HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-2021 Council PacketAgenda
Council Meeting
Monday, June 14, 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 24, 2021
2. Claims/Bills
3. Approval of Garbage Haulers Licenses
4. Approval of Rental Licenses
5. Approval of Gambling License
6. Approval to Accept Donations
7. Disposal of Bicycles
8. Disposal of Unclaimed Property
9. Adoption of the School Resource Officer Agreement with the Westonka School District – Renewal
10. 2021 Crack Sealing
11. Dock and Rip Rap Improvements for Casco Beach
12. Appointment of Seasonal Employees
13. Accept Resignation of Margaret Ung
14. LA21-000031 – Doug Johnson o/b/o Steve Zawoyski, 724 Tonkawa Rd, Variance – Resolution
15. LA20-000033 – Dupont Construction & Remodeling Inc., o/b/o Carolyn & Mason Hardy, 1579 Maple
Place, Variances – Resolution
16. Orono Mountain Bike Team use of Bederwood Park
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage
in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to
staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home
address at the podium before speaking.
Presentation
17. Commissioner Chris LaTondresse Update
Finance Director Report
18. Building Fee Update (Verbal)
Community Development Director Report - Planning Commission Representative Chris Bollis
Agenda
Council Meeting
Monday, June 14, 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
19. LA21-000030 – Tom Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd, Variances
20. LA21-000032 – Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr., Variances
21. LA21-000035 – Darrin Rosha o/b/o Orono Station West, 2160 W. Wayzata Blvd, Variance
22. LA21-000028 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Sign Regulations
23. LA21-000034 – Reprise Design o/b/o Brook Investment Group, LLC, 3423 Shoreline Drive – Sketch
Plan
City Attorney Report
City Administrator/City Engineer Report
Mayor/Council Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2021
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 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 7
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Victoria Seals, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup. Council Member
Richard Crosby, III, and was absent. Representing Staff were Public Works Director/City Engineer/ City
Administrator Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy
Barnhart.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. 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
Printup moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no public comments.
FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT
Olson noted the auditors were there the previous week, they finished the audit, and were happy with the
way things went. Auditors did not anticipate any significant items when they report to the Council. The
department will dive into the budget in the next week.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 7
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT
14. LA21-000040 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK LICENSES AND BIG ISLAND
Barnhart said based on the Council’s direction from the previous meeting, Staff proposes some changes to
an existing dock license regulation within the City Code which allows for the City to issue dock licenses
initially intended for Crystal Bay Road and those four lots. The proposed changes would allow the City to
issue licenses on the Big Island right-of-way areas. The draft ordinance introduces special terms and
conditions for docks on Big Island as directed by the Council and also identifies the seven dock sites,
which in the right-of-way terminate in the ordinary high water line. The draft ordinance also includes
provisions that the dock complies with Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) regulations and
that the docks do not extend more than 24 feet from the ordinary high water line. It also establishes a one-
year term for Big Island docks and allows the Council to review the license every year. Staff recommends
the City install the docks in the right-of-way rather than relying on the private properties; that way the
City can manage the system a bit better. LMCD has not reviewed the draft ordinance yet. He is looking
for feedback from the Council on changes or rewrites.
Johnson is not supportive of having the City own the dock. Lines 39-41 of the draft ordinance it says the
City has identified seven lake accesses on Big Island. He is amenable to using any of those seven but
thought the Council had it limited to one location.
Walsh said yes, and maybe another location.
Johnson said on Line 85-86 there is a 10 foot setback requirement from the property lines or another dock
as they did on Crystal Bay because they did not want them too close together. There is a provision that the
setback requirement to a neighbor dock license shall not apply to the dock licenses issued on Big Island.
He does not think they need to add it because if they want to maintain that distance if they are able.
Barnhart noted that may be a challenge because some of the right-of-ways may be too narrow to afford
the 25 foot width.
Edwards stated one right-of-way is 18 feet wide.
Johnson thinks those sites would bump into the LMCD requirement of 10 feet on each side.
Walsh thinks the LMCD would supersede anything in the ordinance so he they do not need that language
in there.
Johnson agrees they can strike it. The LMCD will have to approve the dock position in the end. Lines
113-115 talk about the expiration; Johnson said it is not automatically renewed, and asked if that is
correct.
Barnhart replied that is true.
Johnson did not see language about selecting the location and how they would determine preferences.
Barnhart thinks they would want it - if not in the Code - at least in the license agreement.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 7
14. LA21-000040 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK LICENSES AND BIG ISLAND –
Continued
Johnson thinks it is probably a first-come, first-serve but one can probably maintain the position once
they “got” it. He thinks they can leave the draft ordinance a bit more benign and have the actual dock
license site agreement more specific. Then when they are signing on the agreement, the resident cannot
say they did not know the Code and the City can have a Big Island version and Crystal Bay version. He
clarified they could simplify the amendment in the Code and complicate the application for the specific
site.
Walsh agrees the first-come, first-serve is appropriate and if a person had it the previous year, they have a
certain amount of time to file and if they do not it is open to whomever is first or second after that.
Barnhart put a draft in the license agreement for discussion purposes and tried to tailor it a bit differently;
he can keep going with that.
After talking with Staff, Walsh thinks it may be appropriate to have the City put the dock in so they do
not have issues over people fighting over who owns the dock, who puts it in, and who takes it out. He
suggested having it be a City dock to eliminate the ownership issue and who does what.
Edwards said he, Barnhart, and Attorney Mattick noted that they already have a model for docks on City
lake access right-of-way. Big Island is a bit more challenging getting docks in and out, but they are out
there for the Park anyway, so there might be some benefit and simplification to it being a City owned
dock on a City owned right-of-way. It is easier than the City being the middle man in a dispute that may
arise from a neighboring property and a private dock on a City lake access.
Walsh clarified it makes it more controlled; it costs the City a bit of money and time but he is open to
that.
Edwards said they would license the “spot” or slip on the side of the dock.
Johnson said some areas are more traversable and accessible so leaving it up to the inland owners on
which one they wanted to use was a conversation the Council had. He noted the City is not going to
maintain those roads or trails, so if the City provides the dock are they available to residents? If it is a City
dock can anyone use it?
Seals thought it would follow Mound’s model: it is a public dock but one does not have full public rights
to it, it is a slip.
Johnson noted Mound fire lanes and Minnetonka Beach fire lanes are not City-owned docks.
Walsh said the City has the choice of who has access and he thinks they have the ability to license it to
two users, although Attorney Mattick is not present to verify.
Johnson said in that case the fee schedule should be adjusted because this should not cost a single Orono
resident a penny. The cost of the dock, transportation to and from, the City is not providing marina
services. He saw a comment from the applicant who wants to go deeper. If the City wants to stick with 24
foot docks, they are not in the business of servicing, or moving the dock out a little deeper. This is not a
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 7
14. LA21-000040 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK LICENSES AND BIG ISLAND –
Continued
marina but is a right to access. Short of just having to moor a boat or anchor it in open water, this is an
opportunity tie up to something.
Walsh agreed that is a good point, it should not cost the taxpayers any money to subsidize that. He does
not think the City can charge the entire dock to someone.
Johnson said no, but with a depreciation schedule.
Walsh noted maybe it will not be $350 but $1,000 for each one.
Johnson stated they should get the bids on docks because the other City docks are roll-ins and they may
not be able to use those on the island. He also suggested bids on transportation of the dock in and out.
Printup asked about storage of the docks.
Edwards replied the City could either store the docks right there on the property or get a quote for them to
be stored off-site. The advantage to storing on site is cheaper and the City controls the lake access. The
disadvantage is just like with the Big Island Park docks it opens them up to winter vandalism.
Seals noted at an earlier meeting the neighbors said they did not want the docks stored there because
historically it has not been a good situation. She thinks they need to pull the dock and not store it there.
Walsh said one is a swamp and is not a good place to put a dock. Another is up on a hill and is dry so that
may be a possibility.
Johnson thinks it behooves the City to remove the docks for the safety of their asset.
Edwards clarified he was not proposing the City buy seven docks for seven lake accesses, but perhaps
they purchase one right now.
Walsh agreed and said if there is more demand they can always revisit docks for other areas.
Seals said even one dock is a sizable cost.
Johnson asked how much the roll-in docks cost the City.
Edwards replied the most recent roll-in dock at Lydiard Beach Park was 52 feet and cost $6,800. They
depreciate existing docks 15 years.
Walsh said they can revisit numbers, adjust some of the language and keep it very benign for the
agreement and be more site-specific on the license so there is a model to work with.
Printup agreed with the license agreement having the “teeth” it protects the residents.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 7
14. LA21-000040 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DOCK LICENSES AND BIG ISLAND –
Continued
Walsh noted this is feedback so there is not a public hearing; The Council did receive Judson’s
dissertation and appreciates that, and the Attorney has all that information.
In other matters, Barnhart is working through a number of Code enforcement issues. The Council will see
several final plats soon for Orono Crossing, Orchard Creek, and 2060 Wayzata Blvd. They received the
first invoice from MnSpect.
Seals asked if there was any resolution regarding the resident complaint about short-term rentals on the
Big Island property advertised on VRBO.
Barnhart did see that and sent a letter of the rules and requirements. He saw on the listing the minimum
term was 30 days which is allowable by Code.
Seals thinks they had a work around, she noted a resident sent her a screenshot of the listing and that they
are doing short-term rentals, so she sent it to Barnhart. The resident said it was shorter than 30 days but
the City needs to have proof. She saw another listing in Orono on Casco.
Barnhart said the City reacted to that one, also. That is a unique one because the owner lives in the home
and is renting two bedrooms so they fall under the clause. That owner came in to get a rental license and
met all the requirements.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT
15. PROVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE TO THE CITY OF SPRING PARK BY THE
CITY OF ORONO
Edwards updated the Council, asked for guidance, and to ask approval to move forward. The City has
gone back and forth with Spring Park over the years; Spring Park first reached out in December 2019 to
explore the possibility of Orono providing Public Works service. In Spring/Summer 2020 it was brought
to the Council in a work session and they have since worked with Spring Park on different versions. At
one point Spring Park voted 3-2 to reject Orono’s offer but at the most recent Council meeting they voted
3-2 to accept the offer with some provisions. Two things the Spring Park City Administrator relayed were
1) a provision to provide the Spring Park logo on the vehicles the City uses to provide support and 2)
provision allowing for review of the cost after one year. Edwards said the second may be possible but his
concerns are, if and when the City enters in to this contract, it should be a longer-term contract and Orono
will have to hire at least one full-time maintenance worker – they do not want a contract ended shortly
after they hire.
Walsh asked what Spring Park has proposed for a term.
Edwards replied they have not but he mentioned in previous negotiations he would be looking at a 5 year
term, or perhaps 3-5 years. They could do some kind of audit or provision at the end of the first year to
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 7
look at the cost but they will need to put some language in that would protect Orono from termination of
the contract at that point.
Walsh would follow Edwards’ recommendation.
Johnson thinks the only way the Orono contract would be more expensive than what Spring Park is
currently doing is if they are not actually capturing all of their costs.
Edwards began drawing up some provisions for a contract and used an escalator based off the union
contract cost-of-living increases. He is also asking permission to begin the recruiting process for a Public
Works Maintenance Worker which would be needed. He proposes starting the process but not hiring until
they have the contract. In other projects, Edwards noted things are happening all over the City. They
changed the last couple of valves in the Navarre area so those businesses will not have water shutoffs in
the mornings. They are progressing with the pavement work in that area. The Walters Port and Water
Main project and Tonka Force Main project are also progressing, although a little slower than they
thought. With today’s award of the Sanitary Sewer Rehab project, it closes out the big project approvals
and now it is about execution.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Seals noted lots of really good feedback on the Bederwood Park multi-use field. She believes the grand
opening will be June 4 at 6:00 p.m. The United Soccer Club have committed to come and there will be a
scrimmage.
Printup had nothing to report.
Johnson congratulated D.J. and noted he really likes it when the City promotes from within; there is lots
of value in that and bringing up good employees through the ranks to fill their positions. Regarding the
Navarre project of connecting the parking lot to the trail, he received inquiries of people who were
surprised that it was completely shut down.
Edwards stated the original plan the contractor pitched was that it would be an initial shut down, they
would shift lanes, and then there would be intermittent shut downs. Somewhere in there, he believes they
convinced the County to allow them to shut it down during the work week and open on the weekend. The
shutdown should be just about finished.
Walsh noted they have been working on that project for 6-7 years and it is multi-jurisdictional with Three
Rivers, Hennepin County, and it was complicated. He shared about his family and noted they have the
boat out and there is green stuff in the water in certain areas. With the warmth, it will start popping up;
hopefully between the LMCD and the Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) they will handle that. He
asked Richie Anderson if he has the Crystal Bay LID (Lake Improvement District) done.
Anderson had a Zoom meeting with the mayor of Minnetonka Beach and presented their idea; she said
she would canvass neighbors and clientele to see if they were on board. There have already been 13
people sign the petition and Minnetonka Beach came back with reasons why they cannot do it. The
homeowners and citizenry are doing the Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), not the LMCD. He noted
Minnetonka Beach has an AIS which is flowering rush; the LMCD did not do anything about flowering
rush which can be very invasive. He stated “we did their shoreline” for the City of Minnetonka Beach.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, May 24, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 7
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT – Continued
They went around the corner at Huntington Point and did all the flowering rush as a citizenry project with
the LMA. He thinks they should pay their fair share.
Johnson asked what the City of Orono paid for AIS last year.
Anderson said they paid $11,900 and Minnetonka paid $15,000. Last year’s AIS budget collected from all
cities was $80,000 and they spent less than $5,000.
The Council thanked Anderson for his work and said great job.
ADJOURNMENT
Seals moved, Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 6:47 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: A.Carlson 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
116520 to 116627, totaling $711,472.65.
3. Noteworthy Payments.
Vendor
Amount
Description of Payment
#116541 Bratt Tree Company
$13,350.00
Payment for tree removal service at right-of-ways.
#116561 Paul & Laura Ekholm
$6,365.00
Payment for installation of drain tile to remove additional
water caused by Lafayette Road drainage.
#116591 MNSpect LLC
$52,854.45
Payment for 6 weeks of building inspections and plan
review service.
#116604 Quality Flow
$28,491.59
Payment for lift station 16 and 17 remodel and repairs to
lift station 27.
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.: 2 Date: June 14th, 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: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 05/28/2021 116520 05282021 601-49400-322 5/21 UTILITY BILLS Water 343.02
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 05/28/2021 116520 05282021 602-49450-322 5/21 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 343.02
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 05/28/2021 116520 05282021 651-49910-322 5/21 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 343.01
Total 116520:1,029.05
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 06/04/2021 116521 060321 101-22205 ESCROW - APPLY TO INV 20141800 82.50
Total 116521:82.50
GOODWALD, LORRAINE 06/04/2021 116522 060321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA21-000024 706 NORTH AR 700.00
Total 116522:700.00
ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 06/04/2021 116523 06032021 101-21705 457 - 05/30/2021 1,691.00
Total 116523:1,691.00
MEYER, CATHERINE 06/04/2021 116524 060321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000039 493 PARK AVE 1,000.00
Total 116524:1,000.00
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/04/2021 116525 P44248 701-49800-221 RETURNED PARTS CREDIT 436.69-
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/04/2021 116525 R37146 701-49800-403 2653A TEE MOWER REPAIR 3,950.06
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/04/2021 116525 R37471 701-49800-403 HAULING UNIT 450 REPAIR 190.00
Total 116525:3,703.37
MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-06/04/2021 116526 06032021 101-21718 PEHSCP - 5/30/2021 2,508.76
Total 116526:2,508.76
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 06/04/2021 116527 06032021OB 101-21705 OBRA - 5/30/2021 513.42
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 06/04/2021 116527 06032021RO 101-21705 ROTH - 05/30/2021 200.00
NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 06/04/2021 116527 06032021US 101-21705 457 - 05/30/2021 880.00
Total 116527:1,593.42
ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 06/04/2021 116528 06032021 101-21705 457 - 05/30/2021 1,770.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116528:1,770.00
PINNACLE PEAK HOLDING CO 06/04/2021 116529 45385 602-49450-227 WIRELESS HEADSETS FOR PW Sewer 6,900.24
Total 116529:6,900.24
PRUETER, MARK 06/04/2021 116530 052421 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA21-000023 3215 CRYSTAL 700.00
Total 116530:700.00
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 06/04/2021 116531 06032021 101-21704 PERA 05/17/21-05/30/21 38,446.62
Total 116531:38,446.62
ZIESMER, TODD 06/04/2021 116532 060321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA21-000019 3440 BAYSIDE 617.50
Total 116532:617.50
ABM Equipment & Supply LLC 06/14/2021 116533 0167536-IN 701-49800-222 VENT FOR BUCKET TRUCK DOOR 74.77
Total 116533:74.77
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 06/14/2021 116534 444346563 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 05/20/21-06/20/21 126.76
Total 116534:126.76
ALLSTREAM 06/14/2021 116535 17516142 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 5/23/21-6/22/21 Police Department 317.75
ALLSTREAM 06/14/2021 116535 17516142 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 5/23/21-6/22/21 Central Services 444.85
ALLSTREAM 06/14/2021 116535 17516142 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 5/23/21-6/22/21 Water 74.14
ALLSTREAM 06/14/2021 116535 17516142 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 5/23/21-6/22/21 Sewer 169.47
ALLSTREAM 06/14/2021 116535 17516142 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 5/23/21-6/22/21 Golf Course 52.95
Total 116535:1,059.16
ANCOM TECHNICAL CENTER 06/14/2021 116536 102039 101-42110-240 PORTABLE RADIO BATTERIES Police Department 536.60
Total 116536:536.60
Batteries + Bulbs 06/14/2021 116537 P39927941 602-49450-406 BATTERIES FOR LS#1,16,19 Sewer 75.57
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Batteries + Bulbs 06/14/2021 116537 P39927986 101-45200-223 BATTERIES FOR TRAIL CAMS Parks 12.58
Total 116537:88.15
BEAUCHAMP, ROBERT & MICH 06/14/2021 116538 060721 999-10015 UB REFUND ACCT 1-128290-02 2829 CASCO PT 107.80
Total 116538:107.80
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810216 101-45200-415 BEDERWOOD PARK Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810217 101-45200-415 SUMMIT BEACH Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810218 101-45200-415 HACKBERRY PARK Parks 170.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810219 101-45210-415 ORONO GOLF COURSE Golf Course 85.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810220 101-45200-415 CRYSTAL BAY PLAYGROUND Parks 85.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810221 101-45200-415 NAVARRE PLAYGROUND Parks 160.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810222 101-45200-415 FRENCH CREEK PRESERVE Parks 85.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810223 101-45200-415 LURTON PARK Parks 85.00
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810224 101-43100-415 BRUSH SITE Brush Site 78.93
BIFFS INC 06/14/2021 116539 W810225 101-43000-415 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING Public Works Department 85.00
Total 116539:1,153.93
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270067 651-49910-304 MS4 PERMITT REAUTHORIZATION Storm Water 71.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270068 602-16500 21-014 2021 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 4,702.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270069 101-43280-304 LA21-000014 ORONO CROSSING Special Services 923.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270070 101-43280-304 PENCE LANE Special Services 189.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270071 101-43280-307 ORCHARD CREEK Special Services 1,207.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270072 101-43280-307 NAVARRE RETAIL Special Services 71.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270073 651-16500 21-026 2021 DRAINING IMPROVEMENTS 14,806.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270074 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 125.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270074 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 625.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270074 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE GENERAL Engineering 485.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270075 101-43170-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING 05/21 Engineering 669.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270076 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 21-001 17,999.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270077 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 958.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270078 602-16500 LIFT STATION 15 GENERATOR 364.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270079 601-16500 UTILITY DESIGN FOR NEW PW FACILITY 3,029.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270079 602-16500 UTILITY DESIGN FOR NEW PW FACILITY 3,029.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.06/14/2021 116540 0270080 601-16500 WALTERS POINT MAIN REPLACEMENT 21-022 2,456.50
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116540:51,708.50
Bratt Tree Company 06/14/2021 116541 5289 101-43000-408 ASH TREE REMOVAL FOX AND WILLLOW Public Works Department 3,700.00
Bratt Tree Company 06/14/2021 116541 5299 101-45200-404 ANTIONE OAK REMOVAL Parks 3,800.00
Bratt Tree Company 06/14/2021 116541 5367 101-43000-408 TREE REMOVAL IN ROW - OLIVE AVE Public Works Department 950.00
Bratt Tree Company 06/14/2021 116541 5387 101-43000-408 TREE REMOVAL IN ROW Public Works Department 1,000.00
Bratt Tree Company 06/14/2021 116541 5388 101-43000-408 TREE REMOVAL IN ROW - CHERRY PLACE Public Works Department 3,900.00
Total 116541:13,350.00
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 06/14/2021 116542 2554573 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE Golf Course 190.80
Total 116542:190.80
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 051221-1 101-42110-437 IACP CONFERENCE REGISTRATION- FARNIOK Police Department 425.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 052021 101-42110-437 DMT REFRESHER - T. WITTKE Police Department 75.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 052221 101-42110-402 CAR WASH #261 Police Department 15.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 052621 101-42110-437 DMT RECERTIFICATION - MCCOY Police Department 75.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 060221 101-42110-437 DMT RECERTIFICATION - SCHULTZ Police Department 75.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 06/14/2021 116543 060421 101-45200-225 BEDERWOOD SPORT FIELD RIBBON CUTTING I Parks 223.64
Total 116543:888.64
CARGILL SALT 06/14/2021 116544 2906233931 601-49400-216 NAV WTR PLANT SALT Water 5,226.08
Total 116544:5,226.08
CECE S SIGNS 06/14/2021 116545 8726 602-49450-406 GRAPHICS FOR LS#15 GS10 Sewer 200.00
Total 116545:200.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052121 602-49450-381 1302 SHORELINE - GAS 4/19/21 - 5/19/21 Sewer 21.95
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052721 601-49400-381 GAS SERVICE 4/21/21-5/20/21 Water 836.80
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052721 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICE 4/21/21-5/20/21 Sewer 428.74
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052721 101-41900-381 GAS SERVICE 4/21/21-5/20/21 Central Services 348.12
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052721 101-42110-381 GAS SERVICE 4/21/21-5/20/21 Police Department 124.16
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 06/14/2021 116546 052721 101-45210-381 GAS SERVICE 4/21/21-5/20/21 Golf Course 86.63
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116546:1,846.40
CENTURY LINK 06/14/2021 116547 051921 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 5/19/2021 Golf Course 230.82
Total 116547:230.82
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/14/2021 116548 0017173 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 195.95
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/14/2021 116548 0017202 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 103.55
CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 06/14/2021 116548 0017208 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 82.82
Total 116548:382.32
CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 06/14/2021 116549 19073 601-49400-489 WATER TESTING Water 31.50
Total 116549:31.50
CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 06/14/2021 116550 060721 101-22205 ESCROW - APPLY TO INV 20141756 82.50
Total 116550:82.50
City of Orono Utilities 06/14/2021 116551 052621 CH P 101-41900-382 MAY 2021 UB - CH Central Services 216.47
City of Orono Utilities 06/14/2021 116551 052621 CH P 101-42110-382 MAY 2021 UB - PD Police Department 216.46
City of Orono Utilities 06/14/2021 116551 052621 PO 101-41900-382 MAY 2021 UB - PO Central Services 84.56
City of Orono Utilities 06/14/2021 116551 052621 PW 101-41900-382 MAY 2021 UB - PW Central Services 148.72
City of Orono Utilities 06/14/2021 116551 052621 WP 601-49400-382 MAY 2021 UB - WATER PLANT Water 145.54
Total 116551:811.75
CITY OF WAYZATA 06/14/2021 116552 060221 602-49450-387 MAY 2021 SEWER Sewer 5,901.20
CITY OF WAYZATA 06/14/2021 116552 060221 601-49400-387 MAY 2021 WATER Water 2,940.30
Total 116552:8,841.50
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 06/14/2021 116553 210531 101-43000-224 BLACKTOP PATCHING Public Works Department 195.02
Total 116553:195.02
COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 06/14/2021 116554 807771 101-43000-224 WINTER ROAD SALT Public Works Department 10,100.96
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116554:10,100.96
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 06/14/2021 116555 0026658 101-41900-223 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES Central Services 335.00
Total 116555:335.00
CORE & MAIN 06/14/2021 116556 N751090 601-49400-405 CREDIT Water 220.80-
