Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-27-2020 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, April 27, 2020 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. To participate in this meeting please follow the instructions below: Please register to participate in the April 27, 2020 Orono City Council Meeting. The meeting begins at 6:00PM at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/1485869424572003342 After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. Brought to you by GoToWebinar® Webinars Made Easy® Meeting Participation Instructions for Applicants and the Public can be found at: https://www.ci.orono.mn.us/DocumentCenter/View/2255/Instructions-for-Orono-Public-Meetings-Held- Electronically Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of April 13, 2020 2. Council Work Session Minutes of April 13, 2020 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approve Payroll Services 5. Approval of Rental Licenses 6. Approval of Hennepin County 2020 Special Event Permit – Long Lake Rowing Crew 7. Approval to Accept Donations 8. Approval to Dispose of Firearms 9. Approval to Dispose of Unclaimed Property 10. Appoint Seasonal Employees 11. LA20-000012 – Source Land Development Inc., Lakeview of Orono – Resolution 12. LA19-000091 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Grading and Land Alterations 13. Dock License, Site C 14. Dock License, Site D Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person) This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. If you would like to speak during Public Comments, please select the “raise my hand” option that is offered within the webinar setting on your screen. One of the Meeting Panelists will acknowledge that there is a question from the Agenda Council Meeting Monday, April 27, 2020 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 attendees and will announce that it is your turn to speak. Speakers should state their name and home address before speaking. 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. City Engineer/Public Works Director Report 15. Sanitary Sewer Service Line Inspection Program – Draft Ordinance Planning Department Report 16. LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit 17. LA20-26, Jay Pomeroy/Orono Public Schools, 2687 Wayzata Blvd W, Site Plan Approval Public Hearing 18. LA20-000023, Kelley Parrow o/b/o Weis Builders, 2635 Kelley Parkway, RPUD Amendment 19. LA20-000024, Jay Nygard. 1380 Rest Point Road, Variances Lot area, Lot width, Hardcover, Side Yard setback 20. LA20-000025, John Kraemer, 855 Old Crystal Bay Rd S, Variance: Average Lakeshore Setback Mayor/Council Report City Administrator Report 21. Discuss May Planning Commission City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2020 05-04-20 Park Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-11-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 05-11-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 05-18-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Richard Crosby) 05-25-20 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed 05-26-20 Council Work Session, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. 05-26-20 City Council Meeting, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m. 06-08-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 06-08-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 06-15-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Aaron Printup) 06-22-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 06-22-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 25 The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh and the following members appearing remotely: City Council Members Richard Crosby, II, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Finance Director Ron Olson, Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 30, 2020 2. CLAIMS/BILLS 3. ADOPT SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY 4. APPROVE RENTAL LICENSE 5. ACCEPT DONATION – ELECTION JUDGE SERVICE 6. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF FIREARMS 7. LA20-000011 – CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENTNO. 242, THIRD SERIES RELATED TO APPEALS 8. LA20-000020 – DEAN JOHNSON O/B/O HOMETIME VIDEO PRODUCTIONS, INC., 90 CREEK RIDGE PASS/CREEKSIDE IN ORONO FINAL PLAT RESOLUTION AMENDMENT – RESOLUTION NO. 7083 9. LA19-000071 – LAUREL ULLAND ARCHITECTURE/MARTHA MEYERS HEAD, 2090 SHORELINE DRIVE, VARIANCE – AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. 7804 10. DOCK LICENSE FOR DOCK SITE A This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 11. DOCK LICENSE FOR DOCK SITE B This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. 12. LA19-000091 – CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 243, THIRD SERIES RELATED TO GRADING AND LAND ALTERATIONS This item was removed from the Consent Agenda. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 25 14. LA20-000001 – NEIL WEBER O/B/O ORONO APARTMENTS LLC, 2475 KELLEY PARKWAY, FINAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN – RESOLUTION NO. 7085 Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as revised, with Item Nos. 10, 11, and 12 being removed from the Consent Agenda, and Item No. 14 being added to the Consent Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh), Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mr. Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, Orono LMCD representative, said he would like to bring the Council up to speed on LMCD events. He noted there is an ongoing lawsuit with a Minnetonka Beach resident. He’s asked how much they are responsible for and was told it would be 25% of the first $250,000. He asked for a number; they have not given him a definite number. He has also asked for the 2019 P&L and balance statement; that has not been received, either. He indicated at the last meeting they had an agenda item for approval of the audit of the books. He wanted to comment about the lack of a P&L and budget for 2019 and vote for not approving that item. They pulled it off of the agenda. He suggested that Olson or Rief take a look at that information. He also said at the last meeting, before the Governor declared new regulations for COVID-19, the LMCD posted on their website who could and who could not work on the lake. There were 100 people at the Zoom meeting and there was a lot of discussion because people wanted to get their docks in. They declared that dock workers could not work and people could not haul or move boats. He made a motion that they take that part of the website down. It was about a 12-2 vote in favor of taking that down. Currently, the website indicates dock installers should talk to the DNR or COVID-19 people. He said recently an Orono resident was looking for a dock extension to get to 4 feet and dealing with side setbacks, etc. He is looking at that and will make a recommendation to try and get it done. Johnson referenced a letter being created by the City of Minnetonka Beach to send to the Governor making sure dock installers and marinas are considered essential, and they wanted to know if Orono would support a letter like that. He asked Mr. Anderson if he felt that was necessary. Mr. Anderson said because he is a marina owner, he did not think it was fair for him to ask them to pull the information from the website and he would work around it. He said it was his opinion that the City of Minnetonka Beach did not have to say anything, nor should the City of Orono. The LMCD became the expert on who can do what and the Governor has already said who can do what, so it is a non-factor. The dock installers are installing docks; boat haulers are hauling boats; marinas are putting boats in. It is clearly a gray area. He noted Jon Ressler made a good point in the discussion at the LMCD meeting that 20 construction guys are working on houses, and dock people are dock constructors. He used that term when he told the LMCD to take down the information on the website. He asked why anybody would think they have the authority over what is right and what is wrong. His opinion is to stay out of it. Crosby asked Mr. Anderson how much money Orono put into the lawsuit. Mr. Anderson said that he did not know the numbers or whether or not it was Orono. He reminded everyone that the LMCD is increasing Orono’s fee of 2.4% and noted there is a rounding error. He heard through the grapevine there was a presentation made to possibly settle the lawsuit and that the City of Minnetonka Beach is going to the mat. Minnetonka Beach indicated in their newsletter they think they can win the lawsuit. He hopes the City of Orono opposes any increase in their percentage paid because 2.4% doesn’t add up to much but it is about what is right and wrong. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 25 Johnson asked whether Orono is essentially 40% of their budget. Rief said that 25% of $250,000 would be $62,500, and 40% of that number would be $25,000. Mr. Anderson clarified that Rief was not saying the 2.4% increase was $25,000. Rief said if the lawsuit gets to $250,000, that would be Orono’s max amount. From there it changes based on what the insurance is. He said he would find out more information about the issue. Mr. Anderson noted that was a very big number and he would appreciate the information. 10. DOCK LICENSE FOR DOCK SITE A Barnhart stated this is the first dock license the ordinance was changed for and it seems to meet every requirement. Johnson said he pulled Numbers 10 and 11 off for the same reason: he noticed the dock plan drawings are not very precise and missing some actionable items if there is ever a need for enforcement. He brought up the order of approval, and asked if the LMCD approval should come before the City issues it. Because it is a City-owned property and there has not been a dock at this site before, he asked whether the City is required to have a permit to have a dock there and if that should be before the City approves the permit. Walsh asked Mattick to confirm the City needs to give the applicant approval before the LMCD can give their approval, because otherwise the applicant does not have anything to get approval for by the LMCD. Mattick said his impression is that the LMCD usually makes their decision once the City has. He doesn't know what the LMCD’s approval process is. Walsh noted the LMCD could say they do not even have a right to put a dock in; and until the City says someone has the right, there is nothing to approve. Johnson said he understands some/one of the docks is already in, which Seals confirmed. Barnhart clarified that 1 dock was put in but it was not 1 of the 2 on the agenda. The Council will review that dock at the end of the month. Walsh stated his common sense says the City needs to give approval before the LMCD is approached by the applicant for their approval. Mr. Anderson said he is under the impression it does not need to go to the LMCD. He cited his understanding of the parameters: with any lot that was in existence since 1970, for any property 40-60 feet, the dock can go out 60 feet. The applicant can get a variance to go to 4 feet of water. He does not think that is a problem in this case because the 2 middle docks are 60-62 feet. He thinks the drawing has to have some numbers on it. The side setbacks are 10-50 feet, and 15 feet if you go from 50-100 feet. He said the City should decide if they want to stay 10 feet off the fire lane to establish something for the next 2 guys. He thought the City should require the 10-foot setback, which is in the LMCD rules. Johnson indicated the application states they have to be a minimu m of 10 feet off the property line. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 25 Mr. Anderson noted the City, as owner, can require 10 feet off of each side setback, which would coincide with LMCD rules. It looks like the applicant is trying to get 2 boats there, and it specifically says it is 1 boat per 50 feet if you don’t own the property. He noted the Browns, the next application up for discussion, have only had 1 boat there. The dock that was put in is for the property to the east, which is Al Shatslee’s, and has only had 1 boat there. Walsh said if they owned both boats, they would be fine. Mr. Anderson stated the regulations indicate 1 boat per 50 feet if the applicant does not own the property; they do not own the property. Walsh noted the City requires the applicant to follow the LMCD rules. Mr. Anderson stated that is the rule he received from the LMCD Director. Crosby indicated the City lists that rule in the Dock Site License Agreement. Seals said when she looked through the documents, it looked like there were multiple boat licenses for each dock, which would apparently conflict with the information in the LMCD rules. She feels it is concerning that 1 dock is already in. Walsh noted that what is in front of the Council today is that applications are approved subject to following the LMCD rules. He said if they want to flout the rules and the potential of losing their license, that is the decision the applicants can make. Printup said the City made it very clear that the applicants can lose their license and that they are not starting out very well. He has no problem whether something or nothing is there. He encouraged everyone to please follow the correct process, because he can vote no very easily. Seals stated there are 2 different boat licenses on the application and asked Barnhart to confirm or deny her understanding. Barnhart said the applicant identified 2 boats that would be docked on the dock. One of the conditions of the agreement is that it must comply with LMCD rules and regulations. Seals stated that the applicant had to choose 1 of the boats. Walsh said regardless of the request, the City can still approve the license based on the applicant following the LMCD rules, which states they get 1 boat. They can pick 1 boat or no boats, but if they pick 2, then they lose their license potentially or have to correct the issue within the appropriate time frame. Mr. Anderson stated he verified the rules with the Administrator. He did not think there would be an issue with the LMCD approving a new license. He said there needs to be a better drawing showing that it is 10 feet off the sidelines and the dock is no more than 60 feet, which sets things up for the other docks. Crosby agreed with Mr. Anderson. Walsh said the City’s rules are clear in the license. