area for the dock is quite shallow, my boat has a 3 ft draft, and with lake levels going up and down I would ask the council allow the dock to reach 4 feet of water. I used my Navionics lake depth for mapping to show where 4ft starts. This is the standard for the LMCD. I am asking the Council to please support a 4 ft level –Thank You –Joe Council Exhibit C LA21-40 1 DOCK SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT BIG ISLAND THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made on _______________________________ between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55323 (the “City”), and ___________________________, an individual who owns property at _______________________________________________________ (“Licensee”). WHEREAS, the City has made available dock sites at specified locations on public property and public rights of way; WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to construct and maintain utilize a dock at a dock site and agrees to the terms of this License Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1.License to Use Property. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Licensee a license to use Dock Site # _______ (“Dock Site”), as designated on the official Orono Dock Location Map. 2.Term. The term of this License Agreement shall be for one (1) year and will commence on __________________________ and end on November 1st unless terminated prior thereto as provided herein. 3.Conditions. The City and the Licensee agree that the Licensee will use the Dock Site subject to the following conditions: A.Docks. The Licensee shall maintain only one (1) boat at the Dock Site. B.License plates. Licensee shall securely fix the license plate issued by the City to the street-side end of the licensed dock. License plates shall be maintained by the Licensee and shall remain the property of the City. N/A C.Removal of docks. Upon termination of a dock license, the Licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and all accessory items, including but not limited to stairs leading to the dock from the public property or public right of way. Any dock or accessory item that has not been removed will be removed by the City and all costs the responsibility of the last license holder for that Dock Site. D.Dock Construction; specifications and dimensions. The dock on the Dock Site shall comply with the following regulations: 1) The dock shall comply with LMCD regulations and all applicable state laws and regulations, unless otherwise noted; 2)The dock will not extend more than 24 feet from the Ordinance High Water Line; Council Exhibit D LA21-40 2 3) Docks shall be constructed of materials approved by the Dock Inspector; docks shall be of plank or rail construction; and all dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock; 4) Docks may not be permanently installed. E. Fires. No fires of any kind shall be permitted on the Dock Site. F. Landscaping. Licensee shall not cut or disrupt any trees or other vegetation along the shoreline in any way. All landscaping activity must be approved by the City. G. Mowing. Licensee shall mow and maintain the Dock Site area. H. Trails. Licensee shall not obstruct the trails adjacent to the Dock Site in any way. I. Watercraft. The Licensee shall only moor watercraft that were declared on the Licensee’s Dock License Application at the Dock Site. If the declared watercraft is removed from the City dock program, the Licensee may substitute a replacement watercraft upon providing the City with the documentation it requires. Newly declared replacement watercraft may be subject an additional LMCD fee. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the Licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, only two (2) times in a calendar year. Except as described in the Orono City Code and herein, no watercraft shall be moored at the Dock Site. J. Dock accessories. All dock accessories must be approved in writing by the Dock Inspector prior to use at the Dock Site. 1. No boat lifts, or covering structures are permitted. K. Dock Storage. The dock must be removed from the water no later than November 1. The dock and dock accessories may not be stored on the Dock Site between November 1st and April 1st. 4. Use and Control of Property. Except as provided herein, the Licensee shall have the exclusive use and control of the Dock Site and the same rights, obligations, and liabilities as a private property owner. The Licensee shall be permitted to use the Property for the purposes described in this License Agreement and shall not use the Property for any other purposes. The Licensee shall not use the Dock Site, or permit anything to be done in or about the Property, which will in any way conflict with any law, statute, ordinance, or governmental rule or regulation. The Licensee shall use and keep the Dock Site in a clean and orderly condition. 5. City Access. City staff shall be free to enter the Dock Site for any reason at any time to perform maintenance, landscaping, inspections, and other regulatory functions. 6. Failure to Comply. If the Licensee fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the City Code, a state statute or a state regulation, the Licensee shall be notified in writing of the way or ways the dock or Dock Site area does not comply. The Licensee shall have fourteen (14) days to remove the dock or otherwise bring the Dock Site into compliance. If the violation is not corrected within fourteen (14) days, the license shall be revoked, this Agreement shall be terminated and all property shall be removed from the dock lease site unless, within the fourteen (14) days, the Dock Administrator receives from the Licensee a written request for a hearing. 3 7. Payment. The Licensee agrees to pay for all costs of bringing the Dock Site into compliance, including the costs of removing property from the dock site. 8. Indemnification. The Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all liability, damages, penalties, judgments, or claims of whatever nature arising from injury to person or property sustained by anyone arising out of use by the Licensee, its members, guests and invitees and occupancy of the Dock Site and will at Licensee’s own cost and expense defend any and all suits or actions (just or unjust) which may be brought against the City or in which the City may be impleaded with others upon any such above-mentioned matter, claim, or claims. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement will include indemnity against all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any such claims or proceedings brought thereon and the defense thereof. All of the indemnifications contained in this License Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this License Agreement. 9. Liability Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain during the term of this License Agreement a blanket or general liability insurance policy against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring in connection with the use and occupancy of the Dock Site. 10. Property Damage Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain all risk property insurance during the term of this License Agreement in an amount sufficient to cover all items of property owned, maintained, or controlled by Licensee, its members, guests and invitees on the Dock Site. 11. Transferability. Dock licenses may not be sold, assigned, licensed, or otherwise transferred in any way to any person, partnership or corporation, except that the license may be transferred to a purchaser of the license holder’s residential property within the City. Dock space may not be rented. 12. Waiver of Default. Any waiver by the City of a default under the provisions of this License Agreement will not operate or be construed as a waiver of a subsequent default by Licensee. No waiver will be valid unless in writing and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk on behalf of the City. 13. Invalidity of Provisions. If any term or provision of this License Agreement or any application hereof to any person or circumstance is to any extent found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this License Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable will not be effected thereby and each term and provision of this License Agreement will be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. Entire Agreement. This instrument together with the Lease Agreement contain the entire and only agreement between the parties and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument will have any force and effect. This License Agreement cannot be modified in any way except by writing executed by both parties. 15. Governing Law. This License Agreement will be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of Minnesota, as the same from time to time exists. 4 16. Attorney’s Fees. The Licensee shall pay all of the City’s costs, charges, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and fees of agents and others retained by the City, incurred in enforcing Licensee’s obligations hereunder or incurred by the City in any litigation, negotiation or transaction in which Licensee causes the City, without the City’s fault, to become involved or concerned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO BY: Mayor Dennis Walsh Attest:__________________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk LICENSEE: Printed Name: 80 0.0 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Dock Sites - Big Island This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 5/18/2021 2:44 PM 800 Feet Railroad City Limits Parcels (4/20/2021) Boundary Footprint Image Red: Red Green: Green Blue: Blue Council Exhibit E LA21-40 Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to provide an update and receive guidance from the Council on the proposal to provide Public Works (PW) support to the City of Spring Park (SP). 2. Background. In December of 2019 Spring Park staff reached out to Orono staff to explore the possibility of the City of Orono providing public works support to Spring Park. The City of Spring Park currently contracts out their public works support. Their primary contract is with People Service which expires in September of 2021. In June of 2020 the City Council provided staff guidance on proceeding with negotiations with Spring Park. 3. Proposal. The most recent proposal staff provided to Spring Park outlining how the provision of PW support might work and an estimate of costs is at Exhibit A. Subsequent to Exhibit A we also clarified that if in contract with the City of Orono, SP Residents would have a access to the standard services Orono PW provides such as the brush site, spring and fall cleanups, Christmas tree collection, leaf drop off, as well as much and compost issue. One key item the proposal does not provide is snow their current contractor. On additional service SP may wish to explore in the near future it utility billing. 4. Spring Park Actions. At their meeting on May 17th, the SP council voted to accept the Orono Proposal for PW service. There were two caveats; one, that the SP logo be added to vehicles serving SP and two, that we establish a review of the pricing in the contract at the one year point. The first item should be simple to address by going something similar to what we do on our police squad cars. The second may be more difficult as we will want to enter into a longer term contract as we will need to increase staffing and purchase equipment to provide the services. 5. Way Forward. SP’s current contract ends at the end of August 2021 so we will need to be ready to provide services by September 1st. If the council is still amenable to us proceeding the next step will be draft up an agreement. As time is short we will need to begin the hiring process for an additional PW maintenance worker. We will however hold any hiring appointment until any agreement is approved by both cities. Propose timeline is below. June 7th, 2021 Draft agreement contract review by SP Council June 14th, 2021 Draft agreement review by Orono Council July-Aug 2021 Establish Administrative procedures and systems (GIS, Cartegraph, invoicing…) July-Aug 2021 Familiarization and training for Orono PW staff Sep 1st 2021 Orono Provides PW Support to Spring Park 6. Impact to Orono. Based assessment to provide the necessary support to Spring Park the City of Orono would need to add one full time maintenance worker to the department as well as on additional utility truck The additional work load and responsibilities will likely necessitate a further organizational changes within the public works department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTD 1. Guidance and direction on negotiating an agreement to provide PW support to Spring Park. 2. Authorize staff to begin recruitment process for an additional PW Maintenance worker. Exhibits A. Proposal to Spring Park Item No.: 15 Date: May 24, 2021 Item Description: Provision of Public Works Service to the City of Spring Park by the City of Orono Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: City Administrator Report