CORE & MAIN 06/14/2021 116556 N904083 601-49400-405 SUPPLIES TO MOVE POTASSIUM PERMANGENA Water 80.12
CORE & MAIN 06/14/2021 116556 N938106 601-49400-227 SUPPLIES FOR POTASSIUM PERMANGENATE Water 35.89
CORE & MAIN 06/14/2021 116556 O229991 601-49400-405 VALVE PARTS FOR NAVARRE LN & BAYVIEW PL Water 6,550.02
Total 116556:6,445.23
DOCK & LIFT INC 06/14/2021 116557 510988 225-45200-580 SWIM RAFT - SANDY BEACH 375.00
Total 116557:375.00
Donald & Heidi Haberman 06/14/2021 116558 060921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND GLA20-000007 2799 PHEASA 1,000.00
Total 116558:1,000.00
DUSTY'S DRAIN CLEANING 06/14/2021 116559 060121 101-20802 REFUND PERMIT SWP21-000021 1.00
DUSTY'S DRAIN CLEANING 06/14/2021 116559 060121 101-32530 REFUND PERMIT SWP21-000021 50.00
Total 116559:51.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/14/2021 116560 114394 101-42400-340 JUNE PH Building & Zoning 50.66
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/14/2021 116560 835048 101-41300-340 ORDINANCE 258 Administration 32.78
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/14/2021 116560 835049 101-41300-340 ORDINANCE 256 Administration 125.16
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/14/2021 116560 838535 101-45210-340 PW SUPERVISOR AD Golf Course 320.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 06/14/2021 116560 838536 602-49450-352 MAINTENANCE WORKER ADVERTISEMENT Sewer 290.00
Total 116560:818.60
EKHOLM, PAUL & LAURA 06/14/2021 116561 052421 703-49960-379 LAFAYETTE ROAD DRAINAGE 6,365.00
Total 116561:6,365.00
ELMER J PETERSON CO 06/14/2021 116562 042921 602-49450-406 PUMPED OUT GS#30 Sewer 320.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
ELMER J PETERSON CO 06/14/2021 116562 060921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND SE20-000004 3565 SIXTH AVE 1,000.00
Total 116562:1,320.00
ESS BROTHERS & SONS 06/14/2021 116563 BB3323 651-49910-406 STORM COVER FOR NAVARRE PARKING LOT A Storm Water 394.00
Total 116563:394.00
FLAGSHIP RECREATION 06/14/2021 116564 F8837 101-45200-225 SOCCER GOALS FOR BEDERWOOD Parks 3,481.50
Total 116564:3,481.50
G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 06/14/2021 116565 00152925 701-49800-221 HYDRAULIC HOSE 395.96
G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 06/14/2021 116565 00152932 701-49800-221 HYDRAULIC HOSE 102.30
Total 116565:498.26
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 06/14/2021 116566 3270-507943 101-42110-240 FUSE Police Department 2.96
Total 116566:2.96
GIELOW, DOUG & PEGGY 06/14/2021 116567 060921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D18-000015 699 MINNETONK 1,000.00
GIELOW, DOUG & PEGGY 06/14/2021 116567 060921 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND D18-000015 699 MINNETONK 30.00-
Total 116567:970.00
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6190/1 601-49400-489 REPAIRS TO HOUSE ON CHEVY CHASE Water 16.99
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6191/1 601-49400-405 REPAIR TO HOME ON CHEVY CHASE Water 8.59
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6264/1 602-49450-489 GAS CAN FOR WEED WHIP Sewer 22.99
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6383/1 601-49400-405 MULCH FOR 718 SANSTONE CIRCLE Water 11.97
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6385/1 601-49400-227 MULCH FOR 718 SANDSTONE CIRCLE Water 11.97
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6424/1 101-45210-223 GC NUTS AND BOLTS Golf Course 5.88
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6539/1 101-45200-223 BUOYS SUPPLIES Parks 25.74
GOPHER ACE 06/14/2021 116568 6541/1 101-41900-223 NUTS AND BOLTS CITY HALL DESK UNIT Central Services 13.98
Total 116568:118.11
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/14/2021 116569 1040652 602-49450-489 LOCATES Sewer 215.32
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/14/2021 116569 1040652 601-49400-489 LOCATES Water 215.33
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/14/2021 116569 1050652 602-49450-489 LOCATES Sewer 275.40
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 06/14/2021 116569 1050652 601-49400-489 LOCATES Water 275.40
Total 116569:981.45
GRAFIX SHOPPE 06/14/2021 116570 139192 101-42110-550 SQUAD 266 SETUP Police Department 890.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE 06/14/2021 116570 139194 101-42110-550 SQUAD 267 SETUP Police Department 890.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE 06/14/2021 116570 139194 101-42110-550 SQUAD 268 SETUP Police Department 890.00
Total 116570:2,670.00
HAWKINS INC 06/14/2021 116571 4939722 601-49400-216 CHEMICALS Water 4,169.04
Total 116571:4,169.04
HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 06/14/2021 116572 1000167278 101-43000-415 PW RADIOS 5/21 Public Works Department 270.05
Total 116572:270.05
HOWELL, THOMAS & SHEILA 06/14/2021 116573 060921 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2018-00342 4745 AUGUSTA S 10,000.00
Total 116573:10,000.00
IN CONTROL INC.06/14/2021 116574 21028NB-01 601-49400-489 SCADA PROGRAMMING Water 1,642.50
Total 116574:1,642.50
JIM ROE MUSEUM PLANNING 06/14/2021 116575 060221 225-45200-319 19-033 BIG ISLAND SIGN CONCEPT PLAN 18,000.00
Total 116575:18,000.00
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 06/14/2021 116576 3159051 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GC Golf Course 251.00
Total 116576:251.00
LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DI 06/14/2021 116577 060121 651-49910-433 2ND QTR 2021 LEVY PMT Storm Water 14,875.00
Total 116577:14,875.00
LAKESCAPE LLC 06/14/2021 116578 670 101-45200-404 BEACH WEED CONTROL Parks 780.07
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116578:780.07
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 06/14/2021 116579 060421 703-49960-151 2ND HALF WC 96,610.00
Total 116579:96,610.00
LEOWEBPROTECT.com 06/14/2021 116580 3129 101-42110-433 MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION 06/21 Police Department 143.06
Total 116580:143.06
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50445 710-49970-329 INTERNET 06/21 555.00
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50445 101-42110-310 POLICE RECORDS 06/21 Police Department 7,520.00
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50445 710-49970-311 HOSTED SERVERS 06/21 1,291.00
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50445 710-49970-311 HOSTED COMPLIANCE ARCHIVE 06/21 501.00
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50445 710-49970-311 HOSTED BACKUP 6/21 908.00
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50510 405-48500-580 BODY CAM SWITCH CONFIGUATION 281.25
LOGIS 06/14/2021 116581 50529 406-48720-580 SWITCH - POLICE CAMS 1,441.78
Total 116581:12,498.03
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/14/2021 116582 22379800 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 549.16
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/14/2021 116582 22379801 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 723.09
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/14/2021 116582 22379831 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,361.76
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/14/2021 116582 22406102 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 425.19
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 06/14/2021 116582 22406103 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,787.92
Total 116582:6,847.12
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/14/2021 116583 0001125481 602-49450-383 WASTEWATER CHARGES 07/2021 Sewer 58,379.16
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/14/2021 116583 053121 101-20809 SAC CHARGES 5/2021 4,970.00
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 06/14/2021 116583 053121 101-39610 SAC CHARGES 5/2021 24.85-
Total 116583:63,324.31
MEYER, CATHERINE 06/14/2021 116584 06092021 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000074 493 PARK AVE 9,000.00
Total 116584:9,000.00
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 06/14/2021 116585 00077035 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 47.34
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 06/14/2021 116585 00077036 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 78.90
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 06/14/2021 116585 00077037 101-42110-221 MEDICAL OXYGEN Police Department 12.68
Total 116585:138.92
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 06/14/2021 116586 P49501 701-49800-221 MOWER BLADES UNIT 623 131.52
Total 116586:131.52
Minnesota Topsoil 06/14/2021 116587 2021002 101-45200-223 BLACK DIRT Parks 842.00
Total 116587:842.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 06/14/2021 116588 050421 601-49400-441 WATER LICENSE - S. OBERAIGNER Water 23.00
Total 116588:23.00
MN Dept of Health, Env Health Di 06/14/2021 116589 895040 101-45210-441 FOOD LICENSE 2021 Golf Course 40.00
Total 116589:40.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-34210 SALES TAX 5/2021 21.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 601-39610 SALES TAX 5/2021 112.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 601-20806 SALES TAX 5/2021 961.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37910 SALES TAX 5/2021 2,910.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37920 SALES TAX 5/2021 1,202.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37930 SALES TAX 5/2021 308.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37940 SALES TAX 5/2021 94.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37960 SALES TAX 5/2021 60.00
MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 06/14/2021 116590 053121 101-37970 SALES TAX 5/2021 5.00
Total 116590:5,673.00
MNSPECT LLC 06/14/2021 116591 8640 101-42400-310 MARCH-APRIL BUILDING SERVICES Building & Zoning 52,854.45
Total 116591:52,854.45
MOE, CHRIS 06/14/2021 116592 060721 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA20-000076 2425 THOROUG 617.50
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116592:617.50
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1294972-00 701-49800-221 GOLF EQUIPMENT SERVICE PARTS 137.50
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303067-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 84.84
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303067-01 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 27.05
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303067-02 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 13.91
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303309-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 108.21
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303415-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 136.61
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 06/14/2021 116593 1303448-00 101-45210-404 GOLF IRRIGATION SPRING START UP 2021 Golf Course 277.50
Total 116593:785.62
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 330709 601-49400-240 FLASHLIGHTS Water 78.97
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 330711 601-49400-227 BATTERIES 9V Water 10.99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 330764 602-49450-227 POS SUPPLIES Sewer 21.97
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 330840 601-49400-227 BATTERIES 9V Water 10.99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 330842 601-49400-322 UPS SHIPPING CHARGE Water 12.30
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 331063 601-49400-322 UPS SHIPPING CHARGE Water 19.17
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 331119 602-49450-227 PADDLE LOCKS Sewer 189.88
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 331202 601-49400-322 UPS SHIPPING CHARGE Water 19.17
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 331279 101-45200-223 BEDERWOOD SOCCER GOALS Parks 15.98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 06/14/2021 116594 CM328963 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 27.98-
Total 116594:351.44
Navarre Minnoco 06/14/2021 116595 3458 701-49800-212 NON-OXY FUEL - UNIT 711 WATER TANK 73.59
Navarre Minnoco 06/14/2021 116595 3630 701-49800-212 NON-OXY FUEL - UNIT 711 WATER TANK 28.03
Total 116595:101.62
Newegg Business Inc 06/14/2021 116596 1303326032 710-49970-221 PRINTER - SQUAD 328.32
Total 116596:328.32
NORTHERN LIGHTS DISPLAY 06/14/2021 116597 21-0178 101-41900-489 CLEAN UP DAY SIGNAGE Central Services 731.00
Total 116597:731.00
OFFICE DEPOT 06/14/2021 116598 1732889490 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 23.19
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
OFFICE DEPOT 06/14/2021 116598 1743599530 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 60.70
Total 116598:83.89
Perry's Truck Repair 06/14/2021 116599 18153 701-49800-402 TOW TRUCK #710 102.00
Total 116599:102.00
PIONEER MANUFACTURING C 06/14/2021 116600 INV789504 101-45200-223 STARLINER FIELD PAINTER Parks 900.15
Total 116600:900.15
PLAISTED COMPANIES INC 06/14/2021 116601 44125 101-45210-223 DIVOT MIX Golf Course 671.58
Total 116601:671.58
PLUNKETT S 06/14/2021 116602 7071279 101-41900-404 CITY HALL PEST CONTROL 5/20/21 Central Services 98.00
Total 116602:98.00
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 06/14/2021 116603 28451 101-45200-404 PARK PRAIRIE MAINTENANCE Parks 1,300.00
Total 116603:1,300.00
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/14/2021 116604 40846 602-49450-227 RUN TIME METERS Sewer 371.59
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/14/2021 116604 40896 602-16500 LS#16 REMODEL 9,700.00
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/14/2021 116604 40897 602-16500 LS#17 REMODEL 11,450.00
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 06/14/2021 116604 40971 602-49450-406 LS#27 REPAIRS Sewer 6,970.00
Total 116604:28,491.59
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 06/14/2021 116605 MAY 2021 101-41900-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 05/2021 Central Services 501.36
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 06/14/2021 116605 MAY 2021 101-45200-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 05/2021 Parks 643.19
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 06/14/2021 116605 MAY 2021 101-45210-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 05/2021 Golf Course 124.34
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 06/14/2021 116605 MAY 2021 603-49500-442 GARBAGE SERVICE - 05/2021 360.00
Total 116605:1,628.89
Reed Wholesale & OCS 06/14/2021 116606 9784 101-45210-093 GOLF SNACKS FOR RESALE Golf Course 387.52
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116606:387.52
RUFFRIDGE JOHNSON INC 06/14/2021 116607 IA19804 101-43000-224 BLACKTOP MAINTENANCE TOOLS Public Works Department 142.51
Total 116607:142.51
Schneider Excavating and Gradin 06/14/2021 116608 21-022 PAY1 601-16500 WALTERS PORT MAIN IMPROVEMENT 21-022 139,715.89
Schneider Excavating and Gradin 06/14/2021 116608 21-022 PAY1 601-20600 WALTERS PORT MAIN IMPROVEMENT 21-022 6,985.79-
Total 116608:132,730.10
SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 06/14/2021 116609 422 101-41900-201 BUSINESS CARDS - GOMAN Central Services 69.00
Total 116609:69.00
SHAUGHNESSY LAWN CARE 06/14/2021 116610 060321 101-45200-404 PARK MOWING Parks 6,427.00
Total 116610:6,427.00
SmartPassion LLC c/o Hach Co.06/14/2021 116611 12468636 601-49400-216 WATER, DEIONIZED & REAGENT SOLUTION Water 870.97
Total 116611:870.97
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 06/14/2021 116612 6007736SO 101-45210-095 GOLF GLOVES Golf Course 154.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 06/14/2021 116612 6009851SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 124.20
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 06/14/2021 116612 6416250SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 173.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 06/14/2021 116612 6430555SO 101-45210-095 GOLF GLOVES Golf Course 205.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 06/14/2021 116612 6432971SO 101-45210-095 GOLF GLOVES Golf Course 46.80
Total 116612:703.00
St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 06/14/2021 116613 31461-1-323 101-42110-226 COVID UNIFORMS Police Department 132.73
Total 116613:132.73
SWENSON, CLIFFORD 06/14/2021 116614 060121 999-10015 UB REFUND 1-129650-00 2965 CASCO PT RD 15.56
Total 116614:15.56
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 06/14/2021 116615 051921 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-05/2021 Law/Legal Services 2,916.77
Total 116615:2,916.77
THE HOME DEPOT 06/14/2021 116616 2616025 101-45200-223 BIG ISLAND WEED CONTROL Parks 65.42
Total 116616:65.42
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 06/14/2021 116617 M26482 101-41300-319 CC MEETING MINUTES 5/10/21 Administration 598.13
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 06/14/2021 116617 M26482 101-42400-319 PC MINUTES 5/17/21 Building & Zoning 433.12
Total 116617:1,031.25
TL STEVENS 06/14/2021 116618 13098 101-45200-404 BEDERWOOD IRRIGATION STARTUP Parks 177.00
Total 116618:177.00
TWIN CITY SEED COMPANY 06/14/2021 116619 49552 651-49910-227 STRAW BLANKETS Storm Water 338.00
TWIN CITY SEED COMPANY 06/14/2021 116619 49592 651-49910-223 STRAW BLANKETS Storm Water 372.00
Total 116619:710.00
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900624007 101-41900-223 MATS - CH & CC Central Services 28.06
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900625348 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900625348 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900625348 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 111.81
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900626708 101-41900-223 MATS - CH & CC Central Services 58.00
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900626709 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900626709 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900626709 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 106.31
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900626742 101-45210-223 RUGS / TOWELS GC Golf Course 45.24
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900628098 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900628098 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900628098 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 103.31
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900628129 101-45210-404 RUGS Golf Course 19.34
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900629460 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900629460 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 5.70
UNIFIRST CO 06/14/2021 116620 0900629460 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 102.79
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116620:675.66
US Bank Equipment Finance 06/14/2021 116621 444382634 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76
Total 116621:596.76
VESSCO INC 06/14/2021 116622 83462 601-49400-405 INJECTOR REPAIR Water 48.86
Total 116622:48.86
WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 06/14/2021 116623 0081473-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 06/2021 16,458.75
Total 116623:16,458.75
WATCHGUARD VIDEO 06/14/2021 116624 4BOINV0007 101-42110-580 SOFTWARE RELATED TO BODY CAMERAS Police Department 8,510.00
Total 116624:8,510.00
WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 06/14/2021 116625 882830 701-49800-221 TIRE REPAIR - TRAILER - TASK 53728 315.02
Total 116625:315.02
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-41900-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Central Services 1,536.10
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Police Department 910.64
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Police Department 23.45
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Public Works Department 144.43
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-43000-386 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Public Works Department 2,176.07
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Parks 36.94
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 601-49400-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Water 6,894.66
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 602-49450-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Sewer 3,045.34
XCEL ENERGY 06/14/2021 116626 734287216 101-45210-381 ELECTRIC 4/22/21-5/23/21 Golf Course 663.94
Total 116626:15,431.57
Yamaha Golf & Utility 06/14/2021 116627 01-241193 101-45210-415 GOLF CART RENTAL Golf Course 1,650.00
Yamaha Golf & Utility 06/14/2021 116627 01-241194 101-45210-415 GOLF CART RENTAL Golf Course 1,650.00
Yamaha Golf & Utility 06/14/2021 116627 01-241195 101-45210-415 CART LEASE Golf Course 1,650.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16
Check Issue Dates: 5/25/2021 - 6/14/2021 Jun 10, 2021 04:46PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 116627:4,950.00
Grand Totals: 711,472.65
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, 2021 to May 31, 2022.
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.: 3 Date: June 14th, 2021
Item Description: Approval of Garbage Hauler Licenses
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
License# Business Name Payment Amount
GH21-000004 Baldy Sanitation Inc. – Evon & Craig Baldy 90
GH21-000005 Blackowiak Disposal 135
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 approve the Rental License for the license period of
January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022.
2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental license listed in Exhibit A for the
license period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. The Rental License Applicant in Exhibit A has
submitted all of the requested documents and has met all requirements.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the rental license listed in Exhibit A for the license period of January 1, 2021 to
December 31, 2022.
Exhibit
A. Listing of Rental Licenses
Item No.: 4 Date: June 14th, 2021
Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Exhibit A
City Council
2021 Rental License Renewals
RL21-000009 Grigoriy Gorshteyn 100
RL21-000010 J Hess 100
License# Licensee Total License Fees
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Gambling Permit for Corvair
Preservation Foundation.
2. Background. The Corvair Preservation Foundation is planning to host a Covair car raffle on June
5, 2022. Orono City code requires City Council to approve Gambling permits by resolution.
3. Recommendation. The Applicants have submitted all the requested documents and have met all
requirements. Staff recommends approval of the gambling permit.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the Gambling Permit for Corvair Preservation Foundation for their raffle event to be
held on June 5, 2022.
Exhibits
A. Resolution
Item No. 5 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Approval of Lawful Gambling License – Corvair Preservation
Foundation
Presenter: Anna Carlson,
City Clerk
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING APPLICATION FOR EXEMPT PERMIT
OF THE CORVAIR PRESERVATION FOUNDATION FOR
A ONE DAY GAMBLING PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Corvair Preservation Foundation has submitted an application to
conduct lawful gambling activities; and
WHEREAS, the Corvair Preservation Foundation has proposed to conduct a one
day gambling activity (raffle) as part of its fundraising activities on June 5, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the Corvair Preservation Foundation is required to obtain approval
of the one day gambling activity from the city in which the activity will occur; and
WHEREAS, the City of Orono has no objection to the conduct of lawful
gambling by the applicant, in accordance with law, at the designated location.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Orono City Council does
hereby approve the application of the Corvair Preservation Foundation to conduct a one day
gambling activity (Raffle) at the CORSA Club Office, 105 Cygnet Place, on June 5, 2022.
Adopted at a regular meeting of the Orono City Council this 14th day of June
2021.
____________________________________
ATTEST: Dennis Walsh, Mayor
_______________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donations. A donation of a
$500 gift certificate and a $100 cash was received with a thank you to the Orono Police Department for
performing house checks.
2. Background. The Police Department has received a $500 gift certificate to Birch’s on the Lake and
$100 cash from two residents in our community. Both residents sent cards thanking the Orono police
department for performing house checks. The $100 cash donation will be used toward the purchase of
exercise equipment in the fitness area and the $500 gift certificate will used to provide the meal for the
police reserve recognition banquet. Reserve officers as well as police officers provide house checks for
community residents when they are out of town.
3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to accept the two donations.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion for approval to accept $500 gift certificate and $100 cash donation and a thank you for your kind
and generous donation.
Exhibits
A. Thank You Note
Item No.: 6 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Approval to Accept Donations
Presenter: Correy Farniok
Police Chief
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The Orono Police Department has 5 bicycles that have been turned in to the department. The
bikes were found or abandoned within the city. The following bicycles have not been claimed. All of the
bicycles and have been in the department’s possession for more than 60 days. The police department
considers the bicycles as abandoned property and would like to dispose of them by donating to Free Bikes
for Kids or similar program for repair and distribution back to children and young adults. The bicycles that
cannot be fixed/used will be destroyed by Orono Public Works.
20-009443 Pacifica Evolution SNFSD09D82960
20-008928 Magna Precious Pearls DJFB030623
20-007028 Raleigh No Model MN1014419
20-004174 Huffy Dash C8087586825
19-010027 Huffy Main St 80959Juffy84539
2. Staff Recommendation.
Recommend a motion to approve the donation of bicycles to Free Bikes for Kids or similar program to be
repaired and distributed to children and young adults and those that cannot be repaired will be destroyed
by Orono Public Works.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve disposal of abandoned bicycles.
Item No.: 7 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Disposal of Bicycles
Presenter: Correy Farniok
Police Chief
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Approved By:
Consent
AFenda
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of unclaimed property.
2. Background. The Orono Police Department has unclaimed property that has been turned in to the
department. The unclaimed property was found or abandoned within the city. The following property has
not been claimed. All of the property has been in the department’s possession for more than 60 days. The
police department considers the property as abandoned property and would like to dispose through K-Bid
or similar public auction.
3. Project Scope. Disposal of unclaimed property. To include the following
21-003229 Men’s black sunglasses, unknown brand
21-002131 CCM hockey stick
20-006801 Kayak paddles, Shoreline Marine brand
20-005773 Makita metal box with craft salt and pepper shakers inside
20-003417 Husky toolbox with misc hand tools inside
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend that the disposal of unclaimed property.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the dispose of the unclaimed property through K-Bid or other similar public auction.
Item No.: 8 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Unclaimed Property
Presenter: Correy Farniok
Police Chief
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to renew the agreement between the City of Orono and
the Westonka School District for School Resource Officer (SRO) support.
2. Background. The Orono Police Department has had an agreement with Westonka School District
since 2013. The purpose of this agreement is for the City to assign a police officer to provide law
enforcement services at Shirley Hills Primary School and Grandview Middle School. The SRO works
with school personnel, provide a visible police presence and promote safety in the schools. This
agreement is a renewal and the terms of the contract will be through the 2023-2024 school year.
3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the SRO Agreement with the City of Orono
and Westonka School District. (Renewal)
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the SRO Agreement with the City of Orono and Westonka School District
(Renewal)
Exhibits
A. SRO Agreement
Item No.: 9 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Adopt the School Resource Officer Agreement
with the Westonka School District (Renewal)
Presenter: Correy Farniok
Police Chief
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: DJG Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval for the 2021 Streets
Maintenance Crack Sealing project.
2. Background. Crack sealing is a routine preventive road maintenance process.
3. Project Scope. The identified streets shall have their cracks and routed, cleaned and sealed. Spot
sealing will be required on areas with a concentration of small cracks. (See Exhibit A)
4. Cost. Public Works received quotes from 2 contractors for crack sealing. A summary of the quotes
received are listed in the table below. The lowest quote was from MP Asphalt Maintenance for
$19,220.00
Contractor Price per linear foot Total Quote
MP Asphalt Maintenance $0.62 $19,220.00
Allied Blacktop Company $0.99 $40,650.00
5. Funding. The project will be funded from the pavement management fund. The 2021 Public works
plan and CIP allocated $50,000 pavement preventive maintenance.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend acceptance of the low quote for crack sealing.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to authorize MP Asphalt Maintenance to complete the 2020 Street Maintenance crack sealing
project for $ 19,220.00
Exhibit
A. Street Listing
Item No.: 10 Date: June 14 ,2021
Item Description: 2021 Crack Sealing
Presenter: DJ Goman
Public Works Superintendent
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Exhibit A
City Council
Crack Sealing Areas for 2021
Streets:
Hunter Drive CR.6 to Medina Border
Tamarack Drive CR.6 to Medina Border
Kelley Parkway Public Works East to Willow Dr.
Woodhill Ave
Bederwood Drive
Bluestem Way
Sandhill Drive
Wood Duck Trail
Goldenrod Way
Mastic at Old Crystal Bay Road at County Rd 112,
South side and at County Road 6
Mastic on Park Dr. North County Road 19
Prepared By: JJB Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for Council approval to purchase a dock for Casco Beach
and improve the failing rip rap.