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 25 Mr. Anderson agreed with Walsh, noting the language is clear. Crosby suggested the Dock Site License Agreement should have identified the details of the LMCD rules regarding the number of feet. Mr. Anderson stated the City did it the right way because they said it was per LMCD rules. Johnson said the City is referencing the watershed code or the fire code, noting they have authority at the water. The City needs to do their part and they have some authority as far as some “dock police” and asked what they are policing. He assumed it would be what is on the application. Walsh asked Mattick if granting a license gives someone a form of ownership, or how that is portrayed. Mattick said he would view it more as permission to be on the property. He is not sure he would characterize a license as an ownership interest. He does not know how the LMCD would view that in terms of the number of boats. He indicated he would prefer the license language to refer to the LMCD regulations without a level of specificity in case they change, because then the applicant is still subject to the rules. Council members agreed that Mattick made a good point. Walsh stated as long as the Council has it specified, the City can approve the license, probably with the caveat that only 1 boat can be there or they are in violation of the LMCD rules, unless permission is received from the LMCD. Crosby indicated that the applicants need that information to be communicated, in case they are not at the online meeting. Mr. Anderson stated the applicant’s name is Jon Eiss. After Council members noted Jon Eiss was not listed as an attendee, Barnhart stated he could communicate the 1-dock limit and that they should consult with the LMCD to make sure they comply with the requirements. Council members agreed that Barnhart should do so. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Dock License for Dock Site A, correcting it to be 1 boat, and that the dimensions of the dock and setback should be included in the drawing. Johnson noted the City did not need a survey drawing at this point for this purpose, but the applicant could improve the drawing by including the dimensions of the setback and the overall dock length. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Printup, Seals, Walsh), Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 25 11. DOCK LICENSE FOR DOCK SITE B Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Dock License for Dock Site B, correcting it to be 1 boat, and that the dimensions of the dock and setback should be included in the drawing. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Printup, Seals, Walsh), Nays 0. 12. LA19-000091 – CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 243, THIRD SERIES RELATED TO GRADING AND LAND ALTERATIONS Barnhart indicated the City Council reviewed the document a month ago and directed him to forward it to the DNR for their review. The DNR found several areas where the City was slightly stronger than the State Statute and gave the City conditional approval. The condition is that once the City approves a document, Barnhart will need to send the document to the DNR so they can have a final review, primarily to make sure the City has not weakened any State Statutes. This only applies to the regulations in the Shoreland Overlay District, which happens to be a large part of the City. The goal was to address slope stabilization issues that required a Conditional Use Permit and at least a 6-week lead time. He pointed out that there are some individuals in the community that like to solve shoreland stabilization and bluff failure issues with underground structures such as retaining walls. Those types of improvements will likely still require a variance because it will often be hardcover in the 0-75. Johnson referenced language regarding no permit being required for grading activities of less than 50 cubic yards or disturbing less than 5,000 square feet, and asked if someone would require a permit if they had 200 cubic yards but disturbed less than 5,000 square feet. Barnhart said they would because it would trigger the more-than-50-cubic-yards. Johnson stated “or” should be changed to “and” or another phrase, because he would interpret that language to mean as long as someone meets either one of those, they do not need a permit. Barnhart indicated he could make any change the Council would like. He asked Mattick if he thought the wording was ambiguous or if there was alternative text that should be used. Mattick and Walsh stated that the idea is someone would need less than 50 cubic yards and disturb less than 5,000 square feet in order to not need a permit. The language needs an “and” versus an “or.” Johnson noted that in the scenario of someone grading 49.9 cubic yards but disturbing more than 5,000 square feet, then you would need a permit. Walsh stated it would be conflicting at that point, so “and” would be needed rather than “or.” Barnhart noted Council members were pointing out existing code language. He said he tried to illustrate in the graph what the code reads currently and referenced the current language and said if someone is grading 51 cubic yards in the Shoreland Overlay District, they need a permit. Walsh asked if Barnhart was showing them the old code earlier. Johnson said the new language is the same. Barnhart agreed and indicated 51 cubic yards would trigger grading. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 25 Walsh clarified that the scenario is if someone has 49 yards but has 6,000 square feet that is being disturbed, one says that a permit is required and the other says that a permit is not required. Theoretically, someone could say they have 49 cubic yards and so they do not need a permit because it says “or.” Barnhart stated they would need a permit. Walsh referenced the language indicating that basically someone would not need a permit because they have less than 50 cubic yards because of the word “or.” Barnhart said the last portion of the table is not in the code and is just for the City Council’s reference. Johnson and Barnhart discussed the language used in the code and what would be more helpful and said the activity for permitting and the activity for interim use is in the code but the “no permit” language is not in the code. Walsh asked if the “no permit” language was just for the City Council’s information and that what is in the code is the information above that area on the displayed document. Barnhart agreed and asked Mattick if there was language to make it more clear. Mattick referenced the language about grading, import, export, and stockpiling that is in the code and noted the summary is not in the code, so he does not necessarily see the conflict. He said Barnhart attempted to summarize when a permit is required. Walsh said it is a clarification to make sure that the summary is not handed out to anybody, and the “or” could be changed to “and,” but it does not change the code that is being changed. Johnson noted the chart is very good and it is information that needs to be in the code. The chart would be helpful to residents, but the City does not want them to find a loophole. If the chart is used, it needs to be cleaned up. Johnson said the City is exceeding DNR standards in some areas and asked if there was a reason for that. Barnhart stated tree replacement is the area where the City exceeded the DNR requirements, where there is a prohibition against clearing and removal of large trees in the 0-75. He indicated the Planning Commission wanted some tiers in place: the bigger the tree, the more tree replacement. The way it is written now, it is more on the discretion of Staff. The City felt more comfortable having it written down. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to approve LA19-000091 – City Of Orono Text Amendment No. 243, Third Series Related to Grading and Land Alterations with the caveat that if the chart is published, that the chart be evaluated to make sure that it is clear. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Printup, Seals, Walsh), Nays 0. CITY ENGINEER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR REPORT 13. BIG ISLAND PARK ADA TRAIL PROJECT (19-033) - AWARD PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 25 Edwards said Blackstone Contracting was the lowest of 3 bids received. They put the bid out as a base bid and there were a number of alternates. The base bid included the accessible trail network and associated items. Alternate 1 was the vault toilet. Alternates 2 and 3 were the picnic shelter; part of it was the floor of the shelter and the shelter itself. Alternates 4 and 5 were large concrete picnic tables ranging from standard tables to meeting an ADA standard. The total low bid with all alternates was $398,490 and totals $474,764 when the construction bid items are added to the in-house work from the City as well as the design, archaeology, and construction management. Initially the City committed to funding $80,000 out of the Parks fund; the Big Island Legacy Fund, a 501(c)(3), anticipated raising $120,000; and the City received a grant in the amount of $200,000. It is a matching grant, so it requires a match to receive the entire $200,000. Bolton & Menk donated $10,000 of in-kind time for their construction fees. In total, there was $410,000 identified for the project. To date, the Big Island Legacy Fund has raised approximately $68,000. Edwards proposed three different courses of action for the Council’s consideration on the award. Action A would award the base bid and all the alternates at a total cost of $464,764 and would require the City to come up with $196,764. Action B would include the base bid and one of the two alternate groups at a cost of $131,531 to the City. In this course of action, the City would only be able to realize about $172,000 of the $200,000 grant. Action C would award the base bid at a cost of $90,000 to the City and would only realize $120,000 of the grant. He indicated there was a proposal packet from the 501(c)(3) for the Council's consideration where, if the City would award Action A, they would continue to try to raise the remaining $52,000 they originally identified as their fundraising goal. Staff recommendation is Action B with either the picnic shelter or latrine, which gives a balance between cost and amenities provided. If the City chooses Action A, there may not be sufficient funds for other projects if $196,000 came out of the Parks fund. He referenced a proposal from Bolton & Menk for construction management fees in the amount of $20,000, of which $10,000 would be donated in-kind. He said Bolton & Menk is also requesting compensation in design fees of $1,177 based on additional work performed. Johnson asked, if the City paid the Bolton & Menk fees, would they be subject to the matching fund grant versus Bolton & Menk giving the City the donation. Edwards stated the maximum amount of engineering and design fees that could be attributed to the grant is $40,000. Even when Bolton & Menk donated the $10,000, there is still $68,000 of engineering for the project. The City was able to maximize the amount of engineering the City can attribute to the project. Johnson said he is grateful for donations from the Big Island Legacy Fund and asked if there was a representative present. After ascertaining that Peter Lanpher was online, he asked what he would want to see happen with the shortfall from the pledge by the group. Mr. Peter Lanpher, Chairman of Big Island Legacy, P.O. Box 175, Long Lake, said they were asked by the City to try to raise $125,000 as their portion. To date, they have raised $58,000, with another $10,000 due to arrive in May. They are actively seeking additional money. Mr. Lanpher said they are a board of five people and noted the Mayor has been at most of the meetings. The recommendations they have come up with are from a historical archive standpoint of what has happened in the past at Big Island and come from past Orono/Big Island Committee minutes as well as the Big Island caretaker. They are not opposed to whatever the Council wants to do. Staff is MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 25 recommending Action B. In that respect, the toilet is the most important and practical to have at Big Island because in the past, when toilets were destroyed and vandalized, people stopped going there. If there is not a toilet there, you are not encouraging the function of the park. On top of the hill there is an open-air shelter with picnic tables surrounding it and some that are within. There is also a shelter on the island in the form of the Service Center as you enter the island by the