2. Background. In 2013 the City Council authorized the removal of Docks from the City’s swim
beaches; Lydiard Beach, Sandy Beach, Casco Point Beach and Summit Beach. The justification for the
removals appears to have been maintenance costs and safety concerns over mixed use; boats, swimmers
and fishing. In the subsequent years there have been neighborhood requests for the return of the docks to
the beaches. In 2020 the Parks Commission took up the issue and came up with a plan to provide a dock
and a swim platform at two of the beaches and then to further review whether docks or platforms should
be placed at the other beaches. The Commission chose to place a swim platform at Sandy Beach and a
dock at Lydiard Beach. These were installed spring 2021. The commission decided to move forward
with the purchase of a dock for Casco Point this summer. In order to do so, the rip rap is badly failing
and should be renovated prior to the new dock going in.
3. Project Scope. Installation of an 18 foot dock at Casco Beach and the renovation of 30 feet of rip
rap.
4. Cost. Quotes provided from Dock and Lift, SoloDock, and THN.
a. Bid/Quotes.
Vendor Item Quote
SoloDock 18’ Tip-In dock $ 2,685
Dock and Lift 24’ Roll in dock $ 3,401
b. Cost.
Vendor Item Cost
SoloDock 18’ Tip-In dock $ 2,685
THN 30’ Rip Rap Renovation $ 7,500
$10,185
5. Funding. Funding for the projects will come from the Parks Levy established by the Council for
2021. The CIP had projected $20,000 and about $10k if it was used for Lydiard and Sandy Beach so there
is $10k remaining.
6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the acceptance of the quote from SoloDock and THN for a
total of $10,185.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the quotes from SoloDock and THN to purchase a new dock and fix the failing rip rap.
Item No.: 11 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Dock and Rip Rap Improvements for Casco Beach
Presenter: Joey Brettingen
Parks and GC Superintendent
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: JB Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of seasonal and part time
employees.
2. Background. The hourly pay is proposed to be $12.00-$14.00 for the Golf Course Clubhouse
Attendants, Brush Site Attendants, and Sledding Attendants; $12.00-$16.00 for Parks and Golf Course
Maintenance Employees, $10.00-$16.00 for Utilities Maintenance Workers; and $15.00-$20.00 for the
Clubhouse Manager. The Clubhouse Manager will be a part time employee. All other employees will be
seasonal and fall under the 6 month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA
membership.
3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates.
Name Position Wage
($/hr)
Remarks
Approved Feb
22nd
Marie Jorland Clubhouse Manager $20.00 Returnee
Kimberley Haug Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee
Calvin Schmidt Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee
Chad Stowell Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee
Ron Steffenhagen Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee
Mitchell Hall Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee
Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee
Scott Prochnow Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee
Marshall Hambro Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee
Approved
March 8th
Wendy Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee
Logan Reynalds Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee
Lloyd Engler Golf Course Maintenance $12.00 Returnee
Approved
March 29th
Zachary Conway Parks/GC Maintenance $14.50 New hire
Vicki Hines Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire
Approved
April 12th
Alex Collins Golf Course Maintenance $12.00 New hire
Rebecca Anderson Utility Maintenance Worker $16.00 Returnee
Lily Clark Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire
Approved
May 10th
Calvin Schmidt Golf Course Maintenance $15.50 Returnees –
Wage
Adjustment
Ron Steffenhagen Golf Course Maintenance $15.50
Kimberley Haug Clubhouse Attendant $12.50
Logan Reynalds Clubhouse Attendant $12.50
Lloyd Engler Golf Course Maintenance $12.50
Requesting
Approval
May 24th
Barry Blievernicht Clubhouse Attendant $13.00 New hire
4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve updating hourly wage rates for five seasonal workers as listed in the table above.
Item No.: 12 Date: June 14 , 2021
Item Description: Appointment of 2021 Seasonal Employees
Presenter: Joey Brettingen
Parks and Golf Course Superintendent
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: RJO Approved By:
Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to accept Margaret Ung’s letter of Resignation and to
approve the initiation of the hiring process for a new accountant.
Background. Margaret Ung was hired as an Accountant effective February 13, 2018 and has been
a valuable member of the Finance Department since that time. Maggie has provided a notice of
resignation effective July 2, 2021.
Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends accepting the resignation of Margaret Ung and the
approval of initiating a hiring process to replace the position of Accountant.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to accept the resignation of Margaret Ung effective July 2, 2021 and approve the
initiation of the hiring process to replace the position of Accountant.
Item No.: 13 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Accept Resignation of Margaret Ung
Presenter: Ron Olson
Finance Director
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
1. Purpose. This application is regarding a rear setback variance to construct a 2nd story over an
existing detached garage.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 21, 2021 and was
considered to be complete on May 5th. The 60-Day review period expires on July 3, 2021.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is requesting a variance to add a second story above the
existing detached garage. The garage has a street-facing overhead door which requires the building to be
set at the principal building setback of 30 feet. The garage is set at 15.6 feet from the rear property line.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On May 17th, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 in favor of approval of the
variance.
5. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear setback variance to add a
2nd story to the existing detached garage.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report 05/17/2021
References
PC Exhibits 05/17/2021
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing Survey/Site Plan
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Hardcover Calculations (2011)
F. Property Owners List
G. Plat Map
Item No.: 14 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000031 – Doug Johnson o/b/o Steve Zawoyski, 724 Tonkawa
Rd, Variance – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-330 & 78-1435
FILE NO. LA21 -000031
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021, on behalf of the property owners Steve V. Zawoyski
and Sara E. Zawoyski, a married couple (hereinafter the “Owners”), Doug Johnson (hereinafter the
“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 724 Tonkawa
Road and legally described as:
That part of Lot 10, lying Northwesterly of a line drawn through it equidistant from the
Northwesterly and Southeasterly lines thereof, “Parten’s Point, First Division”,
Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a variance
to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow a second story to be constructed above
an existing detached garage 15.6’ feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot setback is required
due to the street-facing overhead garage door, and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which
time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to
speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variance; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000031. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 0.26 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 50 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for a Rear / Street Setback Variance.
6. The proposed plans for the garage include a ½ bath with toilet and sink, a restrictive
covenant for plumbing is required.
7. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The garage setback on the street side is shown to be in
keeping with the character of the neighborhood. The garage meets/exceeds side setbacks
which helps to provide the necessary open space. There is no hardcover change from the
existing condition and the variance is supported by the small/narrow lot challenges.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The scale and type of variance proposed to expand the upward
volume of the detached garage within the rear setback while not impacting adjacent
properties is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
The request to permit expansion of the garage on the substandard lot, within the
required rear setback appears to be reasonable as the Property’s reduced size
and orientation with respect to the lake and adjacent properties creates difficulties.
No encroachment to adjacent properties or hardcover expansions are proposed.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
If the doors faced inward, the garage would be conforming with respect to the
setback requirements. The Property’s small size and width, location with respect
to Tonkawa Road, and required setback based on the overhead door prevent
expansion of the garage consistent with the neighborhood. There should be
consideration for variance approvals from rear setback;
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The footprint size and overall height of the garage at approximately 23 feet is in
character with the immediate neighborhood.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as an accessory garage is an allowed use in the
LR-1B District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The Property’s substandard size, width, and
topography creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same
neighborhood. The setbacks are not out of character. The proposed structural and hardcover
levels are met.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The Property’s substandard width, topography, and proximity to the
County roadway create difficulties which apply to some properties in the immediate area
but not the LR-1B district as a whole.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” According to the Applicant, granting the rear
setback variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the Owners.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the setback
variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter as the
improvement is not shown to adversely impact adjacent property owners.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” Volume expansions of the garage are not
permitted without variances. The variances from the rear setback is appropriately scaled
for the owners’ use and for the neighborhood. The variance will not merely serve as a
convenience to the Owners.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1435 to allow construction of a second story
addition above an existing detached garage 15.6’ feet from the rear lot line where a 30-foot
setback is required due to the street-facing overhead garage door, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the building plans dated 04/19/2021 and survey
dated 07/30/2012 submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this
Resolution as Exhibits A & B.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new
construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that
date (June 14, 2022).
5. The Owners agree to the filing of a covenant pursuant to City Code Section 78-1437 to
permit installation of the proposed combination of fixtures requiring wastewater plumbing
in the detached garage. The Owners covenant as follows:
a. The detached garage will not be:
i. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if
allowed by this Code.
ii. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained.
iii. Rented, leased, or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any
circumstances.
6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14TH day of June, 2021.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
6
______________________________ ________________________________
Steve V. Zawoyski, Owner Sara E. Zawoyski, Owner
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2021, by
Steve V. Zawoyski, husband of Sara E. Zawoyski.
____________________________________
Notary Public
STATE OF MINNESOTA
COUNTY OF HENNEPIN
This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2021, by
Sara E. Zawoyski, wife of Steve V. Zawoyski.
____________________________________
Notary Public
Distance:
3.85 ft
Distance:
3.84 ft
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
:
2
2
.
4
1
f
t
Ex
h
i
b
i
t
D
Distance:
3.85 ft
Distance:
3.84 ft
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
:
:
2
2
.
4
1
f
t
Exhibit D
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. LA21-000031 BCD HOMES O/B/O STEVE & SARA ZAWOYSKI, 724 TONKAWA RD,
VARIANCE
Doug Johnson o/b/o the Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 2 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). In 2011,
the property owners received variances in order to build the current home and detached garage. Lot area
and lot width variances, a hardcover variance permitting 32.9% hardcover where 25% is allowed, and a
rear setback variance for the detached garage to be set back 15 feet from the rear/street yard where a 30‐
foot setback is required. The applicant is requesting a setback variance to add a second story above the
existing detached garage. The garage has a street‐facing overhead door which requires the building to be
set at the principal building setback of 30 feet. The garage is set at 15.6 feet from the rear property line.
Staff finds lot width, topography, and the proximity of the existing garage to the rear lot line supporting
of the requested variance. Finding practical difficulties, Planning Staff recommends approval of the rear
setback variance to add a 2nd story to the existing detached garage.
Gettman asked if there are additional covenants being suggested such as no plumbing so it does not turn
into a second house.
Curtis did not recommend any covenants. The applicant would need a conditional use permit (CUP) in
order to have additional plumbing. A toilet and a sink are proposed.
Kirchner asked if a toilet and sink would trigger a CUP.
Curtis replied no; they require a covenant for that but it is not a CUP-level activity.
Kirchner asked if a shower is what triggers it.
Barnhart clarified as of last month yes, but now it is just a covenant.
Doug Johnson, 200 SE University Ave, Minneapolis, said there is currently no plumbing in the detached
garage and the owners would like to use it for an office and would like a toilet and sink, there will be no
shower.
Kirchner asked if the owner would be okay with the Commission adding a covenant added that a shower
not be added.
Mr. Johnson replied 100%.
Barnhart noted they should be cautious about adding conditions that are not germane to the application in
front of the Commission. The applicant has the right to have certain plumbing and covenants are in place.
The reason Staff did not suggest a covenant is because they did not a see the need; obviously the Code
still prevails so if there is a future building permit with plumbing, then they would add that as a
requirement.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Libby asked if this is sewered.
Curtis replied yes, it is sewered.
Ressler said generally speaking to trigger the covenant, is it at the time of rough building inspection and
does it then come back to the Commission?
Curtis replied when they apply for the permit and show features on the plan the applicant is required to
provide a covenant prior to issuance of the permit. The covenant is dependent upon the noted features that
will be roughed in. They would not be able to proceed if they did not have a covenant; it would not come
back to the Commission as it is just a covenant at the Staff level.
Ressler noted that includes a shower, as well.
Curtis answered that is true.
Ressler is on board with the applicant as applied.
Ressler moved, Bollis seconded, to approve LA21-000031, 724 Tonkawa Rd, Variance as applied.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 04/21/2021
Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/04/2021
60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/03/2021
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 17 May 2021
Subject: #LA21-000031, Doug Johnson o/b/o Steve Zawoyski, 724 Tonkawa Rd
Variance
Public Hearing
Background
In 2011, the property owners received variances in order to build the new home and detached
garage. Resolution No. 6083 granted lot area and lot width variances, a hardcover variance
permitting 32.9% hardcover where 25% is allowed, and a rear setback variance for the detached
garage to be set back 15 feet from the rear/street yard where a 30-foot setback is required.
The applicant is requesting a variance to add a second story above the existing detached garage.
The garage has a street-facing overhead door which requires the building to be set at the
principal building setback of 30 feet. The garage is set at 15.6 feet from the rear property line.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the lot width and topography of
the property as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance. Additionally, they have
provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds the lot width,
topography, and the proximity of the existing garage to the rear lot line support the requested
variance.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting rear setback variance in order to construct
a second story addition on an existing detached garage.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA21-000031
17 May 2021
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-330 – Garage Setbacks:
LR-1B District Required Existing Proposed
Rear / Street 30’ 15.6’ 15.6’
North Side 7.5’ 10.3’ 10.3’
South Side 7.5’ 17.4’ 17.4’
Lakeshore 75’ 181’ 191’
Average Lakeshore The garage will conform to the average lakeshore setback.
Section 78-330 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1B District Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140’
Actual 11,490 s.f. (0.26 acre) 50’@ 75’ / 50’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
11,490 s.f. (0.26 acre) Allowed: 2,298 s.f. (20%)
Existing: 1,707 s.f. (14.8%)
Proposed: 1,707 s.f. (14.8%)
Section 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Until 2012, the City’s hardcover limits were based on setback zones from the lake: 0-75’ where
no hardcover was permitted; 75’ – 250’ zone where 25% of the lot’s area within that setback
zone was permitted to be hardcover; 250’ – 500’ zone where 30% of that zone’s square footage
was permitted to be hardcover; and 500’ -1,000’ where 35% was permitted. The previous
setback zones generally align with the City’s current Tier system.
The property received variances in 2011, including a hardcover variance to permit (32.9%)
hardcover in excess of 25% within the 75’ to 250’ zone. The 2011 variance resulted in a total of
2,608 square feet of hardcover for the property (divided between the two setback zones). The
applicant is not proposing changes to hardcover, however at the current level of 2,608 square
feet, the Tier 1 property is under the limit at 22.6%.
Applicable Regulations:
Rear Setback Variance (Section 78-330)
Accessory garages on lakeshore lots are permitted to be closer to the rear, street lot line than
the principal building when the doors on the building face away from the street – side load or
interior rear load. The lot width does not accommodate a side load garage. The existing garage
doors face the street requiring a 30-foot principal building setback. The applicant is requesting a
setback variance to allow a second story to be constructed over the existing garage 15 feet from
the rear lot line. The overall height of the garage will increase by approximately 4 feet.
FILE # LA21-000031
17 May 2021
Page 3 of 5
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
garage setback on the street side is shown to be in keeping with the character of the
neighborhood. The garage meets/exceeds side setbacks which helps to provide the
necessary open space. There is no hardcover change from the existing condition and the
variance is supported by the small/narrow lot challenges.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The scale and type of variance
proposed to expand the upward volume of the detached garage within the rear setback
while not impacting adjacent properties is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to permit expansion of the garage
on the substandard lot, within the required rear setback appears to be
reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the
lake and adjacent properties creates difficulties. No encroachment to adjacent
properties or hardcover expansions are proposed.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; If
the doors faced inward, the garage would be conforming to the setback
requirements. The small size and width, location with respect to Tonkawa Road,
and required setback based on the overhead door prevent expansion of the
garage consistent with the neighborhood. There should be consideration for
variance approvals from rear setback; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The footprint
size and overall height of the garage at approximately 23 feet is in character
with the immediate neighborhood.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
FILE # LA21-000031
17 May 2021
Page 4 of 5
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code
Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as an accessory garage is an allowed use in the
LR-1B District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size, width, and
topography creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same
neighborhood. The setbacks are not out of character. The proposed structural and
hardcover levels are met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s substandard width, topography, and proximity to the
County roadway create difficulties which apply to some properties in the immediate
area but not the LR-1B district as a whole.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. According to the applicant, granting the rear
setback variance is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the owners.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
setback variance in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning
chapter as the improvement is not shown to adversely impact adjacent property
owners.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Volume expansions of the garage are
not permitted without variances. The variances from the rear setback is appropriately
scaled for the owners’ use and for the neighborhood. The variance will not merely serve
as a convenience.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
FILE # LA21-000031
17 May 2021
Page 5 of 5
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends the following approval of the rear setback variance to add a 2nd story
to the existing detached garage.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations (2011)
Exhibit F. Property Owners List
Exhibit G. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting approval of lot width and lot area variances.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete
on April 21, 2021. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on June 20, 2021.
3. Background/ Summary. The property is 9,000 square feet in area, and has 50 feet in width within
the LR-1C zoning district where 21,780 square feet and 100-feet in width are required. This substandard
Lot of Record qualified for buildability without area and width variances under City Code Section 78-72
when the new home was constructed in 2012. However, a qualifier for taking advantage of the Lot of
Record status is a hardcover limitation of 25%. The new home met that limitation. At this time, the
owner wishes to be able to construct a slightly larger deck than existing (140 square feet), increasing
hardcover to the 30% limit. These improvements require lot area and width variances.
The property, based on its’ proximity to the lake, would be in Tier 2, allowing for up to 30% hard cover.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On May 17, 2021, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to
approve the requested variances.
5. Public Comment. No comments from the neighbors were received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width
variances.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Proposed Plans
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report 05/17/2021
References
PC Exhibits 05/17/2021
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Survey/Site Plan
D. Deck Plans
E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F. Property Owners List
G. Plat Map
Item No.: 15 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000033 – Dupont Construction & Remodeling Inc., o/b/o
Mason + Carolyn Hardy, 1579 Maple Pl, Variances – Resolution
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING VARIANCES FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-350
FILE NO. LA21-000033
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2021, Mason and Carolyn Hardy (“Applicant[s]”), applied for
variances from the City Code for the property addressed 1579 Maple Place and legally described
as:
Lot 11, Block 6, Crystal Bay View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for lot area
and lot width variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which
time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to
speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on May 17, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval
of the variances; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the
following findings of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000033. The analysis contained
within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the
above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings
are hereby incorporated by reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
3. The Property contains 9,000 square feet or 0.2 acres in area and has a defined lot width
of 50 feet.
4. The Property is within Tier 2 and hardcover is limited to 30% according to the Stormwater
Quality Overlay District.
5. Applicant has applied for the following variances:
a. Lot Width Variance
b. Lot Area Variance
6. The Property is a substandard Lot of Record which qualified for buildability without area
and width variances under City Code Section 78-72 when the new home was constructed
on the property in 2012. A qualifier for taking advantage of the Lot of Record status is a
hardcover limitation of 25%. The new home met that limitation. The Owners wish to be
able exceed 25% up to the 30% limit, to construct a slightly larger deck. Therefore, the lot
area and width variances are required.
7. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” Single family residences are a permitted use within the
LR-1C zoning district. This criterion is met.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The residential home and associated residential amenities are
residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and
surrounding properties for residential use.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
The property owner is proposing to use the Property in a reasonable manner but
the size of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards of the Zoning Code.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
The Property is substandard for the LR-1C zoning district. Due to the existing
substandard lot size, which is a result of the property being platted as part of the
‘Crystal Bay View’ subdivision in 1891, before local zoning codes were in effect;
and
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The immediate neighborhood consists of similarly sized lots. The single family
residence with associated amenities on a single lot in this neighborhood is not
inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Lots surrounding
the Property are all similarly within Hardcover Tier 2.
4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78.” This condition is not applicable.
6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located.” This condition is not applicable, as a single family residence is an allowed use in
the LR-1C District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover and
lot coverage standards applying to the Property are similar to those of other properties in
the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The standards applicable to this property apply to all other properties in
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
the neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 30% hardcover that other
developed similar-sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” In the opinion of staff, the property rights of the
owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as the new
residence would not be able to have the 30% hardcover that neighboring similar-sized lots
are allowed.
11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or
morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting of the area
and width variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be
contrary the intent of the zoning code.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” In the opinion of staff, granting of the lot
area and lot width variances will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the Property to
be further developed under the same hardcover and structural coverage allowances as
other similar-sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants lot
area and lot width variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350, subject to the
following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
3. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may
result in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 14th day of June, 2021.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
4. LA20-000033 DUPONT CONSTRUCTION O/B/O CAROLYN & MASON HARDY, 1579
MAPLE PLACE, VARIANCES
Carolyn Hardy, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 4 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The
applicant requests lot area and lot width variances; the property is 9,000 square feet in area, and has 50
feet in width where 21,780 square feet and 100‐feet in width are required. This substandard Lot of Record
qualified for buildability without area and width variances and a new home was constructed on the
property in 2012. However, a qualifier for taking advantage of the Lot of Record status is a hardcover
limitation of 25%, although the property is within Tier 2 which allows a hardcover level of 30%. The
applicant would like to construct a slightly larger deck (140 square feet); therefore, lot area and width
variances are required. The applicant identified the substandard lot area and lot width as practical
difficulties. Staff agrees and finds the substandard size of the property a practical difficulty. Staff
recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances which would permit the property
to utilize 30% hardcover – the applicant is proposing 27%.
Bollis asked the hardcover levels of the neighboring homes on each side.
Curtis replied many of the homes in this strip of Maple Place were built by the same builder who took
advantage of the Lot of Record status. She did not look to see if any had received lot area or width
variances, but they were all either conforming to 25% or had received variances.
Carolyn Hardy, 1579 Maple Place, stated they are the second owners and the deck was put in before they
purchased the property and is unsafe. There are simply trying to replace the bad deck with a good deck
and hopefully fit all four of their family out there.
Kirchner is trying to understand how much larger this deck would be.
Ms. Hardy thinks it is 8x9 foot deck and they are asking for a 10x10 deck.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:04 p.m.
Kirchner stated this seems fairly simple and reasonable; they are not maxing out the 30% hardcover level.
He asked if it expands any wider than the existing exterior of the home.
Curtis replied no it does not and it meets the setbacks.
Kirchner does not have any problems with this application.
Libby supports Staff’s recommendation.
Bollis questions how these lots were able to be developed in the first place with the Lot of Record. He is
sure they will have applications from other lots wanting to go to the 30%.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Erickson moved, Ressler seconded, to approve LA20-000033, 1579 Maple Place, Variances As
applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 04/21/2021
Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/21/2021
60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/20/2021
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 17 May 2021
Subject: #LA21-000033, Dupont Construction & Remodeling Inc., o/b/o
Mason + Carolyn Hardy, 1579 Maple Pl,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The subject property is 9,000 square feet in area, and has 50 feet in width within the LR-1C
zoning district where 21,780 square feet and 100-feet in width are required. This substandard
Lot of Record qualified for buildability without area and width variances under City Code Section
78-72, and a new home was constructed on the property in 2012. However, a qualifier for taking
advantage of the Lot of Record status is a hardcover limitation of 25%. The new home met that
limitation. At this time, the owner wishes to be able to construct a deck. In order to be able to
exceed 25% up to the 30% limit, to construct a slightly larger deck (140 square feet). Therefore,
lot area and width variances are required. The property, based on its’ proximity to the lake,
would be in Tier 2, allowing for up to 30% hard cover.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot area and
width as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally, they have
provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds the substandard size of the property is a
practical difficulty. The neighborhood consists of single family homes located on individual lots
as well as combinations of lots. The subject property was vacant for many years before it was
developed with a new home. The ability to have the same type of hardcover amenities as other
existing developed properties in the same neighborhood would be limited if the area and width
variances are not granted.
Application Summary: The applicant requests lot area and lot width variances in order to take
advantage of the Tier 2 hardcover level of 30%.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE #LA21-000033
17 May 2021
Page 2 of 4
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C District Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 9,000 s.f. (0.2 acre) 50’
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
9,000 s.f. (0.2 acre) Allowed: 1,800 s.f. (20%)
Existing: 1,447 s.f. (16%)
Proposed: No Change
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 2 9,000 s.f. 2,700 s.f.
(30 %)
2,457 s.f.
(27.3%)
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area + Lot Width Variance (Section 78-350)
The property was platted prior to current local zoning regulations and is substandard with
respect to area and width for the LR-1C district.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
FILE #LA21-000033
17 May 2021
Page 3 of 4
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Single
family residences are a permitted use within the LR-1C zoning district. This criterion is
met.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential home and
associated residential amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the
comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The property owner is proposing to use the
property in a reasonable manner but the size of the lot is below the minimum
lot size standards of the Zoning Code.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The property is substandard for the LR-1C zoning district. Due to the existing
substandard lot size, which is a result of the property being platted as part of
the ‘Crystal Bay View’ subdivision in 1891, before local zoning codes were in
effect; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The immediate
neighborhood consists of similarly sized lots. The single family residence with
associated amenities on a single lot in this neighborhood is not inconsistent
with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Lots surrounding
applicants’ property are all similarly within Hardcover Tier 2.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono
City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family residence is an
allowed use in the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The lot area, lot width, setback, hardcover
and lot coverage standards applying to this property are similar to those of other
properties in the neighborhood, and there are many similar sized developed lots in the
neighborhood.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The standards applicable to this property apply to all other
property in the neighborhood; however, in order to be allowed the 30% hardcover
that other developed similar-sized lots are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is
required.
FILE #LA21-000033
17 May 2021
Page 4 of 4
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff, the property rights of
the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted, as
the new residence would not be able to have the 30% hardcover that neighboring
similar-sized lots are allowed.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting of
the area and width variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and
would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. In the opinion of staff, granting of
the lot area and lot width variances will alleviate a practical difficulty by allowing the
property to be further developed under the same hardcover and structural coverage
allowances as other similar-sized developed lots in the neighborhood.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the requested lot area and lot width variances. If Planning
Commission determines that the practical difficulties test is met for the area and width
variances, then a recommendation for approval would be in order.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Deck Plans
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Property Owners List
Exhibit G. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action is designate Bederwood Park as and authorized area for
mountain bike training.
2. Background. The City was approached by the Orono Youth Mountain Bike Club about training
space opportunities in City Parks. The Club identified Bederwood Park as place to conduct skills
training for their younger riders. The area the club is interested in using are the areas around the
perimeter of the park that are not part of the baseball or sports field areas. The Parks Commission is in
favor of the Club’s use of the park. To use the area the Club will use existing dirt and grass pathways
into and out of the park. The club will also create some additional pathways in the wooded are to in the
northwest corner of the park. The work will include raking debris, removing deadfall, establishment of
some natural obstacles and some simple stream crossings.
3. Orono City Code. The use of the park area will require the city to designate the park or areas of the
park designated pathway in order to comply with city code. The pertinent section of code is below.
Sec. 22-93. Riding bicycles, nonmotorized vehicles. No person shall ride a bicycle or other
nonmotorized vehicle in any park or swimming beach except on designated pathways, and then only
in such manner as to not threaten or endanger the person or property of others.
4. Staff Recommendation. .
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the attached resolution designating Bederwood Park a designated pathway (area) for
mountain bike use.
Exhibits
A. Resolution
B. Park Map
Item No.: 16 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Orono Mountain Bike Team use of Bederwood Park
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E
City Administrator/ City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BEDERWOOD PARK
AS AN DESIGNATED AREA FOR MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAINING
WHEREAS, the Orono Mountain Bike desire to provides training and recreation opportunities
for Orono youth;
WHEREAS, the Orono Mountain Bike team in in need of local training areas for mountain bike
skills for their younger members;
WHEREAS, the City wishes to partner with the Orono Mountain Bike Team to provide training
areas for youth activates at the Bederwood Park;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City designated those portion of
Bederwood Park not in use as a Baseball Field and Sports field for Mountain Bike training;
FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Orono authorizes the Mountain Bike team to
make minor improvements to the park to facilitate mountain bike training as coordinated with
and approved by the Orono Parks Superintendent.
Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held June
14th, 2021.
ATTEST:
________________________________ __________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________
Exhibit B
Bederwood Park
Area of usable space for Mountain Bike Club in yellow.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By:
417
1. Purpose. County Commissioner Chris LaTondresse will provide the Council an update.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
None
Exhibits
A. Briefing Slides
Item No.: 17 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: Commissioner Chris LaTondresse Update
Presenter: Chris LaTondresse,
County Commissioner
Agenda
Section:
Presentation
Click to edit Master title style
Commissioner Chris LaTondresse –District 6
Hennepin County
Hennepin County
Hennepin County District 6
COVID-19 Response
Hennepin County
Emergency Rental Assistance
$16.2 million in emergency rental assistance to more than 6,000 low-income households.
319 households across District 6 received assistance, totaling $988,735.
RentHelpMN: COVID-19 emergency rental assistance now open for applications. Visit renthelpmn.org to learn more about eligibility requirements and to apply.
Hennepin County
Investing in Residents –CARES Act ($220 Million)
Hennepin County
Investing in Residents
Hennepin County
Small Business Grants
$69.4 million in Small Business Relief grants with 6,400+ grants across Hennepin.
•As of March 19, 2021 20 grants or $217,100 in funding were provided to small businesses in Orono ($9.46 million total for District 6)
•More than 40% of grants have gone to businesses owned by Black, Indigenous and people of color
•To date, there have been five application rounds for direct financial assistance through the Small Business Relief Fund, with future rounds expected.
Hennepin County
Public Safety:911 Mental Health Pilot Program
Pilot program with Sheriff’s Office to better address mental health calls to 911 in 39 suburban communities
Hennepin County Sherrif's Office receives 700,000 calls/year.Growth in mental health calls of 20% from 2018-2019
2019: Social worker placed in the 911 call center to better understand mental health calls and make recommendations
Pilot program –hope to learn from this effort and implement changes in line with findings
Hennepin County
Tanager Bridge Reconstruction
•Currently open –with load
restrictions
•Closure earlier this spring
•Second closure planned for
September, with occasional
channel closures
•Fully complete this fall
Hennepin County
Climate Action Plan
•Net-Zero by 2050; cutting greenhouse gases
•A transition to renewable energy sources and reduction of energy use overall
•Strengthening individual and community resilience
•Preventing food waste
•Building and maintaining green infrastructure
Hennepin County
My top priorities
Housing: As Chair of the Housing and Redevelopment Authority, I believe it is critical we
prioritize issues of housing security, homelessness, and the affordable housing crisis.
Public Safety: As Vice Chair of the Public Safety committee, one of my top priorities is
advancing reforms at the intersection of 911 / emergency dispatch and mental health.
Economic Inclusion: Supporting small businesses, promoting entrepreneurship, investing
in workforce development, and building equitable, inclusive opportunity ladders for all.
Hennepin County
D
I
S
P
A
R
I
T
Y
R
E
D
U
C
T
I
O
N
What are your top priorities?
Hennepin County
Chris.LaTondresse@hennepin.us
612-348-7886
Commissioner Chris LaTondresse
Hennepin County
Jessica Oaxaca, District Director
Jessica.oaxaca@hennepin.us
612-348-6885
Kyle Olson, Policy Director
kyle.olson02@hennepin.us
612-348-3168
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
1. Purpose. Consider variances to add on to an existing deck within the rear and lake setbacks.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The
application was received and considered to be complete
on April 20th. The 60-Day review period has been
extended and now expires on August 18, 2021.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is
requesting rear setback and 75-foot lake setback
variances in order to expand the existing deck by 227
square feet (including staircase). The property owner
has indicated a willingness to remove an 80 square foot
deck/patio within the 75-foot setback to facilitate
approval of the requested variances and offset 75-foot
hardcover.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On
May 17th, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning
Commission voted 7-0 to deny the variances.
5. Public Comment. No comments from the
neighbors were received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested variances to enlarge the
deck within the lake setback as the property has reasonable use with the existing improvements. The
requested lake setback variance is not supported by practical difficulty.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Plans
B. Draft PC Minutes
C. PC Staff Report 05/17/2021
References
PC Exhibits 05/17/2021
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan + Staff Annotated Plan
D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations – edited by staff
E. Proposed Deck Plans
F. Resolution No. 6877
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
Item No.: 19 Date: 14 June 2021
Item Description: LA21-000030 – Tom Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd,
Variances
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. LA21-000030 TOM BERGSTROM, 1509 LONG LAKE BLVD, VARIANCES
Tom Bergstrom, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 1 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). Curtis
noted the owner received variances to redevelop the property with a new home and deck; at this time the
applicant is requesting rear street setback and 75 foot setback variances in order to expand the existing
deck by 227 square feet including a spiral staircase. The property owner has indicated a willingness to
remove an 80 square foot patio within the 75‐foot setback to facilitate approval of the requested
variances. Staff finds the variances are not supported by practical difficulty and recommends denial of
requested variances to enlarge the deck as the property has reasonable use with the existing
improvements.
Bollis asked regarding the 80 square foot patio: was that part of the 2018 redevelopment or was it existing
prior?
Curtis replied it was preexisting.
Tom Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd, did not know he did not want a diamond-shaped lot until he
moved into the lot as one cannot do much with it as shown regarding the lake setback and road setback.
He is requesting to have a deck that would be approximately a smaller size than all of the existing lake
owners on the lake. His nearby neighbors to the west have large decks; the average deck in the U.S. is
approximately 300-400 square feet and Mr. Bergstrom is requesting 395 square feet. He thinks it is
reasonable to have an average-sized deck in the U.S. given that he is on the lake. He showed his property
on screen and noted he would like to ideally remove a patio and combine it together, taking hardcover out
of the 75 foot lake setback and moving it or attaching it to the house so it is not separated. He showed the
survey and noted that his property only has a sliver in which one can technically or legally build anything;
he thinks on some level that is a practical hardship considering if it was a rectangle-shaped lot they do not
have the same practical difficulties. There has also been some severe erosion over the past several
decades, they did some shoreline stabilization and noted years and years of erosion has impacted the size
of the lot. He noted there is not a good work around for the proposal, he has come to the City and worked
with Ms. Oakden trying to figure out the best ways to expand this. Because of bugs, being higher off the
ground is preferred and unfortunately there would still be a section in the 75 foot setback but it would be
less than 15 feet so there would be a reduction in hardcover in that precious area. He showed overhead
photos of his house and 9 adjacent houses and said every one of them have decks, pools, outdoor spaces,
hardcover spaces substantially larger than his. He would think it reasonable to still have the smallest
imprint in front of his house considering he is well below the hardcover requirement and making
concessions.
Kirchner said Deck B on screen is currently existing and asked how many square feet it is.
Mr. Bergstrom replied 179 square feet. It is enough to put six chairs and a table. He would ideally like to
pull the couch off the other area and have a place to sit and eat to enjoy the lake views.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ressler said Staff feedback point of contention seems to be the deck. He asked if there are any other
concerns over the rest of the application and variance besides the deck.
Curtis replied all the applicant is asking for at this point is to construct that deck.
Ressler said as long as it stays behind the green line, Staff would be agreeable to it and asked if that is
accurate.
Curtis believes Staff could support the request if it was not encroaching in the 75 foot setback.
Kirchner asked if it is not encroaching in the 75-foot setback, would a variance still be required for the
50-foot setback?
Curtis replied yes.
Kirchner feels there is currently usage of the space and does not think the applicant is being denied usage
in that they do currently have a deck. He appreciates the research that went in but does not believe that
just because the average size of a deck is 300-400 square feet the Planning Commission needs to go out of
their bounds to allow that to happen within the 75 foot setback. If they were not encroaching on the 75
foot setback he would likely be a bit more open to it if it was merely a 50 foot rear yard setback.
Ressler agrees. The precedent in Orono follows the recommendation by Staff in trying to be agreeable to
a reasonable building envelope and stay within the guidelines they have. He would support Staff’s
recommendation.
Bollis agrees. There is no doubt there is practical difficulty on the lot with the legal building envelope. He
likes the intent of the exchange for the hardcover within the 75 foot setback but would like to see
something closer to a 1-to-1 exchange.
Mr. Bergstrom reiterated that he would be removing approximately 85 feet in that setback area. If the goal
is to stabilize erosion, which is the point of the hardcover issues for drainage; this meets and actually
exceeds that goal in a precious area by eliminating more hardcover area and reduces that. As for the
definition of reasonable, he would like to understand that if all decks bigger than this are now considered
unreasonable, he would think that will affect many other houses potentially being built in the City – if the
Commission defines anything bigger than this as an unreasonable request.
Kirchner shared that Mr. Bergstrom’s request is not unreasonable, the overall thought is there is a
reasonable use of the property at this time. A home is there for year-round use and the owner is being
afforded the opportunity to use the lot in a single family residential manner as zoned. As for removing
hardcover within it, a vast majority of applications the Commission sees involves hardcover from decades
prior that is already within that, which would set a bad precedent if they said because they are removing
some hardcover that they will allow other intrusions into that space to then be allowed.
Mr. Bergstrom pointed out in the survey, he did not know when building a house for his family, that they
were not able to do this and he understands there is a legal gray area of an existing house in that structure.
They intentionally worked with the City to pull that back and he does not see a great way besides putting
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
a hallway on a deck to work inside of that. He noted it would be a very small corner, less than 10 square
feet in total in that area; he showed the house that was torn down less than two years ago on screen.
Kirchner noted the Commission has a note from a neighbor stating they have no concerns with the
proposal.
Ressler stated the Commission has to work with what they have as guidelines for the City. There have
been other applications that have had as reasonable or more reasonable means for approving the
application – however, it has been made loud-and-clear that the City Council does not necessarily agree
and they draw a pretty hard line on meeting the defined practical difficulties. He thinks that will be the
pushback regardless of the outcome of the Commission’s vote. Once it gets to the Council it is not
necessarily something that is granted.
Libby asked the applicant if there is any resistance to modify the proposed deck in a more linear manner
in the front where the encroachment into the 75 foot setback is, bringing the deck front, back, equal, to
deck B. He asked Curtis if that would bring it back enough out of the 75 foot setback?
Mr. Bergstrom would be willing to do that, he has met with the City several times and sent dozens of
emails, and the hardship is the corner of the deck. He would be absolutely open to any work around to try
to enjoy the hardcover space up to 25%.
Libby said the encroachment into the 75 foot setback and the surface area of the patio are really not a
trade-off because there would still be a remaining encroachment in to the 75 with the physical location of
the deck. He is trying to take a constructive method in designing the deck to remove the encroachment
into the75 which the Commission has regularly and consistently maintained as a metric of ordinance.
Bollis asked if Mr. Bergstrom has a calculation for the amount of the proposed deck over the 75 foot
setback.
Mr. Bergstrom replied approximately 16 feet total. He would be removing approximately 95 square feet
of hardcover which is better for the City and better for the lakes.
Ressler does not feel that it is a fair exchange removing hardcover in exchange for structure. He does not
think it is an unreasonable ask but he does not know it can be approved under the guidelines the
Commission must abide by.
Ressler moved, seconded by Libby, to deny LA21-000030, 1509 Long Lake Blvd, Variances as
submitted. VOTE: Ayes: 7, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 04/20/2021
Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/20/2021
60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/19/2021
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 17 May 2021
Subject: #LA21-000030, Tom Bergstrom, 1509 Long Lake Blvd,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
In 2018, the applicant received variances to lot area, width, rear setback, 75-foot lake setback,
and side yard setback in order to redevelop this property with a new home and 179 square foot
deck. At this time the applicant is requesting rear setback and 75-foot lake setback variances in
order to expand the existing deck by 227 square feet (including staircase). The property owner
has indicated a willingness to remove an 80 square foot patio within the 75-foot setback to
facilitate approval of the requested variances.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard size of the lot and
the topography as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally, they
have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B,
and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that this lot
is unique due to the curve of the shoreline creating a diagonal 75-foot setback across the
property. The 75-foot lake setback overlaps the 50 foot rear yard setback nearly eliminating the
building envelope on the lot.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting rear yard and 75-foot lake yard setback
variances to construct a deck expansion.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial as noted.
FILE #LA21-000030
17 May 2021
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-305 – Setbacks:
LR-1A District Required Existing Proposed
Rear / Street 50’ House 17.9’ Deck 30’
West Side 11.6’ 10.3’ +50’
East Side 11.6’ House 18.8’ Deck 18.8’
Lakeshore 75’ Deck ±65’ New Deck 72’
Average Lakeshore The project conforms to the average lakeshore setback
requirement.
Section 78-305 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1A District Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acre) 200’
Actual 16,240 s.f. (0.37 acre) 116’ @ 75’ 130’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
16,240 s.f. (0.37 acre) Allowed: 3,248 s.f. (20%)
Existing: 2,074 s.f. (12.7%)
Proposed: 2,074 s.f. (12.7%)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 1 16,240s.f 4,060 s.f.
(25 %)
3,519 s.f.
(21.6%)
3,746 s.f.
(23%)
Applicable Regulations:
Rear Yard Setback Variance (Section 78-305)
The LR-1A district requires a 50-foot rear setback. The proposed deck is situated approximately
30-feet from the rear lot line.
75-foot Lake Setback and Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1279 + 78-1680)
A 75-foot structural and hardcover setback is required for sewered lots on Long Lake. The
proposed 227 square foot deck is shown approximately 72 feet from the OHWL, requiring a
variance. The proposed hardcover level for the property is conforming at 23%, however there is
existing hardcover within the 75-foot setback in an 80 square foot “dock patio”, and portions of
the new deck (±16 square feet) will be within the 75-foot setback increasing hardcover in the
lake yard. The applicant has indicated the 80 square foot patio could be removed.
FILE #LA21-000030
17 May 2021
Page 3 of 5
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed variances are not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. While the
substandard lot has difficulties in its shape, small size and depth, and proximity to the
lake, the property has reasonable use with the existing home and deck.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances for additional
hardcover development within the lake and rear yards are inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The setback variances are requested to
facilitate the creation of more outdoor living space The variance requests to
allow expansion of the hardcover within setbacks is unreasonable and is not
supported by the practical difficulties.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The configuration and shape of the lot were not created by the owners.
Variances were granted in 2018 to construct a new home on the property
Resolution No. 6877 (attached as Exhibit E). However the uniqueness found in
the shape, size, slope, and proximity to the lake are not difficulties which
support granting of additional variances to further expand the nonconformities
on the property; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The setback
variances requested will alter the essential character of the neighborhood and
when the property is viewed from the lake.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
FILE #LA21-000030
17 May 2021
Page 4 of 5
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code
Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as a residential deck is an allowed use in the
LR-1A District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The lot size and shape, proximity to the
lake, and the topography are not particular to this specific property within this
immediate neighborhood.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The setbacks of adjacent homes in this neighborhood are somewhat
similar to this lot, as well as the conditions specifically impacting this property: lot size
and shape, topography, home proximity to the lake, and the required 50-foot street
setback generally apply to the other substandard properties in this immediate LR-1A
neighborhood.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The owner indicates that granting the
variances are necessary for the preservation of their property right. However, in the
opinion of staff, their property right is established by home and existing improvements
on this substandard lot.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
variances to allow construction of additional deck area is not likely to impair health,
safety, and comfort however permitting expansion of the nonconformities in this
circumstance is contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. All of the practical difficulties have not
been met to justify supporting the requested variances. The granting of the variances
would serve as a convenience. This criterion is not met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
FILE #LA21-000030
17 May 2021
Page 5 of 5
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends denial of the requested variances to enlarge the deck as the property
has reasonable use with the existing improvements. The requested variances are not supported
by practical difficulty.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey/Site Plan + Staff Annotated Plan
Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations – edited by staff
Exhibit E. Proposed Deck Plans
Exhibit F. Resolution No. 6877
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
1. Purpose. To consider variances related to lot area, lot width, and front and rear setback in order to
redevelop the property with a new single family home.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The
application was received on April 21st, 2021 and was
considered to be complete on April 28th. The 60-Day
review period has been extended and now expires on
August 26th, 2021.
3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is
requesting approvals in order to redevelop the
property with a new single family home. Requested
are for the following: lot area, lot width, and front
and rear setback variances.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On
May 17th, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning
Commission voted 7-0 to deny the variances. The
Commission contemplated different orientations for
the home with respect to the setbacks, but the
applicant chose to proceed as proposed . Please
review the draft minutes for more detail and
direction.
5. Public Comment. No comments for or against
the project have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff does not support the variance for front and rear yard
setbacks as proposed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should direct staff to draft a resolution of approval or denial.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Plans
B. Draft PC Minutes
C. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits 05/17/2021
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Item No.: 20 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000032 – Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr.,
Variances
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By:
C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
F. Aerial Photos
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
Exhibit D
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
3. LA21-000032 AL AZAD, 165 BEDERWOOD DR, VARIANCES
Al Azad, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 3 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The
applicant is requesting approvals in order to redevelop the property with a new single
family home. Requested variances are for the following: lot area, lot width, and front and rear setback.
Staff finds the LR‐1A zoning district requirements, lot size, width, and the unique configuration without
actual road frontage in an easement driveway create practical difficulties for development. However,
there is a reasonable, conforming building envelope available to the property owner. If the proposed home
were rotated slightly it would nearly fit into the allowed building envelope (showed on screen). The
existing envelope appears to provide adequate space with which to construct a conforming home
footprint. Staff suggests the applicant re-orient the home to better fit into the permitted envelope.
Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the setback variances; however, Staff supports lot width
and lot area variances allowing for redevelopment.
McCutcheon said it seems that they need a variation for every setback and asked why the existing
envelope is better than this one.
Curtis noted the lot has historically been defined as the front with the eastern lot line which would thereby
dictate the other setback yards. It is an awkward orientation as the lot does not have frontage on
Bederwood Drive, the road continues up into the Luce Line property and becomes a driveway for this
residence.
McCutcheon asked if the proposed front will be the south or the north.
Curtis said they are not changing the proposed front but are asking to be 15.3 feet from the defined front,
10 feet on the side as the Luce Line property cuts through 44.8 from the west (rear), and 39 from the side.
Bollis asked if an analysis has been done in redefining the lot lines so that the north line was the front
line; is there a different legal buildable envelope that conforms more with what they are proposing?
Curtis said potentially but the front would still be 50 feet.
Barnhart did a cursory analysis of that and there is less buildable area if they consider the north property
line the front.
Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Drive, noted the house is quite old and they are trying to remodel it and fix it
up; they decided for community enhancement to rebuild the house. The garage, although they are saying
detached, is actually attached as there is a little sidewalk separating the garage from the house but the roof
is attached. They are putting the house exactly where the old house is but is a bit bigger than the old
house.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Chris Azad said the house that is there right now is the exact same direction, the only thing they added
was a sunroom and the garage is a little bigger.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
Kirchner does not see that it is the same location of the current house. Based on setbacks this is not
something he can support and agrees with Staff’s recommendation.
Gettman asked what would be the proposed envelope that Kirchner and Curtis would be comfortable with
because they are combining the garage that is currently separated. The overall footprint looks like it is
modified but practical difficulty is this is just not a buildable lot.
Curtis showed the building envelope on screen that the Code would dictate.
Gettman said where the existing garage is they are not trying to modify the footprint that much but trying
to combine it under one space. He would tend to support this as the practical difficulty of trying to
combine. Switching it the 45 degrees based on this lot, it looks like the area to the south does not
necessarily mean it will fit for any kind of house they are trying to combine the space with.
Bollis thinks Gettman brings up a good point and the 15.3 front yard setback they are asking for it
actually better than the existing one when considering the garage. That being said, he could get behind
this if it was a remodel or addition but this is a completely new house. He does not know if he can support
this; if it was an addition he would support it.
Gettman asked the applicant what renovations he had previously tried to do.
Mr. Azad said the house is close to 100 years old and the basement has a lot of problems. Trying to fix
and remodel was not reasonable and it did not work out.
McCutcheon asked if it is oriented to get a lake view out of the sun room.
Mr. Azad said they are trying to put the house where the old house is and a little bit on the back might be
bigger; that is his understanding from talking with the designer.
McCutcheon asked if the applicant were to re-orient the house, what does Mr. Azad not like about that
design.
Mr. Azad stated there is nothing that he would not like.
Libby asked to clarify in the term “partial approval” what Curtis sees as permissible and positive and can
work within the envelope that would meet the City’s ordinance.
Curtis noted they are asking for four variances: lot area, lot width, front, and rear setback. Staff supports
the lot area and lot width variances to develop the lot with a new home. Staff is suggesting that there is an
adequate building envelope to do so not requiring variances.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Ressler said generally the Commission likes to see an improvement of the existing structure setbacks, the
existing garage is demonstrative of that. He does not disagree with Staff that there is a reasonable building
envelope. He believes 48 feet is the width of a reasonable building envelope and asked if that is correct.
Curtis noted she said that the building envelope is 40 by 80.
Ressler would not be in support of the application as applied; however for where this application may go
afterward, he would like to be on record that he probably would be supportive of the garage part of the
structure to go outside of the building envelope. He does not know that he would be supportive of
encroaching on the rear setback as a variance from the building envelope. He does not know how
supportive he would be on the house itself exceeding in any direction; if it were to go any direction he
would perhaps be agreeable going front.
Kirchner noted Ressler sees the value in improving the garage location but is not in support of the
applicant encroaching in other areas.
Ressler agreed. He thinks there is precedence identified because the current garage is already outside the
building envelope quite extensively and they are improving that position in having the attached garage be
part of a proposed structure. Moving the garage farther away also adds hardcover so they must be
cognizant. If they can keep the house mostly or entirely within the building envelope he would be
supportive of the garage exceeding the building envelope.
Curtis asked if that would mean getting the sun room out of the rear setback and leaving the rest as-is.
Ressler said it looks like the front of the lot where the garage is, he would be agreeable to exceeding that
building envelope. Right now it looks like it is applied to exceed the building envelope (house and
garage). He would not be agreeable to that much of an encroachment.
Gettman noted they are saying because of the practical difficulties they are willing to have the garage go
outside the envelope which by definition is saying that this is not buildable. It is not reasonable for them
to have that 40 foot space – it just does not work for any kind of set up. He suggested giving the applicant
feedback with the partial approval as opposed to just denying the application completely.