boat docks. What they are trying to do as an organization is put a toilet facility out there. Their recommendation is to put the toilet on top of the hill, not behind the Service Center, because then it is closer to the beach area. There are a lot of boaters that use the beach area, and there are no facilities for them. Johnson thanked the Big Island Legacy for their efforts in raising money and asked whether the City should hold off on making a decision and give Big Island Legacy more time to fundraise or whether there is a critical need to make a decision at this time. Walsh stated the $200,000 grant has a 2-year time limit which comes up in March or April 2021, which limits it to this construction season. Mr. Lanpher indicated the City giving some form of approval at tonight’s meeting would be helpful, regardless of the direction. There is a huge cost in just the trail components, and a lot of sand and gravel companies in the Twin Cities area have donated to various causes. If they know what is going on with the contract and who the contractor is, they could reach out to contractors and may get donations. Walsh said that if the City picks the bathroom versus the shelter, there are options to put those things together through the 501(c)(3) as well. Johnson asked if Big Island Legacy has to raise twice as much after the City accepts the grant. Walsh indicated Johnson was correct. Johnson stated it made sense to give Big Island Legacy as much time as possible to raise every dollar possible because for every dollar raised, the City gets $2 contributed. Walsh said the City information does not get submitted to the DNR until later in the year or April 2021, and the City may be able to come up with that money or maybe even more. They are trying to move forward with what is on the table right now, knowing that construction season is only so long. Edward stated the grant is not limited to what the City awards with the contract. If additional funds become available later on in the summer for the overall project, those could be applied against the grant. As an example, they are considering applying up to $40,000 of the Bolton & Menk bill to the grant and putting $4,000 of in-kind purchases of things that are separate from the contract that still can be applied against the grant, just as long as it is something that the grant envisioned or was part of the package. Crosby asked if the City could go with Action B now and save the picnic tables and shelter for the following year. Walsh said the City could do that any time, even if the City collected the money this year. It gives the 501(c)(3) more options for raising money. If it can be done before next April, the Cit y can get the matching value of whatever is left on the grant that hasn’t been able to be matched yet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 25 Crosby stated he thought the infrastructure should be done first and the toilet would be a major thing. Seals asked Edwards if the price was for a bathroom at the Visitor Center or up on the hill for Action B. Edwards said the bids solicited were for a bathroom by the Visitor Center. Walsh said it is 40-50 yards away so it should not be too different. Edwards stated during the solicitation process a lot of bidders had questions about the installation of the vault toilet and a lot of concerns about how to move that mass of material into place on an island with limitations of barges, cranes, etc. Another big concern would be trying to maintain a vault toilet on top of the outlook, as it presents a lot of unique logistical challenges, including dragging a septic hose through a protected wilderness area on the island, which he is not even sure the watershed would let the City do. He knows they can install and maintain a toilet at the Visitor Center. Mr. Rick Carter, 2780 Shadywood Road, a Big Island Legacy Board member and Park Commission member, said he would love to see the City go with Option A so they could max out the grant and have the shelter as well as the bathroom. He would be grateful for Option B and would hate to do less than that and leave more money on the table. They will continue to raise funds and hope to get enough money to take advantage of the remaining $28,000 of the grant. They would like to see the infrastructure, the trails, Visitor Center, and bathroom in place. They are anxious to see it go forward. Printup asked what the grant deadline would be. Walsh answered that the money needs to be spent by next April. Seals said she is going in the middle of the road. There was talk about the City giving the 501(c)(3) a loan, but she does not think it is a good plan because from what she knows, there is nothing to hold a 501(c)(3) to a loan. It would also seem unusual for a non-profit to pay back a City on a loan and is a harder ask. Her priority is to improve the trails. She thinks if the bid was for the toilet by the Visitor Center, the City should stick with that plan, as Change Orders cost a lot of money. She is 100% sure the watershed does not want the City dragging a “poop” line through their nature preserve. She likes the location of the toilet as bid because it is open and you can see it from the water. There are also cameras there and it is a nice, safe area. In the past people have destroyed things out there, and she feels better about the bathroom being there. If everything works out perfectly and the watershed is willing to have a septic line drug through the nature preserve, the City can build a second toilet, assuming the money is raised. Crosby stated he agreed with Seals as far as the toilet location because vandalism will happen, and it makes sense to try to prevent it. He is leaning towards Plan B. Johnson said he does not think it is a park without a bathroom. The question is, can the bathroom survive on the island. Having it closer to the dock and the entrance will help with visibility. He stated the question that needs to be answered is what kind of commitment can the City get out of the fundraising group. He indicated the City is prepared to contribute what they pledged in the beginning. The only variable that has changed is how much money the group has been able to raise to this point, when the City has to make a decision. He is leaning towards Action B. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 25 Walsh noted that at this time it is more difficult to fundraise. Mr. Lanpher stated he has been in the production business and does not see that there would be any difference in locating the bathroom behind the Service Center as opposed to the top of the hill. He brought up the bathroom that was close to the Service Center that was vandalized in the past. Their biggest priority and feelings are to have the bathroom on top of the hill where they used to hold classes for the Minnetonka Sailing School and others. If the trails are built the way they should be, the septic system that has to run up from the beach going to the bathroom is just following a trail. Their viewpoint is, it is more important that the bathroom be located on top of the hill; and if a bathroom is built i n another phase, it could be by the Service Center. Johnson stated he is unconcerned about the logistics of getting the septic tank empty, regardless of location. Seals noted her opinion is that it is Edwards’ and Staff’s job to figure it out. Walsh asked, assuming the cost for the bathroom was the same at the Service Center and at the hill, if that would change any Council members’ minds about location. Crosby said he thinks the Council needs a list of pros and cons regarding the bathroom location. The facility will probably be vulnerable to vandalism at either place. If there are cameras at the Service Center, that might be a better location. He agreed with Seals and said the Council has to rely on Edwards. Walsh noted the 501(c)(3) wants the bathroom up on the hill because it is close to the beach. If the cost is a huge difference, it kind of seals the fate. If it is the same, he asked what direction the Council would give. He said there are cameras at the Service Center and they have not seen any vandalism. Seals said her opinion is the better location would be by the Service Center by the docks. It is easier to get to, and if there is vandalism such as a fire, the fire boat can dock right there and go straight up the hill. Also, by putting it in the Service Center area, they are keeping it in the rec area, which is safer for the City because there are not extra hoops to go through with the watershed. Printup stated nature is also a factor, because a storm went through and a tree fell down and prett y much destroyed the learning center and there needed to be some cleanup. He said he can’t support loaning any more money or offering any more City dollars to the project hoping that it breeds more donations. He is very thankful for all the donations that have come in. Edwards said vandalism was taken into account in the design process. The vault toilet is made of precast concrete and metal and is based off of the remote vault toilets on the Three Rivers trail system. Another pro for locating the bathroom at the Visitor Center is that it centrally locates it along the ADA-accessible trail network. Crosby clarified that Edwards wanted the bathroom at the Visitor Center. Edwards agreed with Crosby. Seals noted that Edwards’ team would maintain the area and she would lean on his expertise versus anyone else’s. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 25 Johnson said the City pledged $80,000 and the first question that needs to be answered is, does the City want to pledge more money. Walsh indicated that Johnson was correct and stated that is the difference between B and C. Option C is an extra $10,000 and Option B is an extra $50,000 which still leaves $30,000 on the grant available for the 501(c)(3) to gather. Option B includes the toilet; Option C does not include the toilet. Crosby suggested Option B and said the City should take Edwards’ recommendation on the bathroom location and keep the trails. He said more could be done later. Rief expressed concern about placing the toilet away from the Visitor Center and the jurisdiction the City does not have when it relates to being in the natural area. He said if there is a hose being run up the hill from the Visitor Center and the hose breaks, the liability would be the same but the hose would be three times as long. Jurisdiction is quite a bit different in the natural area versus the recreational area. He also leans on Edwards’ recommendation from a maintenance point of view. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to go with Option B, putting the vault toilet by the Visitor Center per the City Engineer’s recommendation for the Big Island Park ADA Trail Project (19-033). Johnson noted if the toilet is located by the Visitor Center, it will be utilized more. VOTE: Ayes 4 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Walsh), Nays 1 (Printup). Walsh moved, Crosby seconded, to award the Big Island Park ADA Trail Project to Blackstone Contracting, accept the construction management fee proposal from Bolton & Menk not to exceed $20,000, authorize payment of $1,177 in design fees above the previous not-to-exceed proposal, and accept the in-kind donation of $10,000 from Bolton & Menk. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh), Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 15. LA20-000016 – PAUL THOMAS DESIGN BUILD, 2710 PENCE LANE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Staff presented a summary of packet information. Johnson noted they have had this same type of request that they have granted to people, and it’s been fairly rubber-stamped as long as the people agree to the conditions. He asked Mattick if there is a reason for the City not to grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the meantime when there are ongoing, existing, and historical violations on a property. Mattick asked Johnson if he was referring to the alleged violation on the shoreline. Johnson said he understands that issue is open and that there were other issues with the use of the driveway, etc. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 25 Mattick noted the request in front of the Council involves a bathroom/plumbing in the garage. He would like to take a closer look at the connectivity between the two issues. When someone makes a request, the Council can impose conditions that are reasonably related to the request. He does not know the status of the current code violation, but his understanding is they are set to have a hearing, they have challenged the finding and are still working their way through the process. He is not sure the Council can wait to have the process played out, because there is a 60-day rule. If the City wants to tie the shoreline issue with the restroom in a garage, the City will have to look at how to address it. He did not think it is as simple as saying a violation was found on the property so the City is not going to grant the CUP. Mr. William Griffith asked the Council to look at the survey being displayed and indicated one of the difficulties with the proposed garage is that it appears to be in the Huelers’ front yard the way the lot is configured as you come down the joint driveway. He thought there was discussion both at the Planning Commission and elsewhere about some screening of that building. He noted another question, looking at the driveway as it runs through Lot 2, is there has been continuous use of that driveway to service Lot 1, which is a subdivision condition when the lot was created that prohibits that driveway use. They asked the City to confirm, as they are issuing the permit, that the applicant is in compliance with the shoreline issues and driveway issues and provides screening of the building. Mr. Eric Vogstrom, 2710 Pence Lane, said the garage is more in front of the Huelers’ garage and there is not another place he could put it. Originally, he wanted to be farther back so he could build a 4-5 car garage. By him being 130 feet from the lake instead of 75 feet, he could only do a 3-car garage. The driveway issue was settled a long time ago and he hasn't had any violations yet. They also do not have any stop work orders on his property, as was mentioned to the Planning Commission. With respect to the DNR issue, that is mainly on the Dunkley property, and the Dunkleys are in the process of disputing that. He does not see how that has anything to do with this property. He is going to be building a garage with or without a bathroom, but adding the other items is setting a ridiculous precedence. The Council does not have any precedence as far as screening. City Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval. He is going to be working with the Huelers as far as screening on the entire property by planting pine trees together, and to have him do screening for this is unprecedented and unfair. If he moves the building, it would be more in front of their house, and that does not solve any problems. He also has the ability to put another 1,000-square foot building on his property. He wants a garage like everyone else in Orono. He feels it’s a rubber-stamp deal. He hopes to be treated fairly like everyone else who has brought a similar issue to the Council. Crosby stated as long as this is in compliance, noting that it cannot be used as a rental unit, the City should move forward and draft a Resolution to accept. Walsh said they are called CUPs because they are conditional, not a rubber stamp. Otherwise, it would be in the code that people can just do it. He noted at the Planning Commission, Mr. Vogstrom said he had talked with the Huelers and said it would not be a big deal to put some screening there. There are some outstanding violations that might mostly be on the Dunkleys’ but it is also on Mr. Vogstrom’s. Part of the conditions is that it gets cleaned up, similar to when your child cleans their room, they can have dessert. Johnson noted right now there is an investigation into whether they did anything wrong and the Council does not know the findings with the DNR. It does not sound like the City has any jurisdiction on that issue and he is hesitant to loop that issue in. The screening item is between the neighbors. Mr. Vogstrom is not asking for a variance for the location of the garage, he is in a complying location, so he does not have an obligation to the City to have screen age. There has been a lot of turmoil in the area and it may be MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 25 an opportunity for some good will, but it’s not the City’s business. In his experience, when bathroom requests come up, as long as the applicant understands the conditions, he supports approval. Printup stated he would like to learn more about the issues and asked for the item to be tabled for two weeks. He noted the CUP stays with the land forever, even if the garage blows down. Printup moved to table LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit for two weeks. Walsh asked what information Printup would like to gather. Printup stated it would be the DNR regulations on the shoreline, to hear more about the CUP and how it affects the land, and to try to untangle the issues with the property and to categorize everything. Crosby noted it is a bathroom in a garage, it is not complicated, and he did not think anyone needed to reach out to the shoreline. He hoped the neighbors could work together on the screening but did not think that was something the Council could dictate to them. He asked Mattick for his input. Mattick noted they would need to find the connection with whatever they pull in. Crosby said he did not think it would be an ample reason to pull something in so it could be held as leverage. He stated the CUP would be approved for almost any other home in Orono, so there is no reason to not move ahead. Seals stated there have been a lot of challenges and nothing has been simple or normal on this corner. When she sees the address, she knows exactly where it is, and that is not normal. Her thought process is, he has a right to build a garage, but why is everything such a tangled mess and is there something the Council is missing that needs to be checked on. She commented that Printup was not saying no but wanted two more weeks before making a decision. Seals seconded the motion to table LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit. Johnson asked if the applicant had an opinion about tabling it. Mr. Paul Vogstrom, 2731 Eden Lake Road, Hanover, said he understands the project has been complicated and there are a lot of accusations. They want to get the project done. He understands the Council does not think two weeks is a big deal. This matter is going on and on because the Huelers keep raising accusations. He has tried to work with them. The Huelers were for the plan back at the Sketch Plan meeting, and because they could not come to terms on buying some property from the Dunkleys, all hell broke loose. He is sorry that it has been what it’s been, but it’s a simple application that everyone else gets approved for, and now everything’s got to be looked at. He said other subcontractors drive on different driveways. He does not think anyone has crossed the line and they have signs up and they do everything they can. It is not fair that the neighbors keep yelling and screaming, and they are abiding by everything and keep getting delayed and jumping through hoops. He recommends the Council move forward with the project and stop setting precedence that neighbors can just complain. He asked the Council to reconsider tabling the item. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 25 Crosby said he is strongly against tabling the matter and thinks it needs to be moved forward. He believes if it was any other project, without a doubt it would get stamped and not stopped. Personal feelings cannot get in the way; the Council has to be logical and look at the project and decide how the Council would have voted in another instance. If the home was on another road in Orono, it would go forward. The City has to be non-judgmental and consistent. If the Council tables the matter, they are not being consistent. Printup stated his motion stands. Walsh commented that everything mentioned were good points and he did not think a couple weeks would hurt to gather more information. Johnson said there have been a lot of problems with the relationship and the City should be cautious and do the right thing because of the issues. However, a bathroom in a garage is not an issue the Council should hold up. VOTE: Ayes 3 (Printup, Seals, Walsh), Nays 2 (Crosby, Johnson). 16. LA20-000012 – SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC., LAKEVIEW OF ORONO Staff presented a summary of packet information. Walsh noted he was at the Planning Commission meeting and members decided to either vote all of it or none of it rather than do any kind of piecemealing, which does not help the Council with a direction in terms of how they voted. Mr. Chase Peterson, Source Land Development, stated it has been a good project. They have about 13 lots remaining, and there are issues with the lots that make them undesirable or tough to build on. Adding additional costs on to buyers is something that they often stay away from. They knew they had to make some changes and they had to give something back to the community/Orono, and they decided to get creative and tinker with some of the conservation lines to provide some building elbowroom and make potential buildings a little more buyer-friendly. In doing that, they get away from disturbing natural space, adding retaining walls, grading costs, etc. They have gained support from a lot of the local neighbors. There have also been a couple of concerned neighbors, and they have answered their concerns by giving them an agreement with some tree privacy, etc. They were a little upset that they did not get much feedback/guidance from the Planning Commission other than a simple no, and as a result, have presented the same application to the City Council. Walsh asked how many lots the original plan contained. Mr. Peterson answered that it was 46 lots. Walsh said they did a good job figuring out where to put the houses in relation to the nature, environment, and septics because they are down to 5-10% of the lots and that it is hard to get it perfect upfront. He said they are adding more than they are taking and noted one of the big concerns was going around the corner on North Arm Drive and moving the driveway to allow for sight view. Mr. Peterson said they could have done it differently and hopefully perfectly. There are a lot of moving parts: septic locations which have to be on virgin soil; each site has to have a primary and secondary well MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 25 location; conservation on the lots; a building footprint that may be undesirable/very costly. They have done a pretty good job on the other lots and are down to the last few where they need to make changes in order to have them buildable. He is hopeful to wrap up the development and have 13 more homes. Crosby said the developer was very thoughtful and did a nice job. Mr. Peterson commented that the sight distance for the driveway is 315 feet and referenced some images in Council members’ packets which illustrated the potential sight line of the potential driveway. Printup noted there was one person who was adversely affected and had a real problem, potentially. He wanted to see on the map where that area would be. Walsh said he thought it was Lot 22, who was three doors down, so they would not be affected directly. Curtis agreed with Walsh and said the owner’s comments were in the packet and thought it was a Mr. Crandall. Printup stated the comment was something about buying the lot and expecting to have some open space and then losing the open space. Curtis said the comment came from the owners of Lot 10 and indicated that area on the map. She said that Mr. Peterson worked out an agreement for some screening. With regard to any of the letters in the packet, if there was a follow-up from the letter, she included that also. She believed their concern was mitigated. Printup asked if there was a switch of some land. Walsh indicated that was in regard to Lot 17. Curtis indicated a hashed area on the map and said the applicant is asking for that area to not be conservation easement and would flip the building site in that location. In conjunction with that, they want to do an administrative action to move the lot line over so the building area is wider on Lot 17 along North Arm Drive. Walsh asked if the conservation would then move to the dark green area on the map. Johnson indicated Walsh was correct. Printup said he is trying to see how it affects the neighbors when they expected something conserved as opposed to things being switched. He stated several years ago when this project was coming about it was very emotional and it was hard to figure out the lot situation at that time but that it is nice to see all of the conservation area. Walsh agreed and said it is nice that they are also adding more conservation area. Curtis indicated on the map the concern that the owners of Lot 10 had. Walsh asked Staff if the Lot 10 owners’ problem had been solved. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 25 Curtis stated she believed so and the Lot 10 owners no longer had concerns. Mr. Peterson said they did address the concerns from the Lot 10, Block 1 owners. They will plant some privacy trees for the owners and the owners would retract their original letter. He said he thought Printup was referring to the Lot 21, Block 3 owner. He does not know what his concerns are or how to answer them; he was always going to have a neighbor there, and having a house on the other side of the lot is not going to be in his view. Mr. Bryce Johnson commented that the value of adding Lot 9 as a conservation area should not be missed and is extremely important to people who use the park in the development and along North Arm Drive. In addition to working together between Citizens for Lakeview and Source Land, they connected the park with trails that lead from Lakeview Parkway to the park, and one of the trails goes through Lot 9. It aids the entire conservation aspect of getting through the park and also viewing it from the park and the people that use the park daily. When the plan was first presented, there were 4 driveways on North Arm, then it went down to 3, and going back to 4 is not unreasonable. He said Source Land has done a good job overall on the development in preserving what they were going to do and creating all of the conservation areas, which is why many people support the project as a total package. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve staff to draft a resolution for LA20-000012 – Source Land Development Inc., Lakeview Of Orono VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh) Nays 0. 