Kirchner clarified the Commission is not here to redesign for the applicant, and regardless of the outcome
at the Commission it will go before the City Council and they will make the ultimate determination of
approval or denial. This discussion is feedback for the applicant and a recommendation for the Council.
Kirchner agrees with Ressler; 40x80 allows for about a 3,200 square foot footprint which he thinks is
reasonable and there are ways that can be done to still build a home and have use of that. He is a little torn
on the garage, depending on how things would be aligned; he thinks some work can be done and he
would not be supportive of this as applied today.
Erickson would support the Staff report. With the 40x80 building envelope and rotating the building, it
would bring it closer to fitting in the City’s ordinance, those are two good reasons for denial at this point.
Erickson moved, Ressler seconded, to deny LA21-000032 Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr, Variances.
Ressler asked Gettman if he would move to partially approve.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Gettman replied for the certain setbacks. He is willing to have it denied so it can go to Council to hear the
Commission’s recommendations.
McCutcheon clarified the applicant has the opportunity to submit another drawing before it goes to
Council.
VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 04/21/2021
Date Application Considered as Complete: 04/28/2021
60-Day Review Period Expires: 06/27/2021
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 17 May 2021
Subject: #LA21-000032, Al Azad, 165 Bederwood Dr,
Variances
Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is requesting approvals in order to redevelop the property with a new single
family home. Requested are for the following: lot area, lot width, and front and rear setback
variances.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant
has provided supporting documentation
regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit
B, and should be asked for additional testimony
regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff
finds the LR-1A zoning district requirements, lot
size, width, and the unique configuration without
actual road frontage abutting the Luce Line Trail
create some practical difficulties for
development. However, there is a reasonable,
conforming building envelope available to the
property owner.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following variances in order to
redevelop the subject property: Lot width; lot area; front setback; and rear setback.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends partial approval.
FILE #LA21-000032
17 May 2021
Page 2 of 5
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-305 – Setbacks:
LR-1A District Required Existing Proposed - House
Front (East) House 50’
Garage 50’
House 40.1’
Garage 8.3’ 15.3’
Rear (West) 50’ House 61.8’ 44.8’ (sunroom)
North Side 10’ * House 14.9’
Garage 0’ 17.6’
South Side 10’ * House 45’
Garage 72’ 39.1’
*Exception for side yard setback per 78-305(b)(1)
Section 78-305 – Lot Area/Width:
LR-1A District Lot Area Lot Width
Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’
Actual 17,054 s.f. (0.39 acre) 87.75’
Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
17,054 s.f. (0.39 acre) Allowed: 3,410 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,863 s.f. (16%)
Section 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Existing
Hardcover
Proposed
Hardcover
Tier 2 17,054 s.f. 5,116 s.f.
(30 %) 3,707 s.f.
(21.7%)
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area + Lot Width Variances (Section 78-305)
The 0.39 acre property is substandard for the LR-1A zoning district which requires 2 acres in
area. The property is a lot of record and the property owner has a right to develop it within the
parameters of the code.
Front + Rear Setback Variances (Section 78-305)
The applicant is requesting variances from the front and rear 50-foot setbacks to orient the front
of the home toward the Luce Line and with a rear yard facing the lake. The proposed setbacks
are 15.3 feet from the front and 44.8 feet from the rear where 50-foot setbacks are required.
The north side yard facing the Luce Line Trail functions as a front for the existing home and the
proposed home.
FILE #LA21-000032
17 May 2021
Page 3 of 5
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
lot width and lot area variances area supported by practical difficulties due to the
substandard lot conditions and lot of record status. The variances for rear and front
setback for development of the lot do not appear to be in harmony with the City’s
goals for conforming development and is not in harmony with the Ordinance as there
are reasonable opportunities for development within these setbacks.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The level of setback variances
requested to permit 15.3’ front and 44.4’ rear setbacks for development of the
Property are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are not supported by
necessary practical difficulties inherent to the Property. This criterion is not met.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The application of the required setbacks for
the Property allows for an approximate 3,200 square foot building area; the
proposed home is shown to have a 2,800 square foot footprint. Reasonable
use of the Property is established by allowing construction of a new residence
on this substandard lot of record. This criterion is not met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The substandard size of the property and easement access are existing
conditions; there is no available land with which to make the Property
conforming. State Statute and City Code allow for redevelopment of a
nonconforming lot of record however the setback variances do not appear to
be supported by practical difficulty. The applicant’s site design does not
appear to make use of the allowed building envelope; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The
orientation and placement of the home on the property does not appear to
negatively impact the local neighborhood character.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
FILE #LA21-000032
17 May 2021
Page 4 of 5
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered
construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono
City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted
under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential home is an allowed use
in the LR-1A District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The Applicant has not identified special
conditions to the land justifying the setback variances other than the easement access
and driveway configuration. This criteria is not met.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The Applicant has not identified conditions specific to the Property
which affect the need for the requested setback variances. This criteria is not met.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the
redevelopment of the property with a new residence structure, which is permitted to
be constructed. Variances to the rear and front setback requirements to orient the
home in a particular way is not a right. This criteria is not met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
variances lot width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of
the zoning chapter. The requested setback variances do not align with the intent of
the zoning code.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The Applicant asserts that the
setback variances are necessary. The setback variances provide for a certain home
orientation and footprint location which could be considered conveniences. This
criterion is not met.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter
the essential character of the neighborhood?
FILE #LA21-000032
17 May 2021
Page 5 of 5
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Application of the LR-1A setbacks, when applying the allowed side yard setback exception,
provides an approximate 40’ by 80’ building envelope. The applicant’s proposed home, if
rotated approximately 45 degrees would nearly fit in the building envelope.
The existing building envelope appears to provide adequate space with which to construct a
conforming home footprint. Planning Staff does not support the variance for Front and rear yard
setback as proposed.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit F. Aerial Photos
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. To consider variances for signage at Orono Station and direct staff to draft a resolution
approving or denying the requested variances: the number of free standing signs, monument sign area*,
sign copy area, changeable copy area*, canopy signage area, and lighting of the canopy.
*The code regulated monument sign area and changeable copy as a function of the sign area, if the
Council approves the sign copy area, the requested area of the monument structure and the changeable
copy are conforming.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on April 21, 2021 and considered
to be complete on that date. The 60-Day review period has been extended and will expire on August 19,
2021.
3. Background. The applicant is working on behalf of the owners of the property, who recently
purchased the existing ‘mall’ and gas station. The new owners are rebranding the gas station to a
Marathon station, and with that, additional/ updated signage is proposed. For this property, a number of
sign variances have been approved in the past. Additionally, two sections of the city code regulate
signage for gas stations.
A summary of the request, and the applicable regulations.
A full analysis of the applicable regulations, variances, and proposal are summarized in the attached,
Exhibit D. The existing freestanding sign on the west property line of the property will remain as is.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
May 17th. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 on a motion to approve the
requested variances.
The members of the Commission felt that the changing character of Wayzata Blvd, including competition
in Long Lake, supported larger signs. The Commissioners did not feel the sign area was too large, and
supported Marathon’s signage plan. Planning Commission minutes are attached as Exhibit B.
Sign Description Proposed Allowed Note
Wall sign, including new "Orono
Station" sign
105 140 Wall signs are permitted up to 140 sq ft per Resolution 4420
(Conforming)
Canopy sign 3 totaling 38.1 40 Resolution 4420 permitted 2 Canopy signs, totalling 40 sq ft
Lighted Canopy façade Yes No The canopy façade may not be lit, per Section 78-1478
Free standing sign
Monumument structure area 141.66 143.69 This is 147% of the proposed sign area, below the 150% maximum
Sign copy area 95.79 The current sign is 63 sq ft, Resolution 4420 allowed 59 sq ft
# of free standing signs 2 2 Resolution 2073 allowed a second free standing sign
Height 20 22 Section 78-1373 allows up to 22 feet high
Setback from Wayzata 5 5 Secton 78-1478 allows for a 5 foot setback
Changeable Copy 20.16 This is 21% of the sign area, below the 35% limit. Counting the
pricer, the changeable copy is 31%.
Item No.: 21 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000035 – Darrin Rosha o/b/o Orono Station West, LLC, 2160
W. Wayzata Blvd – Sign Variances
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Community
Development Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By:
5. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff supports variances for the number of free standing signs, and the
number of canopy signs. Staff does not support the area of the proposed free standing sign, nor the
lighting of the canopy that is not signage.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial.
Exhibits
A. PC Staff report
B. PC Minutes – Draft
C. Sign Plan
D. Regulation analysis
E. Practical Difficulty statement
F. Resolution 4420
G. Resolution 2073
H. Site Pictures
I. Comparison of other gas station signage
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits May 17, 2021
Date Application Received: April 21, 2021
Date Application Considered as Complete: April 21, 2021
60-Day Review Period Expires: June 20, 2021
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development
Director
Date: May 17, 2021
Subject: #LA21-000035, Darrin Rosha o/b/o Orono Station West, LLC, 2160 Wayzata Blvd
West, Variances from sign ordinance
Public Hearing
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant suggests that the unique use of the property (a
mall with several different land uses), the limited frontage, and the variance history of the
property are practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Finally, the applicant has
provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are
some practical difficulties supporting the second free standing sign because of the unique mall
use of the property.
The sign area of the structure (66” x 209”) is 95.79 sq ft, greater than allowed by
precedent (63 sq ft), ordinance (45 sq ft), and proposed ordinance (45 sq ft). There are
no practical difficulties to support a variance of this magnitude.
The monument sign area of 141.66 sq ft (240” x 85”) is less than 150% of the sign area
proposed, though in excess of the 67.5 sq ft anticipated as a maximum monument sign
area. If the City approves the sign area variance, this variance is moot.
The changeable copy of the sign, excluding the fuel prices is 21% of the proposed sign
area, within the 35% maximum, but in excess of the 16 sq ft anticipated by ordinance. If
the City approves the sign area variance, this variance is moot.
The uniqueness of the lot, on a curved part of the road, and the shape of the canopy
supports variances for the additional canopy signs.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances from the sign ordinance to
support a rebranding of the existing gas station. The variances include the number of free
standing signs, monument sign area, sign copy area, changeable copy area, canopy signage
area, and lighting of the canopy.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the number of
free standing signs, and the number of canopy signs. Staff does not support the sign area
proposed, and the lighting of the canopy. If the sign area is not approved, staff does not support
the changeable copy, or the monument sign area.
Council Exhibit A
LA21-35
FILE #LA21-000035
May 17, 2021
Page 2 of 6
Staff does not support the backlighting of the canopy.
Background
**The city is currently reviewing potential changes to the sign ordinance (LA21-000028). Applying
the regulations to real world examples, including the original sign permit application for this
project, staff recognized that the intended goals are not realized. For example, the regulations
for neighborhood identification signs, and incidental signs not clearly defined. The following
analysis is based on the existing code. **
The subject property has been a gas station since at least 1980. A number of variances and
conditional use permits have been approved for the property, including resolutions 2073 and
4420, which approved variances for signage in 1986 and 2000, respectively. These approvals are
summarized in the table attached as Exhibit D.
When a project does not conform to the standards of a previously approved variance, the
variance is from the existing city code, not the standards established by the variance. Legal non-
conforming structures may be rebuilt in kind, without the need for a variance.
Proposal.
The applicants propose a sign package that includes:
Free standing sign Replacing an existing freestanding sign (Exhibit C-1). The sign is
20 feet tall, 95.79 sq ft of sign copy area, the monument sign is
141.66 sq ft. The sign area includes 20.16 sq ft of changeable
copy (21%). The changeable copy calculation does not include
the fuel price. The sign exceeds the number, area, monument
sign area, and changeable copy area prescribed by Ordinance.
Monument and changeable copy are functions of the sign copy
area.
The height proposed, 20 feet, is allowed per section 78-1373,
which allows signs for gas stations to be 22 feet tall.
Building sign A new building wall sign 20 sq ft (Exhibit C-2) No variance
needed.
Canopy sign (3, each 12.7 sq ft) Also proposed is a LED backlit canopy
(Exhibit C-3) Only one edge faces a street, in staffs opinion,
therefore 2 canopy signs requires a variance. Illumination of
canopy requires a variance.
No changes are proposed for the existing free standing sign located on the west side of the
property.
FILE #LA21-000035
May 17, 2021
Page 3 of 6
A comparison of other gas stations in Orono are summarized in the following table.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Applicable Regulations:
Variance (78-1478 Table 1):
Total Sign Copy Area (45 sf)
Variance (78-1478 (3)) Service Area Canopy. Each edge of a service area canopy facing a street is
permitted 25 square feet of sign area in addition to all other sign area permitted on the site.
Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other part of the face of
the canopy shall be illuminated.
Variance (78-1478 (2)) Monument Signs.
a. No more than one monument sign shall be permitted on any site except in cases
where properties front more than one public street. For properties that front more than
one public street, one additional monument sign may be permitted provided that the
additional monument sign does not exceed half the size of the maximum sign area
allowed for a monument sign in the underlying district.
b. The sign area of a monument sign shall only be calculated using one side of the sign. If
the two sides are different sizes, the larger side shall be used for determining sign area.
c. Monument signs shall be located at least five feet from any property line and shall not
project over the property line. Clear vision shall be maintained from all streets and
driveways.
d. The total area of a monument sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy
area of a monument sign. The total sign area includes all sign copy, graphics, and
Comparison of gas station signage
2420
Shadywood
(Holiday
Station)
3360
Shoreline
(Minnoco)
3340
Shoreline
(Holiday)
2160
Wayzata
(Marathon)
proposed
Canopy
Number 2 6 3 3
Area (each)46.69 23.17 7.88 12.7
Freestanding sign
Height 20'5"17 8 20
Area 106.31 24 30 95.79
Monument 125.7 No 24 141.66
Dynamic display 22.4 0 9 20.16
Dynamic percentage
(excluding fuel)21%0%30%21%
Wall
Number 5 1 4 4
Area 106.45 20.91 40.87 85
Total signage 306.14 183.93 94.51 218.89
FILE #LA21-000035
May 17, 2021
Page 4 of 6
structure.
Variance (78-1479) Changeable message sign.
No more than 35 percent of the actual sign area of a permitted sign in a non-residential district
shall be capable of displaying changing messages. The remainder of the sign area shall not have
the capability to change messages even if not used.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06,
subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
intent of the ordinance is to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of
sign control that accommodates the need for a well -maintained, safe, and
attractive community, and the need for effective communications, including
business identification. The second free standing sign accommodates that
goal, as does the additional canopy signs. The more than double sign area is
not consistent with the intent of the ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the property, and its
inherent signage, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; There is two freestanding signs on the
property, replacing and relocating one of them is reasonable. The number of
canopy signs is reasonable, given that the sign area Is a modest increase over
the existing levels of signage. The sign area proposed, and the backlighting of
the canopy is not supported.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The multiple uses of the property and the variance history for two free standing
signs are unique, supporting the need for a second free standing sign. Variance
history does support signage above the 45sq ft, but not to the 95 sq ft level.
Further, the design of the canopy has three sides that are visible from the street,
and could support the uniqueness argument. and
FILE #LA21-000035
May 17, 2021
Page 5 of 6
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed
signage, including the second free standing sign, will fit into the commercial
character of the corridor.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations alone have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code
Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as signage is a permissible accessory use in the
B-1 District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The unique use of the property as a mall
with multiple uses supports the need for two free standing signs. The enhanced
aesthetics of the sign structure supports the monument sign area.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. There are no similar parcels in this area, in Orono. There are three
other gas stations in Orono, in the Navarre neighborhood. Further west on Wayzata
Blvd, there is a gas station; that station is in Long Lake. Other buildings with multiple
tenants are in Navarre, and none of them include a gas station.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. A second sign for the gas station use is
necessary. The use and enjoyment can be preserved with a smaller sign.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The updated,
signage will aid in the provision of information to the traveling public, necessary for
health and safety.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant states that variances are
necessary to provide for competitive signage.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
FILE #LA21-000035
May 17, 2021
Page 6 of 6
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of a second sign, and approval of a 2nd and 3rd canopy sign
at 12.7 sq ft each. Staff recommends denial of the sign area of the second sign to be larger than
45 sq ft, and for the canopy to be back lit.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit D. Applicable sign regulations
Exhibit E. Resolution 4420
Exhibit F. Resolution 2073
Exhibit G. Site Pictures
Exhibit H. Mailing information
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 6
5. LA21-000035 DARRIN ROSHA O/B/O ORONO STATION WEST, 2160 W. WAYZATA BLVD,
VARIANCE
Darrin Rosha o/b/o Orono Station West, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 5 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). Barnhart
stated the property owner recently purchased the existing gas station and are looking to rebrand the fuel
sales portion of the business. This property includes the gas station, fuel sales, and several other
commercial entities in the mall building on the property. The applicant is requesting variances from the
sign ordinance, all of which are spelled out in the City Code and Barnhart’s memo. City Staff supports the
second freestanding sign variance, they can support some modification to the sign area but Staff has a
challenge supporting a variance that is 2-3 times the size allowed by the City. Staff can support some
modification from the number of canopy signs but cannot support lighting of the canopy. When the City
enacted a new sign ordinance in 2018, one provision was that a canopy sign cannot be lit. Staff
recommends approval of the number of free standing signs, and the number of canopy signs. Staff does
not support variances for the lighting of the canopy and the size of the proposed free standing sign.
Kirchner said the lighting of the sign Barnhart is talking about is the blue and red line running along the
face of the canopy – he asked if the words “Marathon” would be supported as lit.
Barnhart replied yes, the Code contemplates logos and signage on the canopy which would be lit. The
Code allows this type of business to have one street frontage and one canopy sign; Staff can support
multiple canopy signs because of the unique shape of the canopy but cannot support the lighting of the
bars around the canopy.
Ressler asked what part of the presentation is the changeable copy that Staff had opposition to.
Barnhart said as defined by City Code, change of copy is anything that can change the text or graphic of
the sign. This technically is changeable copy with the idea they can put pictures, words, advertisements
on it which could change. By the strict reading of the rule, the price sign is changeable copy, although that
was never the intent of the ordinance so Staff is clarifying that issue with the sign text amendment the
Commission will see later.
Ressler asked if the gas prices were not part of the calculation would it meet criteria for changeable copy?
Barnhart replied it would meet the criteria in the sense that it is the correct ratio. The changeable copy is
to be 35% maximum of the freestanding copy area.
Ressler asked if they know the size of signage of the gas station down the road from this property to
contrast and compare.
Erickson sold that property back in 1997 and they received a variance for height at 16 feet high and has
75 square feet of signage.
Barnhart noted that sign is in Long Lake so it did not factor in to his comparison.
Bollis clarified Code allows 45 square feet.
Council Exhibit B
LA21-35
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 6
Barnhart replied 45 square feet for the freestanding sign area.
Bollis asked if that is 45 and the additional electronic portion? Or 45 including it?
Barnhart replied it is 45 including it. The sign the Commission is looking at tonight is proposed at 95.79
square feet.
Erickson asked the height on the Marathon sign.
Barnhart noted it is 20 feet high. It conforms because there is a section of the Code that applies only to
gas stations which allows a 22 foot high sign.
Gettman asked about the Holiday station on Shadywood; it looks like it is 106 square feet as opposed to
the 95 square feet. He noted that is another 10 square feet over what the applicant is proposing and asked
if that was approved for any particular reason?
Barnhart did not pull the resolution for that or what the standards were at the time; he does not have the
history for that one. He stated a lot of signage that was redone replaced existing signs so it may have been
20 years ago.
Bollis asked the square footage of the existing Orono Shopping Center sign.
Barnhart replied it is 141 square feet.
Darrin Rosha noted the owners are present as well as the owner of Hamilton Sign. His law office is in the
same building, there have been a lot of improvements to it, and they opened Orono Station West. As a
tenant they are happy to see this continuing to move forward. It is very unique and a landmark in the City;
Barnhart has talked about historic variances and the new owners have gone back-and-forth trying to
figure out what is permissible because there were variances at different times. There are about 10
businesses in the strip mall and if it were parallel to the road there would be more opportunity for signage.
In talking about the canopy, it is a challenge because in looking at which sides meet the road, one is at an
angle and another is behind you going east, the last one coming to the west; it is a challenge to see those
so having them on three sides is definitely beneficial. There is significant improvement in the safety for
the staff at the gas station as he heard changing the old plastic price signs in winter with a ladder is
challenging. In looking at the way the road curves, most gas stations have a “long run” and drivers have a
longer way to see the property; this one comes up on one and if the sign copy is too small it becomes
dangerous to drivers and pedestrians. Mr. Rosha stated there is lighting around the canopy on other
stations within Orono – it is fairly modest – and 2 of the 4 stations have lighting on the canopy. This
property owner would request the same opportunity so people are aware of their presence and maximize
their capacity to exceed – he said an independently-owned station adds a lot to the community.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 7:26 p.m.
Erickson asked to clarify which is the monument sign. Barnhart showed it on screen. Erickson said by the
picture it looks to be structurally supported. He shared about his time on the Long Lake Planning
Commission and there was lots of discussion about signs. They ended up noting a monument sign has
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 6
some type of solid fill on the bottom (masonry, stone) and those supported by poles were defined as free
standing signs, which they prohibited.
Barnhart stated all signs not attached to a building are defined as free standing in Orono. They frequently
see support posts or panels/shrouds in front of that to screen that post. He would anticipate some type of
planter and if not, it would be something Staff would carry to the Council as a comment.
Bollis asked for Staff clarification, when they say the Staff does not support the sign, area proposed, and
the lighting of the canopy, they are speaking just to the canopy on that. Or are they talking about the
overall sign area?
Barnhart supports the number of free standing signs, the number of canopy signs, and the areas proposed.
Staff does not support the area of that free standing sign, nor the lighting of the canopy that is not signage.
Gettman asked to clarify the area referred to of the free standing sign that Barnhart is not recommending
approval for – he asked to see a picture of that sign so everyone is on the same page.
Barnhart showed the sign on screen (95.79 square feet) and said it is too big. He also showed the lighting
of the blue/red lines around the canopy.
McCutcheon asked to see the existing sign. His first thought in making it bigger is that they would hit the
power lines but then Barnhart noted they would move it back. He noted they want two gas stations in
town – they want competition – so he likes Orono Station and noted there is a great point about the
building being perpendicular to the road. He kind of feels sorry for the other businesses trying to get
signage, too, because they have to go back. McCutcheon wants to be pro-business but noted this seems
pretty big. He asked if this area is the limit or if they will go a bit bigger than this.
Barnhart stated this is 64 square feet and he can support 64 square feet, which is in excess of what the
ordinance allows, but it is consistent with the variance approved 20-or-so years ago.
Gettman clarified Barnhart does not support the 96 square feet.
Barnhart replied that is correct.
Jim Hamilton, Box 148, Rosemount, of Hamilton Signs approached the podium.
Gettman asked Mr. Hamilton if there is any contractual relationship as a Marathon owner that they must
have certain signage requirements.
Mr. Hamilton replied there are requirements – there are certain orders on the sign: they must have the top
three signs: “Marathon,” “Regular” and a “pricer”. That is basically all they must have from Marathon.
Gettman asked the minimum size that the requirement would have?
Mr. Hamilton noted he would have to calculate it because they have different signs and different widths
depending upon the location.
Gettman asked for this location?
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 6
Mr. Hamilton said they could reduce the height of this sign by eliminating the height of the two signs.
The expectation from Marathon is that they would like to see a minimum of 7-foot sign at this location
and if they can get an 8-foot wide, they have enough roadway to see a larger digit from farther away.
Proportionally, if he was going to make an 8 foot wide sign he would not have it lower than a 20 foot
sign. Most standards run between 20-24 feet in height.
Gettman asked of that 20-24 feet, how much height is used for the sign itself?
Mr. Hamilton stated it depends on the location, but 50-75%.
Gettman said about 10-18 feet. Back to the canopy sign, is there any requirement from Marathon on
those?
Mr. Hamilton noted this is the new look of Marathon, so the whole fascia is illuminated; if the City denies
that, then it goes down to a hard metal (ACM) like most canopies and the Marathon would be channel
letters.
Kirchner said Marathon has branding standards that allow for a non-lit canopy.
Mr. Hamilton replied they do.
Libby asked about the monument sign – they are truly numeric rather than alpha-numeric – they simply
change the gas prices, there is nothing streaming, no video, no motion. By standards the City has set and
Staff has recommended, is there anything detrimental about conforming with Orono’s sign ordinance?
Mr. Hamilton stated they went through it in a meeting and noted the 14 foot sign is very small, even with
an electronic gas pricer, and put a Marathon on the top; Marathon will look at it and say it is too small
because of their standards. Can he shrink it down to 40-45 square feet? Yes, but monetarily he does not
think it is worth it for the customer to put a really small sign out there and battle with Marathon in saying
all they can do is 45 square feet.
Libby said that is not a really small sign, especially with LED digital lighting 24/7. The idea is they are
better off to have a sign that meets and complies with the City ordinance than have no sign at all that
would be changeable and go back to getting on a ladder to change the numbers. He sees a win-win if they
can come to some terms together. He asked if there is any sort of marketing deprivation from having a
canopy that is not lighted versus one that is.
Mr. Hamilton replied driving down the road and seeing Marathon illuminated canopies, people will say
“wow.” It is all marketing and he pointed out it is not shining lights throughout the community, it is
illuminating the canopy and when one drives down the road they say “I want to stop there.” He said the
electronic message center will really help with the tenants that are not getting noticed there, also.
Mr. Rosha clarified there is a stone base. When one contemplates 22 feet high for a service station sign
and then limit it to 45 square feet, that is a 2-foot-wide sign. It is a challenge with an independent fuel
station, as they must have a relationship with a quality fuel supplier. They could have it down to
Marathon, Regular, and the price; but there would be no local branding (Orono Station) and would not
have the ability to draw people in like the competitor down the road has. The station down in Navarre has
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 6
a sign that exceeds even what is being proposed here. His client was trying to come up with something
reasonable; they would prefer that the canopy not be considered signage and be lit.
Erickson said the concept of a lit sign is a way to deal with the fact that it is on a curved piece of road that
does not have long sight lines like other locations do.
Mr. Rosha noted they are very mindful that it faces south to the direction of an industrial area rather than
lighting up a neighborhood.
Bollis thought this monument sign proposed (20 foot) was replacing the Orono Shopping Center sign that
is similar in size. He clarified that is not the case and the Orono sign is staying; he asked if there been any
consideration of replacing that one with this one that can give each individual business billing there and
then create a smaller monument sign where Marathon was proposing this one.
Mr. Rosha said the current Orono Shopping Center sign tenants were under 10 square feet per unit. His
concern about making that switch and going with something smaller for the gas station is – that is the one
catching the eyes and if it is too small it does create a safety hazard for people being able to see prices.
Mr. Rosha said there are no plans for the Orono Shopping Center sign right now.
Bollis noted there is one existing sign and the property is only allowed one to begin with. He is pro-
business and pro-signage but they also have to look at the Code to see what is reasonable. He would like
to see a proposal that includes all signage for the site so they know what to expect for the future.
When McCutcheon sees the two per property, the practical difficulty there is the building, such a narrow
lot, and it is deep. He can see where the property needs two signs.
Mr. Rosha thinks it bears a mention that they are two different entities. The Orono Station is a tenant of
the mall itself; in the Code, they are treated differently than other businesses are. He noted as a tenant, the
current Orono Shopping Center sign did not attract them to the location. He said that would be opening up
another conversation that has not been part of this dialogue so far.
Ressler shared his comments on this application. Bollis makes a good point, they have to look at the
entire lot. Because it would be triggering a variance, if the applicant wanted to then modify the second
sign, it would trigger another variance which would go before the Commission for feedback. The timing
of the application is curious because they are having an agenda item to talk about getting more favorable
for signage in the area in trying to be more encouraging and accommodating for businesses. Personally,
when he goes to the gas station off Shadywood and Shoreline Drive, Ressler does not think that sign is
too big. The Speedway (although not in Orono) is comparable and worth noting as guidance for the City
as they talk about perhaps changing their guidelines. As it is applied, he does not see changeable copy
being egregious and they have noted that particular plot of commercial space has had difficulty drawing
attention. For that reason he has support for the application as submitted, he does not know if Staff does
not recommend it because it does not meet practical difficulties or if it does not meet the opinion of Staff.
Barnhart stated Ressler raised a number of good questions. Regarding the existing sign on the west side of
the property, the owner can tear that down and replace it in-kind and they do not need to come back from
a variance standpoint. Part of the reason they are here today is because they want to relocate the gas
station sign to a more favorable location. The comment about practical difficulty and Staff not finding out
– it is not uncommon for the Commission to identify practical difficulty through the analysis of the
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 6
application and find practical difficulty when Staff did not. They can certainly recommend approval based
on the Commission’s findings…that is just Staff’s recommendations.
Ressler said in regards to the like-kind, if they were not going to increase the sign area of the secondary
sign it would not come back to the Commission unless they were looking to increase that?
Barnhart replied only if they wanted to increase it or move it.
Kirchner echoed the reactions; he does not have strong oppositions to the way this is proposed. He
struggles with the lit canopy, especially as they heard Marathon has branding standards that allow for a
non-lit canopy. He struggles to approve that if there is another option to meet those standards.
Gettman would be in favor of having the lit canopy because of the location and the fact that one cannot
see coming from the different angles. What Staff was recommending was just lighting the “Marathon”
part of it, but that is not an option, which is why he wanted to clarify the branding standard. It is either no
lights or the full lights; those are the only two options and he would support the full light option.
Libby agrees in part with Ressler’s statements. He would tend to be in favor of the application as made.
He asked Barnhart in his presentation where he referenced sign ordinance changes in 2018: in view of the
fact the Commission is currently looking at proposals of changing or modifying the sign ordinance,
Hennepin County just spent an extraordinary amount of money in one of the most ambitious
infrastructure re-dos and bringing them into the 21st century. When he looks at things like lighted
canopies and digital information available as a public service, he thinks about it as moving into the 21st
century with infrastructure outside of just roadways. He thinks very modern and is in favor of the
proposal as it is, not that he is in contradiction to the ordinance, but he thinks it is currently in flux and
they do not know how it will land. The ordinance as applied seems to be 20th century thinking and
methodology versus the 21st century – a more progressive and modern way of marketing and serving the
community.
Erickson has similar thought regarding the new signage proposal, it all looks great to him. He asked if the
owner would get rid of one of the old signs as there are two free standing signs here. Do they both go
away or do they both stay?
Barnhart’s understanding is the sign on the west which is lower will stay with no changes. He showed
photos on screen and said one sign will have no changes and the other sign will be removed and a new
Marathon sign will be placed.
Ressler moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000035 Orono Station West, 2160 W. Wayzata
Blvd, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Council Exhibit C
LA21-35
PC Exhibit B-2
LA21-35
Orono Station Marathon
2160 Wayzata Blvd,
Long Lake, MN 55356
60’
8’8’
50’
18’18’
3 logo’s per canopy
Each Marathon canopy logo
15.49” h x 118” L = 12.7 sq ft
PC Exhibit B-3
LA21-35
Orono Station Marathon
2160 Wayzata Blvd,
Long Lake, MN 55356
60’
8’8’
50’
18’18’
Orono Station Marathon
Site Plan
2160 Wayzata Blvd,
Long Lake, MN 55356
60’
8’8’
50’
18’18’
Property line is 9’ off sidewalk at the sign
New sign min. 5’ off property line
Si
g
n
Re
v
i
e
w
:
21
6
0
Wa
y
z
a
t
a
Bl
v
d
1
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(S
i
g
n
Di
s
t
r
i
c
t
3)
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
fo
r
Ga
s
St
a
t
i
o
n
s
)
Re
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
44
2
0
R
e
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
20
7
3
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Notes
27
8 ‐14
7
8
78
‐13
7
3
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
2/
1
4
/
2
0
0
0
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
11
/
1
0
/
1
9
8
6
3
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
in
bo
l
d
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
6
0
sq
ft
14
0
sq
ft
28
8
85
10
5
sq
ft
C
o
n
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
to resolution 4420
6
Ca
n
o
p
y
25
sq
ft
,
on
l
y
si
g
n
ma
y
be
il
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
,
no
t
fa
c
e
of
ca
n
o
p
y
40
sq
ft
(2
al
l
o
w
e
d
,
20
sq
ft
ea
c
h
)
40
sq
ft
to
t
a
l
,
2 @ 20
sq
ft
3 @ 12
.
7
sq
ft
(3
8
.
1
sq
ft
to
t
a
l
)
Va
r
i
a
n
c
e
necessary from 78 ‐1478
(3
)
for number and area. Lighting
th
e
canopy is also prohibited.
7
To
t
a
l
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
Si
g
n
a
g
e
18
0
28
8
8
Fr
e
e
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
Fr
e
e
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
(E
a
s
t
)
9
Py
l
o
n
si
g
n
(E
a
s
t
)
45
sq
ft
48
sq
ft
59
sq
ft
13
5
63
sq
ft
95
.
7
9
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
from 78 ‐1478 Table 1
10
He
i
g
h
t
12
fe
e
t
22
fe
e
t
20
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
s
to code 78 ‐1373
11
Se
t
b
a
c
k
5 fe
e
t
6 fe
e
t
4 fe
e
t
5 fe
e
t
Conforms
12
Mo
n
u
m
e
n
t
si
g
n
ar
e
a
6 7.
5
(1
5
0
%
of
si
g
n
ar
e
a
)
77
.
3
sq
ft
14
1
.
6
6
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
from 78 ‐1478 (2)
13
Ch
a
n
g
e
a
b
l
e
co
p
y
15
.
7
5
(3
5
%
of
si
g
n
ar
e
a
)
n/
a
9 sq
ft
(e
x
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
pr
i
c
e
)
20
.
1
6
sq
ft
V
a
r
i
a
n
c
e
from 78 ‐1479
14 15
Py
l
o
n
Si
g
n
(W
e
s
t
)
14
1
15
0
14
1
sq
ft
14
1
sq
ft
No change
16
6 pl
a
q
u
e
s
11
2
.
5
11
2
.
5
sq
ft
17
1 Lo
g
o
37
.
5
37
.
5
sq
ft
18
To
t
a
l
si
g
n
a
g
e
(S
q
ft
)
26
3
48
38
0
57
3
32
9
37
9
.
8
9
Council Exhibit D LA21-35
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
LA21-000035
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the Zoning Chapter.
Response: The property owner intends to update commercial signage in a tasteful and appropriate
way consistent with the commercial nature of the property. Modifying canopy signage and lighting
and replacing an outdated front-of-building sign will improve the success of the business and improve
the appearance of the business and surrounding community. The proposed signage improvements are
technically inconsistent with the current Zoning Chapter in limited ways that are not inconsistent with
the purpose of the chapter or the comprehensive plan.
The height of the canopy sign would be 30 inches, which is within the ordinance. Rather than two
signs of 20 square feet, the canopy would be 3 sides at 12.7 square feet.
The freestanding sign would be 97.6 square feet which exceeds the current ordinance and prior
variance resolution with a vertical separation monument area of 141 square feet, which exceeds the
current condition or the ordinance limitation of 67.5 square feet.
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
Response: The property is located at an unusual angle along West Wayzata Boulevard. The variance
is necessary to improve visibility for an Orono-based gas station/ convenience store, especially in the
case of the canopy which is uniquely visible from three sides. The new in-front signage is effective for
traffic in each direction, and it permits the changing of prices remotely rather than by ladder during
snow, rain, or wind storms.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Response: The new signage is consistent in size and character with the existing signage, with the
variance serving to improve function and safety and improve the overall character of the commercial
strip along West Wayzata Boulevard.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use
for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.
Response: The intended signage is not a result of economic considerations, per se, but intended to
improve the appearance and effectiveness of the signage to support commercial operations consistent
with the City's plans.
5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
Response: N/A
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any
use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected
Council Exhibit E
LA21-35
person's land is located.
Response: N/A
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family
dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
Response: N/A
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.
Response: The layout of the buildings on the property are unique and give rise to and support for
the variance request.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
said land is located.
Response: The subject property is the only one of its kind on the Orono side of Wayzata Boulevard
West.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Response: The variance is essential for safety and commercial success purposes related to the
subject property.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety,
comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code.
Response: The granting of the variance will improve those factors.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.
Response: Granting of the variance will have a substantial and necessary effect on the current
difficulty posed by the current signage.
Council Exhibit F
LA21-35
Council Exhibit G
LA21-35
Council Exhibit H
LA21-35
Comparison of gas station signage (based on permit history)
24
2
0
Sh
a
d
y
w
o
o
d
(H
o
l
i
d
a
y
St
a
t
i
o
n
)
33
6
0
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
(M
i
n
n
o
c
o
)
33
4
0
Sh
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
(H
o
l
i
d
a
y
)
Canopy
Number 2 6 3
Area (each)46.69 23.17 7.88
Freestanding sign
Height 20'5"17 8
Area 106.31 24 30
Monument 125.7 No 24
Dynamic display 22.4 0 9
Dynamic percentage (excluding 21% 0% 30%
Council Exhibit I
LA21-35
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. To consider changes to the city code regulating signage.
2. Background. The City Council authorized the review of the sign ordinance in February, to address
clarity issues and to evaluate the appropriateness of regulation. Councilmembers may recall that the
ordinance was written to make sign regulations “content neutral’, which unfortunately, occasionally adds
some confusion as many people identify the type of sign by what is says, ie. real estate “for sale”.
The amendment attempts to clarify the regulation and adjust the sign areas allowed for certain sign types.
This amendment was in part influenced by the challenges applying the sign regulations to sign proposals
for 2160 Wayzata Blvd.
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On May 17th, the Planning Commission reviewed the
sign ordinance, and suggested additional changes to the canopy sign regulations, and increases on sign
area for freestanding signs, based on what area communities require. An excerpt of sign regulations for
Mound, Long Lake, and Wayzata are attached. These changes are included in the draft ordinance.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 on a motion to approve the ordinance,
with those changes.
The staff report to the Commission includes an itemized analysis of the changes. The draft ordinance also
includes some comments for further explanation.
4. Public Comment. To date, no written comments have been received.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the ordinance as drafted.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should review the proposed ordinance and approve or direct changes.
Exhibits
A. Draft Ordinance
B. PC Staff report
C. PC Minutes – Draft
D. Area city sign regulations (excerpts related to monument sign area)
Item No.: 22 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000028 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Sign
Regulations
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
Title VI - LAND USE
Chapter 78 - ZONING REGULATIONS
ARTICLE X. - SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS
DIVISION 4. ORONO SIGN CODE
Orono, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 1 of 14
DIVISION 4. ORONO SIGN CODE
11
Sec. 78-1465. Recitals. 2
This division shall be known, cited and referred to as the Orono Sign Code, except as referred to herein, 3
where it shall be known as "this division." 4
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 5
Sec. 78-1466. Purpose. 6
Purpose. This Sign Code is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that 7
accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive community, and the need for effective 8
communications, including business identification. It is the intent of these sign regulations, to promote the health, 9
safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to 10
communicate to the public in all areas of the city. It is not the purpose or intent of this division to regulate the 11
message displayed on any sign. The purpose of this division is to authorize: 12
(1)Permanent signs which establish a high standard of aesthetics and are appropriate for the planned13
character in each sign district as established in section 78-1478;14
(2)Signs that are compatible with their surroundings; 15
(3)Signs that are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a manner that does not adversely16
impact public safety or create a hazard to motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists;17
(4)Signs that are proportioned to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, principal 18
structures; 19
(5)Permanent signs which give preference to the on-premise owner or occupant; 20
(6)Temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an opportunity to advertise while21
restricting signs that create visual clutter and hazards at public right-of-way intersections; 22
(7)Minimize adverse effects on nearby property; and23
(8)Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein under the authority24
of the city. 25
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 26
1Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 215 3rd series, § 1, adopted Sept. 10, 2018, repealed the former Art. X, Div. 4, §§ 78-
1466Editor's note(s)——78-1468, and enacted a new Div. 4 as set out herein. The former Div. 4 pertained to
signs and derived from Code 1984, § 10.61(1)—(3); Ord. No. 97 2nd series, §§ 2, 3, adopted August 26, 1991;
Ord. No. 221 2nd series, § 5, adopted Sept. 23, 2002; Ord. No. 6 3rd series, §§ 1, 2, adopted April 26, 2004;
Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 5, adopted March 27, 2006; Ord. No. 35 3rd series, §§ 1, 2, adopted Nov. 13, 2006;
Ord. No. 70 3rd series, § 1, adopted April 26, 2010; Ord. No. 193 3rd series, § 1, adopted April 10, 2017.
Council Exhibit
A
LA21-28
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 2 of 14
Sec. 78-1467. Findings. 27
Findings. The city finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public health, safety, 28
welfare, and aesthetics of the community to control the construction, location, size, and ma intenance of signs. 29
Further the city finds: 30
(1) Permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the image and aesthetic of 31
the community; 32
(2) The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of signs affects the public health, safety, 33
welfare, and aesthetics of the community; 34
(3) An opportunity for viable identification of community businesses, residences, and institutions must be 35
established; 36
(4) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and other users of public streets and property is affected 37
by the number, size, location, and appearance of signs that create a hazard for drivers; 38
(5) Installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of buildings, walks, or other 39
structures may constitute a hazard during periods of high winds and an obstacle to effective fire -40
fighting and other emergency service; 41
(6) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs and sign types adversely impact the image and aesthetic 42
attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value and growth; 43
(7) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are commonly located within or 44
adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at driveway/street intersections, result in roadside 45
clutter and obstruction of views of oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians 46
and also adversely impacts a logical flow of information; 47
(8) Commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be strictly limited in 48
residential zoning districts; and 49
(9) The right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be protected, subject to 50
reasonable restrictions on size, height, location, and number. 51
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 52
Sec. 78-1468. Scope of regulations. 53
The sign regulations set forth in this division shall apply to all structures and land uses. This division describes 54
the signage standards for the sign districts that overlay the zoning districts of the city. Specific additiona l 55
regulations are established for signs which are unique in purpose and not easily addressed by district regulations. 56
No person, property owner, or lessee shall place, erect, alter, modify, enhance, or change in any way a sign that 57
does not conform to the requirements of this division and all other applicable regulations. 58
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 59
Sec. 78-1469. Definitions. 60
For the purposes of this division, the following words and terms are defined as follows: 61
Auxiliary sign means a sign that provides direction for internal circulation, parking or entry, restrictions on 62
parking, security warnings, or other similar primarily noncommercial signs that are directed at people that are 63
entering, exiting, or on a particular property. Auxiliary signs do not include outdoor advertising signs. 64
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 3 of 14
Banner means any temporary sign of lightweight fabric or similar material mounted to a pole or a building at 65
one or more edges. 66
Billboard means see "Outdoor advertising sign." 67
Canopy/awning sign means a message or logo on an awning or canopy which is constructed according to the 68
requirements of the building code, is an integral part of the building, and is consistent with the architecture and 69
design of the building. 70
Clear vision area means an area within a triangle that is measured along the edge of the driving surface of 71
the road starting at the intersection of two roads and driveways (public or private) and extending 30 feet in each 72
direction from the intersection and then a line connecting these two end points. 73
Changeable message sign means a message that is not permanently attached to the sign face but is not a 74
dynamic display. The message is changed manually. 75
Commercial message sign means any message which identifies a business or product or promotes the sale of 76
any product or service. 77
Dynamic display means any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or that appear to change, 78
caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the sign or its components, whethe r the 79
apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This 80
includes a display that incorporates a technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without 81
having to physically or mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes, but is not limited 82
to, any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, projecting, or animated display and any display that 83
incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital ink," or any other method or 84
technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or displays. 85
Freestanding sign means a self-supporting sign usually held up by uprights placed in the ground or any other 86
base that is anchored to the ground. 87
Grand opening means commencement of operation of a new business. For purposes of the ordinance, a 88
grand opening is considered to occur if there is a new business, a business name change or change in type of 89
business or activity. 90
Graphic sign means a sculpture attached to or sign painted directly on a wall that is primarily symbolic or 91
representational in nature and not alpha or numeric in content or copy. 92
Illuminated sign means any sign, which has characters, letters, figures, designs or outlines which are 93
illuminated by an artificial light source. 94
Incidental sign means any sign that is generally not understandable or readable from property other than 95
where the sign is located, such as from adjacent property or a public street, as determined by the city 96
administrator or their designee. Signs may include onsite wayfinding signs, gas pump signs, and menu boards. 97
Lighting, backlit means an illuminated sign where the light source which illuminates the wall behind 98
individual sign letters is hidden from view. The sign letters are opaque and appear as a silhouette against the 99
lighted surface. 100
Lighting, external means the sign is illuminated by means of external light fixtures directed at the sign. 101
Lighting, internal means an illuminated sign having the source of illumination located inside a translucent 102
panel and is not directly visible. 103
Monument sign means a freestanding sign with its sign face mounted installed on the ground with the sign 104
copy or mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and is less than 16 feet in height. 105
On-premise sign means a sign whose message is related to the property or the activity and use occurring on 106
the property on which the sign is located. On-premise signs include multi-tenant identification signs that may 107
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 4 of 14
advertise tenants on different property provided such tenants are within the same approved PUD and parking is 108
shared between properties. 109
Outdoor advertising sign means any sign that is located outdoors and that advertises a product, business, 110
service, event, or any other matter that is not available, or does not take place, on the same premises as the sign. 111
Outdoor advertising signs are commonly called billboards. An outdoor advertising sign does not include a sign that 112
is not readily understandable or readable from property other than where the sign is located, such as from 113
adjacent property or a public street, as determined by the city administrator or their designee. 114
Permanent sign means any sign that is not temporary. 115
Pole sign means a freestanding sign that is elevated off the ground by one or more poles. 116
Portable sign means a temporary sign whose principal supporting structure is intended, by design and 117
construction, to be used by resting upon the ground for support and may be easily moved or relocated for reuse. 118
Portable signs include, but are not limited to, A-frame or T-frame signs, sandwich signs, signs mounted on a trailer, 119
bench, wheeled carrier, or other non-motorized mobile structure with or without wheels. with or without copy 120
and graphic that is designed or intended to be moved or transported but not including banner signs. Examples of 121
portable signs include, but are not limited to: A-frame or T-frame signs, sandwich signs; signs designed to be 122
transported by trailer or on wheels; and signs mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, exce pt signs 123
identifying a business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day -to-day operation of that business. A sign 124
may be a portable sign even if it has wheels removed, was designed without wheels, or is attached to the ground, a 125
structure, or other sign. 126
Projecting sign means a sign, other than a wall sign, that is attached to and projects more than 18 inches 127
from the building façade. 128
Public sign Regulatory or Directional Signs means a traffic control sign in Minnesota State Statutes; any 129
identification sign installed on public propertyin a public park by a public authority; and any other identification, 130
regulatory, or warning sign approved by the city council for installation on public or private land. 131
Re-facing means the process of replacing the sign copy, message, logo, or graphic on a sign without altering 132
or moving the structure to which the sign face is attached. 133
Roof sign means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or on a parapet wall that is above the roof 134
line. 135
Rotating sign means a sign or a portion of a sign which moves in a rotating, oscillating or similar manner 136
other than changing signs. 137
Service area canopy means an open air roof-like structure that projects from the wall of a building or is 138
freestanding and is for the purpose of shielding equipment and/or people from the elements; is often found 139
covering service or gasoline station islands. 140
Sign means any written message, pictorial presentation, number, illustration, decoration, banner or other 141
device that is used to announce, direct attention to, identify, advertise or otherwise make anything known. For 142
purpose of maintenance or removal, the term "sign" shall also include frames and support structures. 143
Sign area means the area in square feet of the single smallest rectangle, circle, or triangle that contains the 144
sign copy. 145
Sign height means the distance measured perpendicular from the highest point of the sign structure to the 146
average grade at the base of the sign. 147
Temporary sign means a sign designed to be displayed for a limited period of time that is not permanently 148
affixed to the land or to a structure. 149
Wall sign means a sign attached to or erected against an exterior wall surface of a building or structure. 150
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 5 of 14
Window sign means a sign mounted inside of a building within the window area that is applied or fastened to 151
the window in a manner that is intended to be viewed from outside the building. 152
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 153
Sec. 78-1470. Application process. 154
An application for a sign permit shall be made on the city's permit platform. The applicant shall provide all 155
required information. 156
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 157
Sec. 78-1471. Review process. 158
The city administrator or their designee shall approve or deny the sign permit application in an expedited 159
manner, no more than 30 days from the receipt of the completed application, including applicable fees. All 160
complete permit applications not reviewed within 30 days shall be deemed approved. Applicants shall be notified 161
in writing if the application is denied, including the reasons for denial. 162
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 163
Sec. 78-1472. Appeals process. 164
Appeals shall be made as outlined in sections 78-96 through 78-99 no later than ten days following the 165
decision. 166
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 167
Sec. 78-1473. Fees. 168
Sign permit fees and the impoundment fee shall be set by the city council by ordinance from time to time. 169
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 170
Sec. 78-1474. Inspection and enforcement. 171
(1) Inspection authority. All signs shall be subject to inspection by the city administrator or their designee, who is 172
hereby authorized to enter upon any property or premise to ascertain whether the provisions of this division 173
are being obeyed. Such entrance shall be made during business hours unless an emergency exists. 174
(2) Signs in Disrepair. The city administrator or their designee may order the removal of any sign that is not 175
maintained in accordance with the maintenance provisions of this ordinance. Upon failure to comply wit h 176
such notice within the time specified in such order, the city council may declare the sign to be a public 177
nuisance, impound it, and assess the cost of removal to the sign owner or the sign owner's agent. 178
(3) Impoundment of signs on public property or within public right of way. The city administrator or their 179
designee may, at any time and without notice, impound signs that have been installed on public property, 180
within the public right-of-way, or within a public easement that are in violation of this division. The sign 181
owner or their agent may retrieve an impounded sign subject to the following rules: 182
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 6 of 14
a. Payment of an impoundment release fee. Any subsequent impoundment(s), within one calendar year, 183
for a particular property or sign owner will require payment of double the initial impoundment release 184
fee. 185
b. Any impounded sign may be retrieved from the impounded area within three business days of the 186
impoundment or the city administrator or their designee may dispose of it. The impoundment area can 187
be located by contacting City Hall. Any cost incurred by the city for disposal of an impounded sign may 188
be assessed to the sign owner or the sign owner's agent. 189
c. The city shall have no obligation to notify a property owner that it has impounded a sign. 190
d. The city shall not be held liable for any damage to an impounded sign. 191
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 192
Sec. 78-1475. Exempt signs. 193
All signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placement except for the signs specifically noted in 194
this section. Exempted signs shall not reduce the permitted signage for a property. These exemptions shall not 195
relieve the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its maintenance and its compliance with the provisions of 196
this division or any other law or ordinance regulation the same. 197
(1) Government Regulatory or Directional signs. All government Regulatory or Directional signs, including 198
but not limited to traffic control and other regulatory purpose signs, street signs, identification signs, 199
informational signs, danger signs, and railroad crossing signs. 200
(2) Non-commercial signs in an election year. Signs of any size containing non-commercial speech may be 201
posted in any number beginning 46 days before the state primary in a state general election year until 202
ten days following the general election and 13 weeks prior to any special election until ten da ys 203
following the special election provided that the signs are in compliance with Minnesota Statutes. 204
(3) Address signs. Address identification signs not exceeding four square feet in area for each structure or 205
portion of a structure with an assigned address. Street identification numbers are required in all sign 206
districts and should be clearly visible from the street. 207
(4) Exempt residential signs. Properties in sign district 1 shall be allowed up to eight square feet of signage 208
provided that a single sign is no larger than six square feet, the signs are not illuminated, and 209
freestanding signs are at least five feet from any property line. 210
(5) Portable signs. Portable A-frame, T-frame, sandwich, or other similar signs that do not exceed six 211
square feet in size, are not illuminated, are located within 15 feet of the primary entrance to a building, 212
and are displayed only during the hours of business operation. No more than two of these signs shall 213
be in place at any given time. 214
(6) Incidental signs. Incidental signs or signs within a building provided the sign is not readily visible from 215
the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. 216
(7) Window signs. Window signs that are inside of a building shall not require a permit but shall be in 217
accordance with section 78-1478, Table 1. 218
(8) Non-commercial signs. Any sign display or device allowed under this section may contain any otherwise 219
lawful noncommercial message that does not direct attention to a business operated for profit, or to a 220
commodity service for sale, and that complies with the size, height, and lighting requirements of this 221
division. 222
(9) Change of copy. No permit shall be required to change the text of a sign provided the sign structure 223
and face is not otherwise enlarged, modified, enhanced or altered in any way. 224
Commented [JB1]: Trying to address the stop, yield, etc.
signs placed on private roads.