17. SCOTT AND MELISSA MUSGJERD, 4156 HIGHWOOD ROAD, ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT REQUEST Staff presented a summary of packet information. Johnson asked if Edwards had any opinions he would like to put on the record. Walsh said he walked the area, and it looks like the stone wall was built to get rid of City water that is impacting the owners’ yard. Edwards said the wall is pushing any drainage towards the west side of the easement, although he did not know if it flooded the lake yard. He saw three different places where there were encroachments into the right-of-way. The easiest one to deal with is Item C, where there are some pavers and mulch and other things that encroach slightly into the City’s property. Most of the time that would be defined as landscaping, and in other situations the City does not require an encroachment agreement. Landscaping in the right-of-way is done at the constructor’s risk, and the City would not require an encroachment for that. Item B, which is the wall farthest to the south, appears to be an inadvertent encroachment into the right- of-way, coming over a very slight amount. It runs parallel to the right-of-way which makes sense for retaining back soil and keeping anything from the right-of-way coming across into the property. Item A encroaches more than halfway across the existing right-of-way and pushes the water to the far side of the right-of-way. His recommendation was to not allow that encroachment because it does set a precedent and the City knows there are similar issues and other City rights-of-way that lead to the lake. If Item B were to remain, it is a structure in nature and there should be a proper encroachment agreement between the City and abutting homeowner. He noted another consideration is that the right-of-way is used by some Orono residents as a winter lake access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 25 Walsh said the access for people getting their snowmobiles through that area is a non-issue. He asked what the alternative solution would be for all the water that is rolling off the hill into the yard. Edwards stated the City would improve the drainage swale as it goes through the right-of-way or armor it with things such as erosion control matting and riprap down the right-of-way. After Walsh noted that the solution sounded expensive, Edwards responded that it would cost several thousand dollars to do that but that it was probably cheaper than what was paid to put a retaining wall in. Ms. Melissa Musgjerd noted the work was done by the landscaper to help with water erosion. It is not in the way of encroaching anybody being able to get to the lake. If they have to remove it, they will remove it. She said it is becoming more of a neighborhood feud where people want to see people spend more money to do things. Everything they have done to the property is to make it better. She understands Edwards’ comments about riprap. The retaining wall cost about $3,000, and they did that after the City took some trees out that were dying and the City was afraid they would fall on the house. Crosby said he looked at the site and, with the way everything is sloped, he believes it is probably a necessary retaining wall. He would be in favor of leaving the wall. Mr. William Griffith said there is plenty of room for a snowmobiler. hiker, or walker to get down to the lake if that is their desire. Also, the City has used an encroachment agreement to allow reasonable improvements within the right-of-way, and at 4051 Highwood Road there is an encroachment agreement which allows private improvement within the right-of-way. The agreements contain language that if the City wanted/needed to improve the right-of-way, the property owners would have to remove the encroachment and let the City take whatever action they wanted within the right-of-way. Johnson asked what the City does when owners make changes in a right-of-way without getting permission first. He said if the existing retaining wall is protecting this property but pushing the water to 4167, it should be removed. Crosby stated that 4167 is owned by the property owner just to the west of that parcel. With the slope that is present, the water would pretty much stay within the fire lane because the slope is so far to the east that the retaining wall acts more like a bounce-off. He said he does not think it will negatively affect 4167 even if the owner built on it. Crosby asked how long the wall would last with heavy water. Edwards said he has no idea how long. Johnson asked if the existing wall pushes some water to the west. Edwards stated that it crosses the midpoint of the right-of-way so it does push water to the west. Walsh said it does not go all the way to the other side of 4167 because it gets higher in elevation. Even if the City decides to leave it, it still needs an encroachment agreement. If the City decides to f ix the alley, that would go away. He asked if the City agrees with letting them keep the self-help in place with an encroachment agreement. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 25 Printup said the property was proposed to come before the City 2-3 times to take over the alley, and when the house was built a number of years ago, the question came about the alley. It almost seems like it’s another crack at the apple to encroach into the alley for the benefit of one side. He said it needs an encroachment agreement; but he is trying to figure out if the retaining wall is absolutely necessary, or did the landscapers put it in for aesthetics and to help out a little bit and hope it would not get noticed. Walsh noted that it is a skinny lot so it needed variances either way. Mr. Erick Celms, 1535 Highwood Lane, said he wanted to reiterate their submitted comments. They oppose the after-the-fact permit request, noting rules are in place for a reason and people need to abide by them during the duration of a project. The permit should have been pulled at the time of construction or as the retaining walls were being built. He said it is frustrating when people plead ignorance when they knowingly step out of bounds. Walsh asked Edwards if the City found this and brought it to the Council’s attention, or if the item came as an application. Edwards stated it was identified on the document when the applicant was petitioning the City to vacate the easement. Ms. Musgjerd said there are some underground water kickouts built into the side of the hill which helps with the water. The fire lane/easement is pretty pitted, and she does not think there is any issue that their water could encroach into Douglas and Roban Smith’s 4167 lot because that also slopes down. There is a lot of runoff that goes into the lake which is because of the pitch. This has led to a lot of angst among everyone, but they bought the lot and worked with an architect who could put a house on it when the buildable square footage was a little less than the size of a doghouse. They had a landscaper do some stuff, but they do not want to get him in trouble because he did not pull a permit. She understands what the Council is saying, that they have seen this come up before, because the Council has. They would love to own the fire lane so they could add on to their house, but they’ve come to the fact that will not happen because there is too much neighbor opposition. They want to make the property the best it can be. Walsh, based on what Edwards put together, said Item C is considered landscaping and is a non-issue; Item B comes over just a little but would still need an encroachment agreement; Item A is the issue. If the City needs them to take it out, the City needs to fix/redo the swale so it keeps the water out of their yard. Seals agreed that Item A is the big problem, and she would have them take it out and the City would fix it. She said the applicant and neighbors are getting pitted against each other, and then no one wins. The City can say it was a mistake, but they need to play by the rules and have the owner take it out and the City commit to fixing it the right way. That way the neighbors are getting what they want because water is not going onto their property, and the City is following the rules. Crosby stated his assumption is that the retaining wall is on their property but simply in the right-of-way of the fire lane. Walsh and Seals indicated it was in the fire lane. Walsh noted that everything within the orange area on the map being shown is the fire lane. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 25 Crosby agreed but noted the wall is still within their property lines. Johnson stated that it is City-owned property. Printup said that area is a proposed line from another application. Curtis stated the pink area on the map is the fire lane. Johnson said that was also the property line. Johnson agreed with Seals. He said it gets complicated because although it may be helping the situation, it does not give them permission to improve City property. The City will run into other situations where people have improved City property and there will be no benefit to the City, and the Council will make them take it out. Just because they might be solving a problem does not give them permission to improve City property. They should remove their property from the City property, the City assess the property, and then do what is right to make sure City property is not negatively affecting their property. Printup asked if that would be in line with Staff recommendations. Walsh indicated Item C is a non-issue, Item B needs an encroachment agreement if the City decides to keep the little bit there, and Staff thinks Item A should be taken out. He thinks the Council’s recommendation should be to fix the swale to keep the water down the City’s lane of property. Johnson and Seals said there should be no encroachment agreement and B should be removed as well. Council members discussed that Item C were just walking pavers on the ground which are not structural and don’t need to be dealt with. Printup and Seals brought up a fire lane that basically disappeared and was landscaped and became beautiful, but it started out as a little thing and turned into that. Council members discussed what the motion should be regarding Items A, B, and C given the amount of slope and property lines. Mr. Griffith said since the Staff recommendation was to allow B and C, that may be the sensible solution, and the property owner could work with the City Engineer to resolve the encroachment in Item A. Johnson moved that the City does not grant any encroachment agreement on the property and the City Engineer will assess what needs to be done from a City standpoint to correct any grade issues on the City property. Walsh clarified that Johnson meant to solve the water problems that are going onto their property. Johnson amended the motion to add that there would be no encroachment agreement, the owners do not have a right to have anything on City property. Walsh clarified Johnson’s motion is that the City Council is removing A; B, C will remain, and the City will commit to working with the homeowner to resolve the water issue so it is not going into their property. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 25 Johnson indicated Walsh was correct and noted that Item C does not require an encroachment agreement. Johnson made a substitute motion, Printup seconded, to remove Item A and Item B and that Item C will remain and the City will commit to working with the homeowner to resolve the water issue so it is not going into their property regarding the Scott and Melissa Musgjerd, 4156 Highwood Road, Encroachment Agreement Request. VOTE: Ayes 4 (Johnson, Seals, Printup, Walsh), Nays 1 (Crosby). 18. LA19-000063 – CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 244, THIRD SERIES RELATED TO SPECIAL EVENTS Staff presented a summary of packet information. Barnhart noted Staff recommends the State Statute version, Exhibit A. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the State Statute version of LA19-000063 – City of Orono Text Amendment No. 244, Third Series Related to Special Events. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh), Nays 0. 19. LA20-000014 – TIMOTHY WHITTEN, WHITTEN ASSOCIATES O/B/O I JACOBS/ A JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE – SKETCH PLAN Staff presented a summary of packet information. Johnson asked if the property was already in the Municipal Urban Service Area (MUSA). Barnhart stated that it was but there would need to be some engineering work to provide sanitary sewer to all of the properties. There is a lot of work to do but it is supportable by Staff. Johnson asked if the lot across the lake, on the south side of Shoreline, was a separate Planned Unit Development (PUD). Barnhart said they are all the same. Johnson asked if Shoreline Drive was an easement. Barnhart said he did not think it was an easement but it is part of the same parcel. A portion of the lot shows some portion of the property south of Shoreline. Johnson noted that the document indicates “Outlot C.” Barnhart said that is what is being shown at the sketch level. He imagined Outlots A, B, and C would be part of Lots 1, 2, and 3 at the conclusion of the plat. Johnson stated if the lots across the street are separate as outlots, Orono code will not allow them to have a dock. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 25 Barnhart agreed and said that is why he expects them to be part of Lots 1, 2, and 3 and that is part of the plat. Printup stated it should be made clear early and often. Walsh commented that the residents will want their boats on the water. He said at the Planning Commission it looked like everything had been well-thought out. Johnson said he likes the plan and it makes sense to keep the driveway at that location. Although it was only a single-family residence, there was a lot of activity at that property and he is not concerned about the increase in traffic. If the County would allow a turn lane in both directions, that would be terrific. Council members agreed it looked like a good plan. Barnhart said they will continue to work with the developer. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Seals said a lot of people are stuck at home and she thanked everyone who is working. Printup stated it is nice to see the American flags up along the streets. He thanked Jackie H., who made some homemade masks. He said there are some restaurants who are petitioning the Governor regarding takeout of alcohol from restaurants and said Orono may want to send the Governor a letter encouraging that if the Council is interested in pursuing that idea. Johnson said he was going to propose sending a letter to the Governor but after hearing the LMCD rep, he thought it would be better to leave it as status quo. He stated he wanted to bring to the Council’s attention his concern about code enforcement. He received a complaint about a dock installation on Crystal Bay Road, which brings the number to 2 for docks that should not be in yet. There is a new construction project going on which the City approved multiple variances on. The dock was installed prior to getting the final approval on the framing, which needs to happen before the dock can be put in according to code. He felt people should be able to have a dock without having a house and didn’t want the language in the code at all. He received a follow-up from Barnhart that the framing would be done in 2-3 weeks and by the time the City does the code enforcement action, the property owner would be in the clear so Staff was not going to pursue the violation. He told Barnhart the choices as he saw them: the City enforces the codes, or the City amends the codes. He thinks the City has done a very good job over the years of amending codes that do not make sense. It is concerning to him when they choose to follow up on some code violations and not others. He does not think that is how the City should be handling the issue. The other dock on Crystal Bay Road went in without a permit. There is some question if they meet the 10- yard setback with the one that went in; the dock that is existing prior to the permit might not be in the right spot. That is part of why it is important to have dimensions on drawings. He also wants to make sure the rental agreement says 10 feet from the sideline. Seals said Johnson brought up a good point and it makes sense to enforce codes. She does not understand how it is okay for the City to say, “Well, they will put the dock in in a few weeks so I won’t enforce it.” It seems like individuals are picking and choosing when to enforce, and it seems a little suspect. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 23 of 25 Mattick stated there is a pragmatic approach and also just a strict enforcement. They are in violation of the law; but if they are not going to be in violation in 2 weeks, does the City start a court action. He asked what the City hoped to achieve, or if it was to send a message. There is a certain amount of discretion when enforcing the laws. He gave the example of not seeing a lot of tickets written for people going 59 mph in a 55. He said it sounds like in a couple of weeks the owners will be in compliance. Johnson said the property owner may be in compliance but there are question marks about the situation. Mattick noted one of the statements in the policy regarding code enforcement is to gain voluntary compliance. The City sends letters saying within 10 days property owners need to fix an issue. If in 14 days or 2-3 weeks the issue is fixed, does the City want to start a criminal action upon seeing something, or does the City want to work with the owner and figure out if they will get to compliance. If the City needs to take a stiffer swing at it, the City may want to look at opening up the policy. Johnson stated Mattick was making his point. The first question is, who gets to decide who the City discriminates against as far as which ones move on immediately and which ones the City chooses to take a blind eye to. The goal is 100% compliance and the City wants that without going to the next level. If the first level is not started, what happens if there is not compliance in a few weeks. If the Governor says construction workers are not essential, all of a sudden 2 weeks turn into 6 weeks. When a complaint comes in, the City should investigate the complaint and put the wheels in motion. If the owner complies, everyone is happy. In his opinion, it is very dangerous and an irresponsible approach to pick and choose. Walsh said about a year ago a policy was put in place regarding how to address violations. The process is, if the City receives a complaint, the City sends a letter out and the recipient has time to reply. His understanding is Staff is making a judgment call and saying in this case it will be in 2 weeks. By the time the City gives them the letter and time to comply, they have already complied. He stated he is willing to pull out the policy and revisit it if there is anything the Council should tweak on it. He agreed that the Council needs to be consistent in every case. Johnson said that is his point and there is no harm in getting the ball rolling. Barnhart noted part of the issue is limited resources. He did visit the property and noticed the property owners were well into framing the second floor. He thought it was a reasonable response to not fire up a letter and then retract it later. He does not think the City gains anything. He has other violations he is spending his time on. Printup asked if that property owner was aware they did something that they should not have done. Barnhart stated that they probably do not know that. He said he could send the property owner a letter saying they are in violation. The issue is that the violation will only happen once in the life of the building because it only applies if the house is torn down in the winter and you want to put a dock up before the house is done. Johnson said Staff does not get to decide; and for the City’s protection, the City should treat every file the same, especially code enforcement. He saw the code enforcement list, and there are not an overwhelming amount of complaints the City is dealing with. Seals agreed with Johnson. She said it is great that they will be in compliance in a few weeks, but it sends the wrong message: We know that you messed up, but we aren’t going to let you know and we are going MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 24 of 25 to let it slide. She referenced the Crystal Bay dock and said they don’t have a permit and the dock is in; they don’t even know if they will get a permit and the dock is in. If there is a rule or a code, they need to be enforced. If the code is bad, it can be changed. It does not take that long to send them a letter and let them know. It is unfair to the property owner because the City has not let them know. Johnson said the City put the screws to the neighbor down the street for the same thing. Right now, it is not even-handed, it is being noticed, and it has to be even-handed. Barnhart stated he has not gotten a complaint on that dock on the City property. Last winter when it was noticed, the direction from the Council was to not do anything and they would change the code. As the property owner is requesting his license, Barnhart has charged an after-the-fact fee, which is what he can do, and the property owner has indicated he will wish to appeal. Seals said that Barnhart was correct in that case. Just because the Council talks about something does not make it a sealed deal. It makes everyone question whether or not the dock should go in, as the property owner doesn’t know how to read the rules. Legally, the City’s best bet is to be consistent on everything. Printup referenced the City-owned dock application that the Council just approved and said the Council was warned that people would abuse that and that applicant chose to abuse it. He hopes that person sends something to the City saying he is sorry and that he will do better next time, because the message was very clear that they could lose their application. Seals commented that the property owner is appealing his after-the-fact fee. Johnson said the house is now up for sale so there probably was a push to get the dock in. In fairness to that owner, the family has been putting the dock out for years without permission and so they just did it again. He is willing to hear what the applicant has to say. Johnson asked if he needed to make a motion regarding the property that is in violation or whether the City Council could give Staff direction to continue with code enforcement until there is compliance. Council members were in agreement to give Staff direction at this point. Crosby noted Mattick made some good points and said there is also the way you deliver code enforcement, and sometimes you have to think through the process because if you punish just for the sake of punishment, he did not know if many lessons would be taught. He also said he wants to get everybody back to work as soon as possible. He asked Orono citizens to remember small business owners and encouraged everyone to continue to support restaurants; they are the life-blood of the community. He encouraged everyone to be kind to their neighbors and do what they can to send positive messages. Walsh agreed with Crosby and thanked the policemen and firemen for their great work at the fire in Mound. His heart goes out to everyone taking pay cuts. He thanked everyone for their hard work. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Rief said they have had a number of donations that have come in to the City. He thanked Walsh for the pizzas delivered to the Police Department a couple weekends ago and thanked those that donated cupcakes, stating everyone appreciated them. He thanked everyone for helping out with donations. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 25 of 25 CITY ATTORNEY REPORT None ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:17 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh), Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Page 1 of 4 Orono City Council Work Session Monday, April 13, 2020 Council Chambers (Held by Electronic Means) 5:00 p.m. AGENDA PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Richard F. Crosby II, Victoria Seals, Aaron Printup and Matt Johnson. Staff members present were City Administrator Dustin Rief, Director of Public Works/City Engineer, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. COVID-19 Update City Administrator Dustin Rief began by discussing the latest update from Hennepin County EOC on the latest COVID-19 information. Rief asked the Council for feedback and input about requests he had received about rolling back the utility rate increase or possibly doing some sort of forgiveness for any late fees incurred during this pandemic. Mayor Dennis Walsh mentioned City had went through a rather exhaustive understanding and process to figure out why the increase of rates was needed. He added the City should not change things because it will be happen eventually and we made the responsible decision to begin now to fund infrastructure needs through the utilities rather than through assessments and borrowing. Walsh mentioned he would be open to looking into it case by case if needed but that it is probably best to keep things the same at this time. Walsh asked the rest of the Council for their thoughts. Council Member Aaron Printup asked how many call has the City had about late fee forgiveness. He agrees that the City had went through an exhaustive process coming up with the decision to increase rates, however was concerned about where the communication piece about this was in the past six months. He mentioned if there had been more communication that had went out about the rate increases then it could have made it easier for everyone to understand the rationale behind it. He added that he wasn’t sure if allowing the late fee forgiveness was the way to fix some of the miscommunication but that we may owe it to the Citizens. Printup asked why the communication was not sent out. Rief mentioned that he and the Finance Director Ron Olson are looking into why the communication did not go out. Printup would like more communications to go out now as well. Council Member Victoria Seals agrees that the roll outs should not be held back. She mentioned that the decision to increase rates was wise and the whole Council made the decision and knew why it was needed, however we have not communicated well enough to the Citizens. Seals added that the City also owes the public an explanation and that the rate increases should be over communicated the why now and just made Page 2 of 4 that a priority. Walsh added that we had to do the increases now to correct the deficiencies from years past, which we have been doing, however it all contributes to the Council Member Matt Johnson mentioned that it makes sense that the City does not want to go backwards in terms of communication. The City should keep in mind that we also learned that people with wells were paying in part for people with city water. Johnson asked what the City did to communicate a major change for this. The failure is that we do not have a definitive plan to communicate with the public. He added all we can do is learn from it and develop a specific procedure to communicate things like this. Johnson added the City may also want to tell the citizens where they can go to find the information. Council Member Richard Crosby agrees that we should have a plan in place to communicate with the public but also that we may want to try not to go backwards. Walsh mentioned that we should readdress this at the next work session or when we have a little more information. Printup would like staff to find out how the City can use their own website to showcase things like this now and for the future. Finance Director Ron Olson mentioned that approximately 10% of the people calling were asking for forgiveness. Olson added we have had a lot of conversations over the past few days and that overall we do have a pretty intelligent and thoughtful citizen base. Walsh asked if Rief had anything else to add to this item. Rief mentioned that we have had more inquiries related to parks, public works, and utility bills. Overall everything is continuing to go as normal in terms of the number of building permits coming in and the calls we are still receiving. 