Commented [JB2]: Already defined.
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 7 of 14
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 225
Sec. 78-1476. Prohibited signs. 226
The following signs shall be prohibited in all sign districts: 227
(1) Signs with moving, swinging, revolving, or rotating parts. 228
(2) Freestanding pole signs. 229
(3) Roof signs. 230
(4) Projecting signs. 231
(5) Noncompliant signs. Any sign not constructed, wired, assembled, attached, or supported in 232
conformance with applicable building or other codes and regulations. 233
(6) Signs in the right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way except as provided for, by Minnesota 234
Statutes, or allowed by the agency regulating the right-of-way. 235
(7) Signs attached to public utility poles, trees, street signs, stoplights, or fences. 236
(8) Permanent oOutdoor advertising signs, including billboards. 237
(9) Portable signs. Portable signs shall be prohibited, except for portable A-frame, T-frame, sandwich, or 238
other similar signs that do not exceed six square feet in size. 239
(10) Signs in the clear vision area. 240
(11) Signs imitating traffic control signs. Signs that are designed to resemble official traffic signs except signs 241
which are used to control traffic on private property. 242
(12) Any sign, sign type, sign lighting, or sign technology not specifically listed as permitted in this division 243
shall be prohibited. 244
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 245
Sec. 78-1477. Regulation by sign district. 246
For the purpose of regulating signs, the following sign districts are adopted: 247
District Description
1 All residential properties zoned R-1A, R-1B, LR-1A, LR-1B, LR-1C, LR-1C-1,
RR-1A, RR-1B, RR-1B-1, RS, PRD, RPUD
2 M-6, All nonresidential uses located in a residential district , including, but not limited to
schools, places of worship, neighborhood identification features .
3 B-1, B-2, B-4, B-5, B-6
4 B-3
5 I, PID
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 248
Commented [JB3]: Outdoor advertising signs are defined
as signs advertising a product of service not available on-
site.
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 8 of 14
Sec. 78-1478. Permitted sign type, area, height, and illumination by sign district. 249
All signs shall conform to the applicable standards in Table 1: Sign Standards by Sign District. The following 250
provisions shall also apply: 251
(1) Wall Sign. Wall signs shall not extend more than 18 inches from the wall they are attached to. 252
(2) Monument Signs. 253
a. No more than one monument sign shall be permitted on any site except in cases where 254
properties front more than one public street. For properties that front more than one public 255
street, one additional monument sign may be permitted provided that the additional monument 256
sign does not exceed half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a monument sign in the 257
underlying district. 258
b. The sign area of a monument sign shall only be calculated using one side of the sign. If the two 259
sides are different sizes, the larger side shall be used for determining sign area. 260
c. Monument signs shall be located at least five feet from any property line and shall not project 261
over the property line. Clear vision shall be maintained from all streets and driveways. 262
d. The total area of a monument sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a 263
monument sign. The total sign area includes all sign copy, graphics, and s tructure. 264
(3) Service Area Canopy. Each edge of a The street facing edge or face of a service area canopy is 265
permitted up to 50 sq ft of sign area in addition to all other sign areas permitted on site. Such street 266
facing edge or face of a service area canopy as well as areas underneath the canopy service area 267
canopy facing a street is permitted 25 square feet of sign area in addition to all other sign area 268
permitted on the site. Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other 269
part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. 270
(4) Awnings and Canopies. No part of an awning or sun canopy shall be less than eight feet or greater than 271
12 feet above grade. Any sign area on the awning, if illuminated, will be deducted fro m the permitted 272
sign area. The fabric or material used for the awning or canopy must be opaque and no internal 273
illumination is permitted. 274
(5) Adult Use Signs. In addition to this division, all adult use oriented signs shall comply with the sign 275
requirements in the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance. 276
Table 1: Sign Standards by Sign District
Sign Type District 1 District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5
Total Sign area on a parcel shall
be in proportion to the lot
frontage on a street, described
by the ratio: 1 foot of street
frontage to X feet of sign area,
unless otherwise noted
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:2.5 5% of
building
façade
WALL
Maximum sign copy area —
single sign
6 sf 20 sf 60 sf 100 sf 45 sf
Max Height wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
Commented [JB4]: The Commission wanted to protect
adjacent residential areas from sign glare.
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 9 of 14
Lighting (a) Not
permitted
E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B
FREESTANDING
Type (b) M M M M M
Total Maximum sign copy area 6 sf 32 sf 45 60 sf 45 60 sf 25 45 sf
Max Height 8 ft. 8 ft. 12 18 ft. 20 ft. 8 10 ft.
Lighting Not
permitted
E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B
GRAPHIC
Total maximum sign area 8 sf 20 sf 60 sf 60 sf 45 sf
Max Height wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
wall
height
Lighting Not
permitted
E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B
WINDOW
Maximum coverage area Not
permitted
Not
permitted
35% of
window
area, not
to
exceed
5% of
building
facade
35% of
window
area, not
to
exceed
5% of
building
facade
35% of
window
area, not
to
exceed
5% of
building
facade
AUXILIARY
Maximum sign copy area per sign 8 sf 8 sf 8 sf 8 sf 8 sf
Wall Height Not
permitted
4 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft.
Freestanding Height 4 ft. 4 ft. 6 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft.
(a) E = external, I = internal, B = backlit
(b) M = monument, P = pole
(c) Single pole support only.
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 277
Sec. 78-1479. Changeable message sign. 278
No more than 35 percent of the actual sign area of a permitted sign in a non -residential district shall be 279
capable of displaying changing messages. The remainder of the sign area shall not have the capability to change 280
messages even if not used. 281
a. Dynamic display that depicts time, temperature, or fuel prices only shall not be calculated as changeable 282
copy for the purposes of determining the 35% limit. 283
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 284
Commented [JB5]: The Commission were open to
increasing this from 45 sq ft, inquired what other cities do.
Wayzata allows 35-60 sq ft, depending on zone, Long Lake
allows 45-80 depending on zone, and Mound allows 48 sq
ft.
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 10 of 14
Sec. 78-1480. Allocation of permanent signs on multi-tenant development sites. 285
In multi-tenant buildings or sites, the permitted sign area and sign types, except for freestanding signs, may 286
be installed by each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or 287
otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. Tenants located on the street or otherwise 288
primary level in a center with a common mall or atrium shall be considered to have direct access to the outside for 289
the purpose of this section. The management and ownership of any business establishment proposing to install 290
signage must be separate and distinct from the management and ownership of any other establishment in the 291
same building or on the same building lot. 292
(1) Multi-tenant buildings and properties sign allocation. Signage for establishments occupying a multi-293
tenant building or site but not located on the street or primary level of the building must be provided 294
from the allocation of sign area and type to the occupants of the street or primary level of the build ing 295
as determined by the property owner. 296
(2) Freestanding signs on multi-tenant buildings and properties. For freestanding signs, a multi-tenant 297
parcel shall be considered one parcel and freestanding signs shall be permitted in accordance with 298
section 78-1478 Table 1. In the case of multiple tenant sites, the permitted freestanding sign area shall 299
be allocated by the property owner among its tenants. 300
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 301
Sec. 78-1481. Temporary on-premise signs. 302
All temporary signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placing the sign and shall conform to the 303
following: 304
(1) Temporary sign permit length. Temporary signs, including portable signs, streamers, pennants, 305
banners, inflatables, or other similar objects with a commercial message may be displayed on four 306
occasions per calendar year with a maximum of ten days for each occasion. The four occasions may be 307
used consecutively with one permit. Temporary sign permits are nontransferable to other properties or 308
establishments on the same property. 309
(2) Single occupant parcels. 310
a. No more than one permitted temporary sign shall be permitted at any given time. The area of the 311
temporary signage shall not exceed one half of the permitted sign area as allowed in section 78 -312
1478 Table 1 for a particular sign type in the underlying sign district. 313
b. Freestanding temporary signs shall only be permitted in districts where freestanding signs are 314
permitted as allowed in section 78-1478 Table 1. 315
(3) Multi-tenant parcels. 316
a. Each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or 317
otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside qualifies for the 318
temporary signs permitted in section 78-1481(1). Sign permits shall not be transferrable to other 319
business establishments. 320
b. Temporary wall signage may be permitted for each individual business establishment that has 321
exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct 322
access to the outside. The total temporary wall sign area for each tenant shall not exceed one 323
half of the permitted permanent wall sign area as allowed in section 78-1478 Table 1. Each 324
business shall not have more than one wall or freestanding temporary sign at a time. 325
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 11 of 14
c. One temporary freestanding sign may be permitted for each individual business establishment 326
that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building 327
and direct access to the outside. The total area of all temporary freestanding signage for the 328
parcel shall not exceed one half of the permitted area of permanent freestanding signage for the 329
parcel as allowed in section 78-1478 Table 1. The total permitted temporary freestanding sign 330
area shall be allocated by the property owner or their designee among its tenants. 331
(4) Grand openings. New businesses with grand openings are eligible for one additional temporary sign 332
permit of any type permitted in the underlying sign district with an approved permit. The sign may be 333
in place for up to 30 days provided all other requirements in this sect ion are met and the required 334
permits are obtained. This eligibility shall expire six months after the business opens. 335
(5) Sale, Rent, or Lease or vacant space. 336
a. Lots. Buildings or Pparcels for sale, rent, or lease, or those with space for sale or lease may obtain a 337
temporary sign permit for one temporary wall or monument freestanding sign per street frontage that 338
does not expire until seven days after the building or parcel is leased or sold. A wall sign shall not 339
exceed 32 square feet in size and shall be used in place of a permanent wall sign. A freestanding sign 340
shall not exceed 32 square feet in size. All other provisions in this section 78-1481 shall apply. 341
b. Space. Buildings with space for sale, rent or lease may obtain a temporary sign that does not expire 342
until the space is leased or sold, provided that the sign is not-illuminated or greater than 32 square feet 343
in size. 344
(6) Residential, commercial, industrial developments. For the purpose of selling or promoting a residential 345
project, including its architect, engineer, developer, financer, or contractor of six three or more 346
dwelling units one sign not to exceed 48 square feet; a commercial area three acres or more, or an 347
industrial area of ten acres or more, one sign not to exceed 96 48 feet of advertising surface may be 348
erected upon the project site. Such sign shall not remain after 90 percent of the project is developed. 349
One sign per street frontage may be permitted. 350
(7) Temporary sign height. A temporary sign shall not exceed the height limits listed in section 78-1478 351
Table 1 for a permanent sign of a particular sign type in a given district, including inflatable signs and 352
balloons. 353
(8) Sign installation. A temporary sign shall be secured and well-constructed so as not to create a hazard to 354
pedestrians or vehicles. 355
(9) Illumination. A temporary sign shall not be illuminated. 356
(10) Location. The permitted location of all temporary signs is subject to change as determined by the city 357
administrator or their designee in order to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics. 358
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 359
Sec. 78-1482. Sign standard adjustments. 360
Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, area, and/or location 361
of a sign or signs established by this division may be approved with a site plan review or planned unit development 362
process as described in Chapter 78, Article II, Division 4 and Chapter 78, Article VI of the Zoning Code. In order to 363
approve any sign standard adjustment, the following criteria of (1) or (2) shall be satisfied of this section, and the 364
necessary criteria of (3) shall be satisfied: 365
(1) There are site conditions that require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be reasonably visible from 366
a street immediately adjacent to the site. 367
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 12 of 14
(2) The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or style that will enhance the area or that is 368
more consistent with the architecture and design of the site. 369
(3) The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose of the zoning distric t 370
in which the property is located or the current land use. 371
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 372
Sec. 78-1483. Maintenance and repair. 373
All signs shall be kept in good repair and free from peeling paint, rust, damaged or rotted support, 374
framework or other material, broken or missing faces or missing letters. Any structure from which a sign has been 375
moved or removed shall be repaired with materials and/or painted or stained to match the existing background. 376
(1) Sign permit not required. Activities not requiring a sign or building permit considered normal 377
maintenance and repair and not requiring a sign or building permit shall include activities such as 378
replacing or repairing lamps, ballasts, transformers, trim, sign fasteners, nuts, or washers; painting the 379
pole or base of freestanding signs; and painting the cabinet of freestanding signs or building signs. 380
(2) Sign permit required. For any sign that required a permit, the following activities shall not be 381
considered normal maintenance and repair and a permit shall be required: 382
a. Removing the sign for the repair of the cabinet or any part thereof. 383
b. Changes made to a sign's size or illumination, including, but not limited to, height, width, weight, 384
area, adding or removing illumination. 385
c. Changes in poles, structural supports, bases or shrouds, footings, or anchor bolts, moving the sign 386
to a new location, or replacement of the interior or exterior cabinet frame, except the sign face. 387
(3) Building permit. A building permit may be required for any signs involving the construction of or 388
changes to a sign structure and/or electrical connections as determined by the building official. 389
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 390
Sec. 78-1484. Nonconforming signs. 391
It is the intent of this division that nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged or expanded, nor be used as 392
grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same district. It is further the intent of this 393
division to permit legal nonconforming signs to remain provided that such signs are safe, maintained so as not be 394
unsightly, and have not been abandoned or removed subject to the following provisions: 395
(1) Nonconforming sign continuance. A legal nonconforming sign may be continued through repair, 396
replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but shall not be expanded or moved to a new 397
location. 398
(2) Nonconforming sign discontinuance. If the use of the nonconforming sign or sign structure is 399
discontinued for a period of one year, the sign or sign structure shall not be reconstructed or used 400
except in conformity with the provisions of this division. 401
(3) Nonconforming sign damaged or destroyed. Should a nonconforming sign or sign structure be damaged 402
or destroyed by any means to an extent greater than 50 percent of its market value and all required 403
permits for its reconstruction have not been applied for within 180 days of when the sign or sign 404
structure was damaged, it shall not be reconstructed or used except in conformity with the provisions 405
of this division. 406
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 13 of 14
(4) Sign regulation conformance. Should a nonconforming sign or sign structure be permanently moved for 407
any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter conform to the regulations for the sign district in which 408
it is located after it is moved. 409
(5) Loss of nonconforming land use. An existing sign devoted to a use not permitted by Chapter 78, Article 410
IV of the Zoning Ordinance, in the zoning district in which it is located shall not be enlarged, expanded, 411
or moved except in changing the sign to a sign permitted in the sign district in which it is located. 412
(6) Loss of nonconforming status. When a building or use loses its nonconforming status, all signs devoted 413
to the structure or use shall be removed and all signs painted directly on the structure shall be 414
repainted in a neutral color or a color which will harmonize with the structure. 415
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 416
Sec. 78-1485. Severability. 417
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this division 4 is for any reason held to be invalid by 418
any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this 419
division 4. The city council hereby declares that it would have adopted this division 4 in each section, subsection, 420
sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, 421
clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. 422
(Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 1, 9-10-2018) 423
Secs. 78-1486—78-1490. Reserved. 424
425
426
Sec. 78-1373. - Gas stations. 427
Motor fuel stations in all districts shall be subject to the following performance standards: 428
(1) Fencing. A fence, wall or landscaping of acceptable design not over six feet or less than five 429
feet in height shall be constructed along the property line when the use abuts property residentially 430
used or in an R district, and the fence shall be adequately maintained. Application of this provision 431
shall not require a fence within the required front yard or within 15 feet of any street right-of-way 432
line. 433
(2) Surfacing. The entire site other than that taken up by a structure or planting shall be surfaced 434
with a material to control dust and drainage. 435
(3) Drainage. A drainage system subject to approval of the city engineer shall be installed. 436
(4) Curbs. A box curb not less than six inches above grade shall separate the public right-of-way 437
from the motor vehicle service areas, except at approved entrances and exits. 438
(5) Lighting. The lighting shall be accomplished in such a way as to have no objectionable direct 439
source of light visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent land in residential use. 440
Created: 2021-04-05 11:46:26 [EST]
(Supp. No. 19, Update 1)
Page 14 of 14
(6) Pumps. Pump islands shall be installed and conform to yard requirements. 441
(7) Driveways. No driveway at a property line shall be less than 30 feet from the intersection of two 442
street right-of-way lines. 443
(8) Signs. Signs shall be as regulated in the Orono Sign Code. Each motor fuel station may have 444
one pedestal-type sign not in excess of 48 square feet nor more than 22 feet in height, erected 445
within any yard; except that no part of the sign shall be less than six feet from a property line. No 446
part of the sign surface shall be less than 16 feet vertical distance from the grade of the nearest 447
driveway or parking areas. 448
(9) Sales prohibited. No sales of motor vehicles shall be permitted except as an integral part of a 449
new car agency. 450
(10) Number limited. Two stations only will be permitted at the same intersection. Two such 451
stations shall be permitted within each district without council approval. 452
(Code 1984, § 10.61(18)) 453
454
Commented [JB6]: Relocate sign regulations to one
section.
To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development
Director
Date: May 17, 2021
Subject: #LA21-000028, City of Orono Text Amendment related to signs
Public Hearing
Background
The city completed a comprehensive review of the sign ordinance in 2018, in an attempt to be
content neutral. Occasionally, however, signs are defined by what they say (i.e. real estate for
sale signs).
In the application of the ordinance since then, staff has identified certain regulations that are
unclear to the lay person, or overly restrictive, and this ordinance is intended to address those
concerns.
The proposed changes are provided in Exhibit A. Proposed deletions are struck-through, and
new text is underlined. Overall, changes are shown in red.
Analysis:
More prominent changes include:
Revised definition of Incidental signs to include examples, for clarity. (line 97)
Revised definition of Monument signs to remove the height restriction in the definition.
(lines 104-105)
Revised definition of Portable signs to better reflect the types of signs observed. (lines
117-126)
Revised definition to Public sign, changing it Regulatory or Directional Sign. Intended to
address traffic control signs placed on private roads, and signs placed by the city,
county, or park district. (lines 129-131)
Removed prohibition for signs attached to utility poles, trees, street signs, etc. as these
features are typically (with the exception of trees), in the right of way, duplicating #6.
(line 236)
Removed the word ‘permanent’ from prohibited outdoor advertising signs. This
regulation is intended to only allow for the advertisement of items or service offered on
the property. (line 237)
Added examples of non-residential uses in residential districts, for clarity (line 247)
Application Summary: The City is proposing amendments to the city code, in particular the
sign code, to clarify regulations, or to provide for signage more consistent with community
expectations.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval as drafted.
Council Exhibit B
LA21-28
FILE #LA21-000028
May 17, 2021
Page 2 of 2
Increased the allowable canopy signage area from 25 to 50 feet to better reflect
industry expectations. (lines 265-266)
Amended Table 1 to increase the height of monument signs in the business districts to
18 feet, and removed the maximum coverage for window signs, related to the building
façade because it is an extra level of regulation beyond what is necessary. (Table 1)
Amended dynamic display to exclude time/ temperature, and fuel price signs from the
35% changeable copy limit. Time and temperature are public service information,
and fuel prices are necessary for gas stations, and using their allotment of changeable
copy for fuel pricing is inconsistent with the intent of the ordinance. (lines 280-281)
Amended regulations for sale/ rent/ or lease signs, adding a paragraph b for clarity.
(lines 334-342).
Amended the regulation for development construction signs, reducing the triggers
where these signs are permissible. (lines 344-348)
Amended section 78-1373 which includes sign regulations that conflict with the sign
ordinance. The proposed solution is to reference the Orono Sign Code. (lines 442-446)
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Are the regulations (number of events/ duration) for temporary sign permits appropriate
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this ordinance?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the ordinance modifications as drafted.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Draft Ordinance
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 4
6. LA21-000028 TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO SIGN REGULATIONS
Staff gave a high-level overview of the summary packet of information (Item 6 on the Agenda under
Public Hearings). He noted they do not do a lot of sign permits as they do not have a huge commercial
area, but when they do they take notice to make sure they are meeting the goals of the ordinances. This
project and a couple others identified some areas where the City needs to look at the sign Code. Staff has
received authorization from the Council to examine it and make sure things are clear and meet the goals
of the community. Staff has drafted an ordinance amendment they think accomplishes a number of goals,
the mains ones relate to the definition of incidental signs (line 97). The sign ordinance is a standalone
document and provides all the regulations for signs in the City; when it was drafted in 2018 the goal was
that it would be content-neutral as they did not want to regulate signs based on what they said. Sometimes
in writing a content-neutral ordinance the clarity goes away and now they are trying to rebalance the
confusion level while not ignoring the content-neutral aspects. In clarifying, Staff tried to provide
examples so a lay person can understand what the sign ordinance is telling them they can do (lines 95 and
97). Barnhart walked the Commissioners through the suggested changes in his memo with examples.
Gettman asked regarding number 3, is there any research data that led him to 50 arbitrary feet being an
appropriate amount? What he heard earlier is that Marathon has a 70 to 144 square foot norm for the big
sign. He asked Barnhart if he did any analysis on some of the big companies that franchise?
Barnhart replied no. He has been in the Planning Department for 20 years and has heard examples such as
the Dodge dealership requires this, Marathon requires this, Speedway requires this; most cities do not care
and say “these are our standards and this is what you can do in our community.” He did look at source in
that respect, but used the application from earlier for the amount of signs – he felt the amount of signs
proposed was reasonable given the size of the building and lot. This is even more than what they would
be asking for. They did some analysis on what the other canopies were.
Gettman said going back to the branding, they cannot underestimate the value that these companies, and
corporations have spent millions doing the analysis on how much is that minimum square footage. If the
City wants to be friendly to the businesses, they have to understand what the branding necessity is for a
franchisee to come in.
Barnhart said that is a fair comment; if they ask any advertiser they will want the biggest sign they can
possibly get. Barnhart does not propose changing what part of a canopy cannot be illuminated because 7-
8 years ago Holiday went through a rebranding and wrapped their building in blue neons and they
received a lot of complaints from people that now their living room or office was blue because of the light
shining. Many cities did not consider neon to be signage; he does not want to write an ordinance that says
one cannot have neon as it is not a defendable ordinance. However, they can define where the lighting
occurs and that is how they arrived at the canopy not being lit.