2. Staffing Discussion Police Chief Correy Farniok gave an update to the Council of the recent activities of the Police Department. They have continued to respond to calls for assistance and at times have gone into many homes. Farniok asked the Council for input about what the city can do for those officers that are going into those COVID-19 related calls, because they do not have the ability to work from home. Currently we are rotating and alternating shifts so that there is no overlap, but there is still a concern of the risk involved to the officers and their families. Farniok recommended the council consider implementing a program which would include an increase of $100-$150 per week as COVID 19 pay for full-time sworn in Officers and the Community Service Officer during the time we are under a shelter in place order. The increase would not apply to those employees working from home. Page 3 of 4 Printup asked about the reasoning for the non-overlapping shifts. Printup asked what the City Administrator’s recommendation would be about this. Rief mentioned that there is a lot of information about this and there are a lot of valid points for implementing a program for this however he could not give a recommendation either way. Rief mentioned he may be leaning more against it this time. Crosby asked if we did anything different back when we had the H1N1 epidemic. Farniok responded that the vaccine had been offered after about 4 months at that time and the Governor had not declared a state of emergency at that time. He mentioned that this would occur during this time only. Printup mentioned that he tends to be in favor of this because it could turn out to be less costly. Walsh stated he sees both sides of this. He stated to pick one out because the Governor chose who can and can not work it doesn’t add any difference to whats going on. It seems that data shown for people in the field contacting this disease has been mainly from community contact which happens outside of working hours. Crosby mentioned that we don’t get to pick and choose what we are exposed to. I think the best thing we should do is to make sure the Officers are supplied with the proper PPE. Johnson mentioned that he feels the best way we can support is deal with it as an officer becomes sick. This seems to be like we are giving people money in case they get sick. We should look at supporting the officer if they get sick. Seals agrees with Johnson. Possibly looking into options of how we can support staff if they get sick would be appropriate. Printup mentioned that the option of supporting them after they contact the disease could be more costly. City Engineer/Public Works Director Adam Edwards mentioned that if a plan does take shape then it should include the maintenance workers and building official as well. Walsh would like staff to come up with a plan. Rief mentioned that Workers Comp will cover up to 60% of costs. Johnson asked the City Administrator to put a formal proposal together. Page 4 of 4 Rief mentioned that he will discuss with the Attorney and bring back a formal plan in two weeks. Adjourned: 6:50 p.m. __________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 113802 to 113867, totaling $313,385.46. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #113835 League of MN Cities $33,787.86 Payment for legal fees related to a Land Use and Special Risk litigation. #113844 Mission Communications $5,248.80 Payment for annual SCADA system monitoring for lift stations. #113862 Traut Companies $60,480.00 Payment for Well #3 screen installation and test pumping. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of a motion authorizing payment to the claims list as presented. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the claims list as presented. Exhibits A. Check Register Item No.: 3 Date: April 27, 2020 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: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BRANDON MAURER 04/14/2020 113585 030520 601-49400-437 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Water 89.70- Total 113585:89.70- CLINT SCHUMANN 04/14/2020 113600 030520 101-43000-437 ST. CLOUD RIVER CENTER WATER SCHOOL Public Works Department 225.45- Total 113600:225.45- BRANDON MAURER 04/14/2020 113802 030520 601-49400-437 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT Water 89.70 Total 113802:89.70 CLINT SCHUMANN 04/14/2020 113803 030520 101-43000-437 ST. CLOUD RIVER CENTER WATER SCHOOL Public Works Department 225.45 Total 113803:225.45 ABM Equipment & Supply LLC 04/27/2020 113809 0163359-IN 701-49800-222 GRAB HANDLES 327.43 Total 113809:327.43 ANNE HENTGES 04/27/2020 113810 032120 101-41900-201 COVID-19 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 34.15 Total 113810:34.15 Blue Sky Chimney Sweeps 04/27/2020 113811 030420 101-32530 REFUND - PERMIT OVERPAYMENT 11.41 Total 113811:11.41 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248560 602-16500 2019 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 19-013 174.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248561 435-48972-304 2019 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 19-001 4,468.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248563 101-43280-304 LA18-000034 2635 KELLY PKWY Special Services 62.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248564 101-43280-304 LA18-000034 2745 KELLY PKWY Special Services 138.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248565 651-16500 2020 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 20-022 576.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248566 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE Sewer 728.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248566 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE Water 517.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248566 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE Engineering 1,437.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248567 602-16500 20-019 BACKUP GENERATORS 4,901.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248568 651-49910-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING Storm Water 669.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248568 602-49450-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING Sewer 639.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248569 435-48973-304 2020 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 20-001 2020 Street Improvments 29,527.58 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248571 225-45200-304 BEDERWOOD PARK IMPROVEMENT 19-032 124.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248573 225-45200-304 EAST LONG LAKE TRAIL 20-029 6,059.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.04/27/2020 113812 0248670 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 2,083.50 Total 113812:52,105.08 BUREAU OF CRIM. APPREHEN 04/27/2020 113813 0000059863 101-42110-311 CJDN ACCESS Police Department 510.00 Total 113813:510.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 032320-2 101-41900-321 COVID 19 - TRACFONE Central Services 43.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 032320-3 101-41900-321 COVID 19 - TRACFONE - MINUTES Central Services 22.75 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 032620 710-49970-221 MOUSE - WORK FROM HOME 11.84 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 040520 101-45200-416 SECURITY CAMERA FEE Parks 19.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 040720 101-42110-240 COVID 19 OZONE MACHINES Police Department 188.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 040920 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSE COVID Mayor & Council 25.81 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 040920-1 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSES COVID Mayor & Council 77.42 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041020 101-19999 2020 STREETS 20-001 400.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041020-1 101-19999 2020 STREETS 20-001 1,600.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041020-2 101-19999 2020 STREETS 20-001 400.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041020-3 101-19999 2020 STREETS 20-001 400.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041420 101-42110-402 OIL CHANGE #256 Police Department 46.65 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 041620 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSE COVID Mayor & Council 38.71 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 04/27/2020 113814 042220 101-41900-321 COVID 19 - TRACFONE - MINUTES Central Services 25.00 Total 113814:3,300.15 CEMSTONE 04/27/2020 113815 C2158058 101-43000-224 BUILDING BINS FOR MATERIAL STORING - CON Public Works Department 1,560.00 Total 113815:1,560.00 CENTURY LINK 04/27/2020 113816 040420 601-49400-321 WATER PLANT PHONE/INTERNET 4/3-5/3/20 Water 270.76 Total 113816:270.76 CenturyLink 04/27/2020 113817 1489546913 614-49840-329 INTERNET 3/8/20-4/7/20 Cable Franchise 1,056.44 Total 113817:1,056.44 CINTAS CORPORATION 04/27/2020 113818 4047853185 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 2.63 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CINTAS CORPORATION 04/27/2020 113818 4047853185 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 59.54 CINTAS CORPORATION 04/27/2020 113818 4048425413 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 2.63 CINTAS CORPORATION 04/27/2020 113818 4048425413 101-43000-226 UNIFORM Public Works Department 59.54 Total 113818:124.34 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 04/27/2020 113819 040820 602-49450-387 SEWER SERVICE - 1ST QTR 2020 Sewer 164.00 Total 113819:164.00 CITY OF ORONO PETTY CASH 04/27/2020 113820 042320 101-10305 GC CHANGE FUND 200.00 Total 113820:200.00 CORE & MAIN 04/27/2020 113821 M171404 651-49910-227 PLUG MIX Storm Water 89.96 Total 113821:89.96 DELTA DENTAL 04/27/2020 113822 RIS0002765 101-21709 484213 MAY 2020 DENTAL 3,239.28 Total 113822:3,239.28 DPC INDUSTRIES 04/27/2020 113823 DE82000035 601-49400-216 CHLORINE Water 20.00 Total 113823:20.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 04/27/2020 113824 768312 101-41900-352 CUSTODIAN POSITION AD Central Services 225.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 04/27/2020 113824 769181 101-42400-340 APRIL PH NOTICE Building & Zoning 103.73 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 04/27/2020 113824 770777 101-41900-352 CUSTODIAN POSITION AD Central Services 75.00 Total 113824:403.73 EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 04/27/2020 113825 48722 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 465.45 Total 113825:465.45 ESS BROTHERS & SONS 04/27/2020 113826 AA1570 651-49910-227 STORM SEWER CASTING AND GRATE Storm Water 198.00 Total 113826:198.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 04/27/2020 113827 00143441 701-49800-221 HYDRANT HOSES 109.34 Total 113827:109.34 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/27/2020 113828 3270-471364 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 17.68 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 04/27/2020 113828 533049 701-49800-240 FLASHLIGHT 67.59 Total 113828:85.27 GEPHART ELECTRIC CO INC 04/27/2020 113829 160315 601-49400-405 NORTH WELL PUMP HOUSE LIGHT REPAIR Water 237.50 Total 113829:237.50 GOPHER ACE 04/27/2020 113830 001113/1 651-49910-240 AXES Storm Water 45.98 GOPHER ACE 04/27/2020 113830 1039/1 651-49910-240 PINCH BAR Storm Water 134.97 Total 113830:180.95 GRAINGER INC 04/27/2020 113831 9504980880 701-49800-221 ANTI ICING UNIT PARTS 11.16 Total 113831:11.16 Henn county Community Correcti 04/27/2020 113832 1000149404 101-45200-404 STS PARKS Parks 2,271.18 Total 113832:2,271.18 Hopping, Matthew & Angela 04/27/2020 113833 041620 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000040 1,000.00 Hopping, Matthew & Angela 04/27/2020 113833 041620 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA18-000040 30.00- Total 113833:970.00 IACP 04/27/2020 113834 0101884 101-42110-433 IACP ANNUAL DUES- MEMBERSHIP Police Department 190.00 Total 113834:190.00 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 04/27/2020 113835 GL 29456 703-49960-379 LANPHER/NYGARD 33,787.86 Total 113835:33,787.86 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 04/27/2020 113836 040920 703-49960-361 COMP MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INS 119,890.