Libby is aware of the fact there are very deep pockets in corporate research for signage, advertising, and
marketing – they have metrics and statistical data to draw from and make decisions on. He is still not sure
where the last line under number 3 (page 8 of 14) is coming from.
Barnhart read the line: Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other
part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated.
Council Exhibit C
LA21-28
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 4
Libby asked if there is concern about having external lighting that would be lighting toward the canopy or
is it backlit as a structure.
Barnhart replied in this application they are allowed up to 50 square feet of signage on the canopy. That
signage may be lit, either externally, internally, or backlit, but nothing else may be illuminated on the
canopy. This only applies to the surface area canopy.
Libby clarified it is the face of the canopy which is like the fascia on a house facing outward. He asked
where does that determination come from - from a ruling and ordinance standpoint - how was the decision
made that it is detrimental to have that permitted?
Barnhart stated it was written in to the existing Code and they put it in there because of the situation many
years ago with the Holiday station. The goal was to avoid those situations and that is where the
prohibition came from.
Libby noted if they have this ordinance and it is applied, then it is global and the Commission cannot look
at this on a case-by-case basis. If it is not a Holiday type of situation where it is not intrusive to offices or
other adjoining properties, will they not have the latitude then?
Barnhart noted they just did, as a half hour ago the Commission approved lighting of the canopy. He
clarified the only changes they are making are struck through/underlined in red in the document.
Kirchner said an applicant could always apply for a variance as they just saw.
Bollis noted he lived 1,000 feet away from a Holiday Station that had the wrap all the way around not
facing the street and it did put blue light into his house. He thinks “facing the street” is to protect residents
as there is no need to brand the back side of their canopy that is facing a residential neighborhood. In the
previous application it made sense they could light the sides not facing these street; but he thinks there
needs to be some protection for residents.
Barnhart’s proposal is to re-strike that limitation if the Commission would prefer. He hears Bollis say he
would not permit signage facing residential areas.
Libby agrees with that premise as many of these are zoned densely commercial and there are not
adjoining residential properties. If they could add language that would be more specific as to where it
would be intrusive to other businesses and/or residential so they do not have people coming back and
asking for variances if there is not that sort of intrusion by that type of lighting.
McCutcheon said language is tough and what if there is a house across the street…there is gray area.
Barnhart stated to keep in mind they would already be next door to a gas station which has some inherent
impacts.
Ressler agreed there is not a lot of purpose in lighting the back and they can apply for a variance. He likes
the change to 50 square feet for service area as that is doubling what they currently have and they can
continue to monitor it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 4
Erickson asked regarding line 229, free standing pole signs, perhaps it could be a bit expanded. He noted
a definition on line 86 that is somewhat similar.
Barnhart noted the pole sign definition prohibits two poles, basically the monument sign is the sign that
has a base mounted. He clarified there is a free standing sign definition, a pole sign definition, and a
monument sign definition.
Erickson said on Table 1 it comes up again in looking at free standing and “type B” do they want to
scratch pole out of there?
Barnhart replied they want to be as clear as possible. On Table 1 he is proposing an increase in the max
height for free standing signs in sign district 3 which is most of the commercial.
McCutcheon said the max height of a house is 30 so he can see staying under that; earlier tonight they
approved almost 22 feet.
Barnhart noted they approved 20 feet and Code allows 22 feet. He stated he is proposing to not count fuel
signs as changeable dynamic display as that is a reasonable expectation for those businesses. It is the
same with time and temperature displays. He shared one area they get a lot of pushback from the real
estate community is what kind of sign one can use to advertise a property for lease or a development and
is trying to clarify that signage. Planning Staff recommends approval of these changes with the comments
made earlier in terms of residential impact.
Bollis stated regarding the 45 square feet, he feels that is pretty limiting for a business. He thinks
Minnetonka has 50 square feet which is also pretty limiting. He asked how long it has been 45 square
feet.
Barnhart said when they changed the Code in 2018 that is when they did the 45. He does not recall what it
was before that time.
Bollis thinks it is pretty restrictive. He would be supportive of bringing that number up a bit perhaps to 50
or 55.
Ressler would not disagree with that, he thinks at least 50 square feet is reasonable.
Kirchner is not willing to put a number on it right here and would be curious to know what other
municipalities nearby are doing.
Erickson noted in Long Lake, Sherwin Williams has 80 and Speedway has 75 on the monument signs.
Ressler has driven by the signs several times and has never felt the sign was too large. If he were going to
pick a number, he thinks 75 square feet based on that.
Barnhart is hearing the Commission is open to some changes but Staff should provide some additional
feedback to the Council.
Chair Kirchner opened the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
Chair Kirchner closed the public hearing at 8:42 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 4
Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000028 Text Amendment Related to Sign
Regulations as applied with further Planning Commission feedback shared. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0.
Council Exhibit D
LA21-28
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By:
1. Purpose. To provide non-binding feedback on a proposed development project at the SE corner of Kelly
Avenue and Shoreline Drive.
2. Background/ proposal. This project involves the splitting of 3423 Shoreline Drive into two lots. One lot
would continue to house the existing multi-tenant building on the site, and another lot would be created to
house a proposed commercial building with a drive thru. The future drive thru tenant has not been disclosed.
Access to the site is via an existing entrance off of Shoreline. They have approached the county about shifting
the access to the east, but the county has not supported that proposal. The lower parking lot is accessed via
Kelly Avenue. The plans do not show this parking area serving the new eastern lot with more than a few
spaces.
With the split, both lots would meet the minimum lot area and width for the district. However, the existing
and proposed improvements would likely exceed the structural and hardcover limits for the lots (final
hardcover calculations have not been received). Like most areas of Navarre, the existing commercial building
was built prior to the city establishing hardcover limits, and therefore were not developed with those goals in
mind. Recognizing that there have been stormwater issues in the past, perhaps the hardcover concerns could
be mitigated with stormwater management on site.
3. Planning Commission Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the project at their meeting on
May 17th. The Commissioners didn’t have too many concerns with the plat, and didn’t seem to have issues
with the hardcover exceeding permissible levels.
The Commission generally supported the project, and commented specifically on the location of the driveway,
the orientation of the drive-thru lane, parking, and hardcover levels. Some of the commissioners suggested
converting the project to a PUD. A PUD would require a zone change in addition to the Plat and site plan
approval.
4. Public Comment. To date, one public comment has been received, attached as Exhibit G.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recognizes that reinvestment on some of the commercial properties in
Navarre will likely require flexibility from some city codes and regulations, in this case hardcover limitations.
Staff supports the lot configuration.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should provide comment on the proposal.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Plat
B. Preliminary Plan
C. PC Minutes – draft
D. PC Staff report
E. Staff Comment Letter
F. County Comment letter
G. Public comments
Item No.: 23 Date: June 14, 2021
Item Description: LA21-000034 – Reprise Design o/b/o Brook Investment Group,
LLC, 3423 Shoreline Drive – Sketch Plan
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
A
L
A
2
1
-
3
4
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
8
'
-
3
1
/
4
"
2
2
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
109'-9"
9
4
9
'
-
0
1
/
2
"
8
8
44'-0 1/2"76'-0"
epriseDESIGN
2
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
E
x
h
i
b
i
t
B
L
A
2
1
-
3
4
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 3
7. LA21-000034 CHARLES SCHATZ O/B/O BROOK INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, 3423
SHORELINE DR, SKETCH
Corey Englund, o/b/o the Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary packet of information (Item 7 on the Agenda under Public Hearings). The
project is a proposed subdivision where they are creating one commercial lot at the southwest corner of
Kelly Parkway and Shoreline Drive. Typically in looking at the Code each lot maintains the required lot
area and lot width and both parcels would meet the minimum 20,000 square feet in size. Analysis shows
lot 1 might be higher in structural coverage and impervious surface which is one area they need to look at.
The proposed development on the east side is in concept stage and appears to meet the requirements in
terms of hardcover but there seemed to be an impact from a setback standpoint. The proposed layout
would likely require variances for hardcover and structural coverage for the existing building, and the side
yard setback from Kelly Parkway. Staff is looking for sketch plan feedback that would be carried forward
to the City Council and then to the applicant.
McCutcheon said it is a one story building and asked if they wanted, could they have a two story
building?
Barnhart said if it met the requirements of setbacks and other factors, yes, they possibly could. From a
commercial standpoint in going more than one level it starts adding parking requirements.
Bollis asked why subdivide and not a PUD or a different type?
Barnhart said it is six-of-one and a-half-dozen of the other in terms of process. One is a re-zoning and
public hearing and this is the path the applicant chose.
Corey Englund, Reprise Design, 2400 Portland Ave. S, Burnsville, is with the architecture group on
behalf of the applicant. This is a vacant lot that is used to sell fireworks on occasion, but is otherwise a
dusty, empty lot. The site is somewhat challenging because there is a retaining wall dividing the north and
south portion of the lot; they are somewhat restricted in developing any kind of a driveway. He thinks this
is a good use of an empty lot but before they proceed with anything they need to know that it is feasible
from a platting standpoint and would like to assess if the variances would be supported. There will be
some difficulties as stated, with hardscape coverage, and on the existing lot with structural coverage.
Libby asked on the Kelly side, there is a fairly substantial grade, that is natural topography as they could
not put a driveway in there. He said the adjacent property is the liquor store.
Mr. Englund replied yes.
McCutcheon noted since the retaining wall would be shared between both properties, for future use of
perhaps a loading dock, has the applicant put any thought into how they would use the space to the south.
Mr. Englund thinks the southern space will have an egress ability for the other lot but will mostly remain
as-is for now because of the topographic difficulties, about 5-6 feet of grade change from the upper lot to
the lower lot.
Council Exhibit
C
LA21-34
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 3
Barnhart clarified they would not suggest much more development south of the existing retaining wall
because then they are starting to encroach in the residential district and they want to be cautious of those
impacts.
Kirchner asked if they are adding 4 new parking stalls.
Mr. Englund replied yes, parallel stalls.
Kirchner asked if they are able to exempt the driveway that runs to the south because it is not servicing
the second lot, but arguably that would be the only way to access those four parking stalls, and then
comes back to hardcover.
Barnhart said the four stalls were added to address a parking count analysis. That is something they can
continue to work with the applicant on.
McCutcheon asked about an easement to use those steps if one would have to park there would they have
to walk across Kelly?
Barnhart stated they would probably look at some sort of easements.
Bollis asked if it would be a cross-flow parking easement for the entire site.
Barnhart replied yes, there would be some sort of access easement, some parking easement although this
area is open to discussion, and if there is not already a cross access easement through the portion, and
perhaps over in another area. It is all part of the site analysis.
Bollis is fine with having a business there and thinks it is big enough.
Erickson asked if there has been any indication of the type of commercial business there.
Mr. Englund replied yes, they are looking at a drive-through coffee shop/donut shop concept. Perhaps
with a second tenant space of 1,000-2,000 square feet.
Kirchner gave his opinion on the drive-through configuration emptying out in the manner in which it does
gives him consternation because there is similar coffee shop with another tenant in a newly constructed
building in a City to the east. The drive through creates an absolute nightmare and headache as people
wait in that line to get their coffee and creates ingress and egress issues. He reiterated the hardcover
concern if the driveway to the south is or is not counted, he would like to see something other than a dirt
lot but wants to make sure they are not giving up so much to make that happen.
Erickson shares the concern on that and said QSR’s are very popular and it is possible they can become
victims of their own popularity with big lines backing up and trying to get in and out. He hopes there is
another way to configure that to get a clear shot out to 19 or some other way.
Barnhart asked which location Kirchner is having problems with?
Kirchner replied it is the Starbucks in Wayzata right across from the gas stations before getting on
Highway 12.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 17, 2021
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 3
Barnhart noted there are not a lot of other options as they do not want traffic onto Kelly or south into that
little parking area. He said they can do some examination on what they can do and that type of feedback
is very helpful.
Bollis’ concerns on the subdivision are they are creating a property that literally does not have its own
access and it has to access through the neighboring property. If it were ever to be sold separately, with the
easements they are talking about, he believes they ran into an issue with O’Sullivan’s and the old
Snyder’s building with a similar situation. He would rather see this application as a CUP or PUD so it is
still one parcel but the Commission gets to see it in its entirety and possibly realign the access to the site.
Ressler agrees that is a good point to make it a Planned Unit Development (PUD) so it would have
common areas for the access in and out. He said the issue with the Starbucks in Wayzata is a good point
and he pointed out the McDonald’s right next door to it, and a gas station, and a strip mall, all sharing that
space. It is a nightmare no matter what they are doing and the traffic counts are probably a bit heavier
there. He is more encouraged to think about the Caribou in Mound on Shoreline Drive where there does
not seem to be as much of an issue getting in and out of there.
McCutcheon clarified they do not want to access Kelly because it is a residential street.
Barnhart replied yes, and because of the grade issues. Any access on to Shoreline would be further east of
Kelly which would be beneficial from a traffic movement standpoint. Assuming it is not a PUD, a drive
through restaurant will be a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) back through the Commission. If it is a PUD
the zone change will come back through the Commission. The Council will see this on June 14, 2021
To:Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members
Adam Edwards, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP, Community Development
Director
Date: May 17, 2021
Subject: #LA21‐000034, Charles Schatz o/b/o Brook Investment Group, LLC, 3423
Shoreline Dr, Sketch Plan
Background
The subject property is a 1.58 acre parcel on the south side of Shoreline Drive, west of Kelly
Avenue. The property is improved with a multi‐tenant building and parking along Shoreline, and
another parking lot south of the building, off of Kelly Avenue. The eastern 1/3 of the property is
vacant. A gas station in this portion of the property was closed in 1977 and the fuel tanks were
removed in 1983. Contamination cleanup was completed in 2002. The parcel is home to
occasional seasonal sales (fireworks), but otherwise is used for parking.
Proposal
The property owner proposes splitting the parcel into two lots, one for a future drive through
business, and the other retaining the existing multi‐tenant building. The first step in a proposed
subdivision is a sketch plan. The Planning Commission and City Council area asked for initial,
non‐binding feedback on the lot split.
The property is zoned B‐1 Retail Sales Business.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Required
Lot 1 (Existing
building
Lot 2 (Proposed
building)
Lot area 20,000 47,017 25,000
Width 100 206.52 108.96
Front setback 35 70 44
Rear setback 35 80 109
Street side
setback 35 NA 22
Interior setback 15 0/ 15.03 49
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting non‐binding feedback on the proposed plat
to create one new buildable lot at the SW corner of Shoreline and Kelly Ave.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests direction. Variances will be
necessary to develop as proposed.
Council Exhibit D
LA21-34
FILE # LA21-000034
May 17, 2021
Page 2 of 3
All setbacks listed are for buildings
Section 78‐1403 – Structural Building Coverage:
Preliminary calculations of the proposed lots show structural coverage for lot 1 at 23.4%, and
the proposed building on lot 2 at 11.4%. The maximum permitted without a variance is 20
percent. Lot 1 would need to be approximately 7,000 sq ft larger to accommodate the structural
coverage, which reduces the size of lot 2 below the 20,000 sq ft minimum.
Section 78‐1680 and 78‐1700 – Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone
Allowed
Hardcover
Tier 2 (Lot 1) 47,017 s.f. 14,105 s.f.
(30 %)
Tier 2 (Lot 2) 25,000 s.f. 7,500 s.f.
(30 %)
Hardcover calculations have not yet been completed for this proposed sketch plan but are
expected to be in excess of the maximum.
Access. The applicants have requested permission to relocate the entrance off of Shoreline.
Preliminarily, the County does not support this change (Exhibit E). Other than the drive serving
the existing parking lot to the south of the building, access is not proposed, or recommended,
off of Kelly Avenue.
Analysis:
The proposed lot split meets the lot area and width requirements of the zoning district. However,
proposed layout will likely require variances for hardcover and structural coverage for the existing
building, and, as shown, a side street setback for the proposed drive through building. Staff has
provided additional comment regarding the proposal in a letter dated April 30, 2021, attached as
Exhibit D. These comments include a review of the parking study provided for the new building,
information on business design outlined by the city code, and the stormwater/ structural
coverage issues identified above.
Staff does not typically support variances for subdividing property. However, given the age of the
existing building and the era in which it was developed (pre stormwater regulation) some
flexibility in the form of variance is likely justified to facilitate incremental reinvestment in the
property.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission have comments regarding the proposed lot split?
2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
FILE # LA21-000034
May 17, 2021
Page 3 of 3
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends the Commission provide feedback.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Proposed Plat
Exhibit C. Proposed site plan
Exhibit D. Staff comment letter dated 4‐30‐21
Exhibit E. County comments
April 30, 2021
Charles Schatz VIA EMAIL
12400 Portland Ave S #100 cschatz@reprisedesign.com
Burnsville, MN 55337
Re: Concept Plan @ 3423 Shoreline
File # LA21-000034
Mr. Schatz,
I has received and completed a preliminary review of your proposed concept plan for a proposed building at 3423
Shoreline Drive. I have the following comments to offer as we prepare for a Planning Commission review of your
project. I have tried to be as thorough as possible, but note that additional comments may be generated as review
continues. If you would like to supplement your application, or make any changes to the plan, these should be provided
no later than May 10, 2021. I intend to place this on the Planning Commissions agenda for May 17, 2021.
1. Process. The City does not review conceptual conditional use permits or site plan proposals. We do have a process
for a sketch plan, which allows for the review of a potential subdivision. This project will be processed as a sketch plan.
Subdividing the property will involve a preliminary plat and a final plat. Given the nature of the project, and no apparent
public improvements, I can support these two reviews occurring concurrently. The preliminary plat will require a public
hearing.
The building will require a conditional use permit. This will require a public hearing, also. The public hearings can occur
at the same time, or separately.
2. Plat/ subdivision.
a.Please confirm that the new lot is at least 20,000 sq ft and has 100 feet of width at the Shoreline Drive.
Also, we will need to confirm that the remaining parcel:
b.Has no more than 20% structural coverage and 30% impervious surface area.
c.Retains at least 15 foot side yard setback (to the east).
3. Hardcover. The city code limits the site to 30% coverage of pervious surfaces. The portion of the lower driveway
that serves the commercial buildings to the west can be excluded from the hardcover limits.
4. Structural coverage. The city code limits structural coverage to 20% of the lot area.
5. Stormwater management. Confirmation of permit requirements from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed district will
be necessary. It is expected that stormwater leaving the site cannot exceed predevelopment levels of rate, volume,
and phosphorus.
6. Access. The County will need to approve access location.
a.A cross access and parking easement will be required over at least the shared drive aisles and parking spaces
east of the existing liquor store.
7. Parking/ loading. I appreciate the parking study completed and submitted. I do have some comments:
Council Exhibit E
LA21-34
a. The parking spaces the ‘head’ into the building will need some sort of curbing to protect cars from bumping
into the building.
b. All spaces on both lots will need to be restriped according to the approved plan, including those in the lower
level.
c. The parking study suggests a need for 58 spaces, based on, among other uses, the 4,492 sq ft of storage
garages and 7,000 sq ft for antique store. The antique = furniture store will need to be verify prior to formal review.
However, I cannot support parking calculations that assumes a non-permissible use (garage). For our analysis I can
apply the following use calculations and assumptions:
Use Designation Ratio NFA* Computed
spaces
Auto parts Retail 1/150 2676 18
Liquor Retail 1/150 1567 10
Antique store Furniture 1/500 7027 14
Vacant Office 1/200 4492 22
(coffee shop) Restaurant 1/80 1764 22
*assumed based on study 86
Based on these uses, 86 spaces are provided, and 84 spaces are provided. The lower level parking lot layout may yield
better information as to the number of spaces available. Otherwise, a variance may be required, which your parking
study and the mix of uses and peak times offers some argument for a variance.
8. Building design. The zoning code outlines minimum building standards for buildings in the B-1 zoning districts:
(1) All exterior wall finishes on any building shall be:
a. Face brick;
b. Natural stone;
c. Specially designed precast concrete units if the surfaces have been integrally treated with an applied
decorative material or texture;
d. Factory fabricated and finished metal framed panel construction, if the panel materials are of any of
those noted in subsections (g)(1)a—c of this section; or
e. Other materials as may be approved by the council. Combinations of such materials shall be
permitted.
A building design is not required for a subdivision sketch plan, but will be required as part of the Conditional Use Permit.
Lighting. As this project is adjacent to residential neighborhood, effort should be made to prevent light pollution into
the neighborhood. This should include cut off shields for any parking lot lights, shrubbery for car headlights, etc.
Photometric plans will be required.
Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions on
the above requirements.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
From:Jason D Gottfried
To:Corey Englund
Cc:Melanie Curtis; Jeremy Barnhart; Ashley Morello; Michael D Olmstead
Subject:RE: [External] Navarre Retail - 3423 Shoreline Dr, Orono, MN
Date:Thursday, April 22, 2021 9:41:56 AM
Attachments:image001.png
02-16-21_Navarre Retail_ Preliminary Site Plan #01.pdf
Hello Corey,
I was able to bring your inquiry to our most recent plat review committee (04/20) and want to offer
the following thoughts from our engineering staff for consideration by your team and the city:
This is a very challenging site from an access and traffic standpoint with 3 existing driveways in short
succession with heavy traffic volumes and routine backups along Shoreline Drive resulting in a lot of
conflict points. We believe the shifting the driveway to the east as you propose, would even further
diminish safety and operations for two main reasons; 1.) Driveway would then be located in the EB
right turn lane for Kelly Ave, further increasing driver confusion about where a vehicle is turning
here. 2.) The inbound drive thru aisle would have backups directly onto Shoreline Drive. This concern
is further compounded by the inbound drive thru aisle competing with parking bays. Perhaps
reversing the direction of the drive thru would help some, but we still have all the same concerns.
Our 1st preference for this site would be to either close this easterly access outright or work with the
city and the neighboring businesses for a broader rethinking of access and circulation here
consolidating driveways. I understand that may be a long shot, at least at this time, but curious if
there is an access easement(s) across the propert(ies) that may make this feasible now or in the
future? A closure of access would provide more space for parking, improve safety and operations of
the roadway and provide for a more walkable / bikeable area next to the pedestrian crossing/refuge.
If none of this seems reasonable at this time, you could always just leave the driveway(s) as is, and
we will continue to monitor safety and operations. This seems like a lengthy response to a fairly
simple question, but we just finished a fairly significant improvement project at the intersection
(CSAH 15 / CSAH 19) and do not want to take any steps backwards.
Thanks for your inquiry early on in the design process, allowing for additional planning and
modification as necessary. I welcome further discussion over the phone or possibly a teams mtg with
city staff as well as necessary. Just wanted to get our initial thoughts out clearly in an email for
everyone involved
Be well
Jason
Jason Gottfried
Transportation Planner
Transportation Planning
Council
Exhibit F
LA21-34
Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073jason.gottfried@hennepin.usHennepin County Public Works1600 Prairie DriveMedina, MN 55340(working remotely)
From: Corey Englund <cenglund@reprisedesign.com>
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2021 2:04 PM
To: Jason D Gottfried <Jason.Gottfried@hennepin.us>
Subject: [External] Navarre Retail - 3423 Shoreline Dr, Orono, MN
Dear Jason,
I am working on a project that will be alongside County Road 15 (Shoreline Drive) in Orono. The
existing site address is 3423 Shoreline Dr, and the PID is 2011723120034. This project is in
preliminary design to develop the vacant eastern portion of the property into a second lot with a
drive-thru building, and we’re looking to go in for initial site plan review with Orono in the near
future. Since site access is from County Road 15, it will also be important to coordinate County
requirements. In particular, we are interested in relocating the existing curb cut for site access to
improve traffic flow to the parking lot expansion and drive-thru. I’ve attached a concept plan of the
site and a traffic study for this site.
Please let me know if you are the best contact to speak to for this project. We are interested in
getting feedback on any design concerns from the County as well as eventual requirements for
formal submittal and review.
Thank you,
Corey Englund
Project Manager
Reprise Design I 12400 Portland Avenue S. Suite 100 I Burnsville, MN 55337 I U.S.A.
Phone: 952.252.4042 I Direct: 952.562.3728 I Email: cenglund@reprisedesign.com
***CAUTION: This email was sent from outside of Hennepin County. Unless you recognize the
sender and know the content, do not click links or open attachments.***
Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify
the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from
your computer system.
From:James Gagne
To:Jeremy Barnhart
Subject:#LA21-000034
Date:Tuesday, May 18, 2021 8:48:27 AM
Jeremy,
I noticed that the owners of the property at Kelly Ave and Shoreline
Drive are looking to replat and develop their parcel of land. It has
been a blighted corner for as long as I can remember and I welcome
the new development. My concern is that it appears to be either a
fast food or coffee shop which again I am not opposed to but can’t
the city try and steer this into an overall redevelopment of that
block? It is one of the prime areas in Navarre to develop and if the
city will show some vision it could be something really nice for the
community.
I hate to try and dictate what someone wants to do on their
property but this is a really important asset to the city and lets do
something nice there.
Thanks,
James R. Gagne
2615 West Lafayette Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
612-709-5158
jgagne61@gmail.com
Council Exhibit G
LA21-34