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 113836:119,890.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/27/2020 113837 P26665 701-49800-221 SWEEPER PARTS 824.24 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/27/2020 113837 P26696 701-49800-222 UNIT #460 SWEEPER REPAIR TASK43415 2,953.91 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/27/2020 113837 P26774 701-49800-222 UNIT #460 SWEEPER REPAIR TASK43415 12.66 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/27/2020 113837 P26839 701-49800-222 UNIT #460 SWEEPER REPAIR TASK43415 496.26 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 04/27/2020 113837 P26940 701-49800-222 UNIT #460 REPAIR 54.27 Total 113837:4,341.34 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/27/2020 113838 21746097 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,332.97 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/27/2020 113838 21746151 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 344.46 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/27/2020 113838 21752556 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 580.72 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 04/27/2020 113838 21752566 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 860.12 Total 113838:4,118.27 MARGARET UNG 04/27/2020 113839 042020 101-41500-331 MILEAGE 3/26/20-4/17/20 Finance Department 18.98 MARGARET UNG 04/27/2020 113839 042020 101-41900-321 COVID-19 PHONE MINUTES Central Services 22.74 Total 113839:41.72 Metropolitan Homes LLC 04/27/2020 113840 04152020 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS20-000033 3180 RIDGE 1,000.00 Total 113840:1,000.00 MIKE WOCKEN 04/27/2020 113841 041420 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 109.98 Total 113841:109.98 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/27/2020 113842 00057450 701-49800-222 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN 30.69 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/27/2020 113842 00057451 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 51.15 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 04/27/2020 113842 00057452 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 7.13 Total 113842:88.97 MINNESOTA UI FUND 04/27/2020 113843 13333735 101-45210-142 UNEMPLOYMENT - OTREY Golf Course 221.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 113843:221.00 MISSION COMMUNICATIONS LL 04/27/2020 113844 1039113 602-49450-416 MISSION ANNUAL SERVICE Sewer 5,248.80 Total 113844:5,248.80 MN DEPT OF COMMERCE 04/27/2020 113845 001-0000616 101-42110-401 MAINTENANCE TO SCALES Police Department 364.00 Total 113845:364.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 04/27/2020 113846 033120 601-39610 SALES TAX 3/2020 100.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 04/27/2020 113846 033120 601-20806 SALES TAX 3/2020 1,299.00 Total 113846:1,399.00 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 04/27/2020 113847 1250006-00 101-45210-223 SUCTION LINE PARTS Golf Course 196.47 Total 113847:196.47 NAVARRE HARDWARE 04/27/2020 113848 323770 101-43000-224 WEIGHT RESTRICTION SIGN FLAG BOLT Public Works Department 7.16 NAVARRE HARDWARE 04/27/2020 113848 323773 101-45200-223 PARKS BATTERIES Parks 39.98 Total 113848:47.14 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.04/27/2020 113849 6732000520 101-21710 PERA LIFE 05/2020 352.00 Total 113849:352.00 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302723097 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - VIDEO CABLE 23.96 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302724341 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - CABLES - WORK AT HOME 47.20 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302724797 710-49970-221 MONITOR STAND 78.56 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302724808 710-49970-221 USB/NIC ADAPTER 50.38 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302725313 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - 2 LAPTOPS - WORK AT HOME 1,189.98 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302727419 710-49970-221 DOCKING STATIONS 157.98 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302728119 710-49970-221 LAPTOP BATTERY 51.59 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302729207 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - 2 LAPTOPS - WORK AT HOME 839.96 NEWEGG INC 04/27/2020 113850 1302735054 710-49970-221 IPAD ACCESSORIES 69.57 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 113850:2,509.18 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 546 04/27/2020 113851 033120 101-42110-402 3/20 CARWASHES Police Department 60.50 Total 113851:60.50 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 547 04/27/2020 113852 033120 101-42110-402 03/20 CAR WASHES Police Department 230.67 Total 113852:230.67 OFFICE DEPOT 04/27/2020 113853 4480220120 101-41900-221 WALL CLOCK Central Services 31.39 OFFICE DEPOT 04/27/2020 113853 4494667940 101-42110-221 MISC EQUIPMENT Police Department 7.59 OFFICE DEPOT 04/27/2020 113853 4710390940 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 17.16 OFFICE DEPOT 04/27/2020 113853 4738625400 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 9.42 Total 113853:65.56 OPTUM 04/27/2020 113854 9411626 101-41900-319 HSA MAINTENANCE FEE 1ST QTR 2020 Central Services 220.50 Total 113854:220.50 Riverside Design 04/27/2020 113855 1936 101-42110-352 PD ENVELOPES Police Department 101.36 Total 113855:101.36 SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 04/27/2020 113856 2009 701-49800-221 WARNING LIGHT INSTALL FOR UNITS 421 250.00 Total 113856:250.00 SF Mobile-Vision Inc 04/27/2020 113857 27372 101-42110-416 SOFTWARE Police Department 988.00 Total 113857:988.00 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 04/27/2020 113858 041520 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-04/2020 Law/Legal Services 2,817.90 Total 113858:2,817.90 The Davey Tree Expert Company 04/27/2020 113859 914481919 101-45220-404 STUMP HAULING Brush Site 600.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 4/14/2020 - 4/27/2020 Apr 23, 2020 04:11PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 113859:600.00 THN ENTERPRISES 04/27/2020 113860 2115 101-45200-404 BIG ISLAND DOCKS Parks 4,500.00 Total 113860:4,500.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 04/27/2020 113861 M25579 101-41110-439 CC MEETING MINUTES Mayor & Council 148.00 Total 113861:148.00 Traut Companies 04/27/2020 113862 323731 601-16500 WELL #3 SCREEN INSTALL & TEST PUMPING 19-60,480.00 Total 113862:60,480.00 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATI 04/27/2020 113863 21-59216 701-49800-222 PROPANE UNIT 432 38.98 Total 113863:38.98 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 04/27/2020 113864 7947 701-49800-402 ANNUAL DOT INSPECTION 115.00 Total 113864:115.00 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 04/27/2020 113865 18131 101-42110-402 SQUAD #261 MAINTENANCE Police Department 17.05 Total 113865:17.05 West Bay Homes Corp 04/27/2020 113866 041520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA-000058 1080 HERITAGE 700.00 West Bay Homes Corp 04/27/2020 113866 041520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA-000058 1080 HERITAGE 21.00- Total 113866:679.00 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 04/27/2020 113867 3502792470 101-45210-381 GC SECURITY 5/1-5/31/20 Golf Course 41.82 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 04/27/2020 113867 3502792470 101-45220-381 BRUSH SITE 3/1-4/1/20 Brush Site 20.97 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 04/27/2020 113867 3502792470 101-43000-381 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 03/01-04/01/20 Public Works Department 158.84 Total 113867:221.63 Grand Totals: 313,385.46 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agenda item is to obtain council approval to contract with Paychex for payroll related services. 2. Background. In October of last year the Payroll/Utility billing Specialist submitted her notice of retirement. Her final day was November 27th and the position has been open since then. Staff has been meeting with the Organization Committee to discuss how the duties of this position should be performed. One of the options being considered has been outsourcing some or all of the position’s duties. The Committee and staff agree that the outsourcing of the payroll functions would be appropriate. During the process staff contacted three payroll companies: ADP, Gusto, and Paychex. The services available between the companies varied. In conversations with Gusto, they indicated that they were set up for smaller non-government entities and that city should look to the bigger players in the market like Paychex and ADP. In meeting with the companies staff found that the representatives from Paychex were much better to work with. They made a noticeable effort to learn about our needs and presented us with multiple options to fit our needs. The solution offered by Paychex includes payroll processing, benefit administration, and human resources support. This solution provides an opportunity to stream line software packages to include miPayOnline (hours entry, leave requests, and paperless paycheck delivery), Orono Benefits enrollment, HRwize (performance reviews), and Further (FSA/HSA, Dependent Care services). The solution would streamline the onboarding and benefits enrollment; with entries made being during these processes automatically entered into payroll removing an area for errors to enter the system. By having a single agent and software provider it is expected to reduce the administrative management burden of Finance, IT, and HR by around 100 to 150 hours. 3. Cost. The cost for the fully integrated HR/Payroll solution from Paychex is $31,000 annually with a one-time set up cost of $2,500. Paychex is currently offering new customers two months (1st and 4th) of free service. The two free months would reduce the first year’s costs to $29,500, including the setup fee. 4. Funding. Funding for this service would come from currently budgeted funds. A majority of the funding would be from fees currently to other vendors for services that will now be performed by Paychex. These fees include include: The balance of the funding will be from the $91,047.76 budgeted for the open position in the Finance Department. Item No.: 4 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approve Payroll Services Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Software Costs $13,688.00 Benefit Agent Fees $10,500.00 Total $24,188.00 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of using Paychex for payroll and Human Resource services. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED A motion to approve the use of Paychex for payroll services as presented. Exhibits 1. Paychex Proposal Prepared for: City of Orono, MN Ron Olson Prepared by: Beth Witt Sales Representative - HR Services bwitt1@paychex.com Executive Summary Paychex HR Solutions offers practical, scalable Human Resources managed by a well-trained, local professional who actively supports you to mitigate compliance risks, streamline administration, and maximize human resources. Your Paychex HR professional can be on site, online and when you call, it’s their cell, not an 800 number. You’ll also find an array of helpful tools integrated into our easy-to-use, real-time data platform with Paychex Flex and end-to-end benefits administration tailored to address each of your company’s HR challenges. Paychex is a company more than half a million businesses trust for payroll and HR excellence. For more than four decades, our financial stability, track record of innovation and commitment to exceptional services have helped us become a recognized industry leader providing innovative solutions that can help your business grow. Paychex HR Solutions provides practical, scalable Human Resource Solutions managed by a well-trained, local professional who actively supports you to mitigate compliance risks, streamline administration and maximize human resources. Our on-the-go technology powered by Paychex Flex provides a secure, single point of access to payroll, HR, retirement, and insurance resources, helping you manage your employees and business more efficiently. Paychex Flex is a single, comprehensive platform built with the latest technology, featuring service options that can grow with your business. Utilizing cloud based access and a single employee record Paychex can help manage your employees from hire to retire without the need for an admin to type info again and again helping ensure real-time accuracy across the entire platform. By leaving non-revenue-generating tasks to Paychex, you can put your efforts into strategic activities that add directly to your own bottom line. Product Highlights Paychex Flex Technology Paychex Flex Enterprise is a single, comprehensive platform built with the latest cloud technology, featuring service options that can grow and change with your business. Single Employee Record From hire to retire, the same information from a single data profile for each employee permeates throughout our entire system, without the need for an admin to type info again and again, helping ensure real-time accuracy across the entire platform. Cloud-Based Access and Control Data in the cloud means your teams get what they need when and where they need it, on the devices they use, without internal servers or storage. Proactive, Flexible, Customizable Service From phone suppor t to the dedicated assistance of our payroll specialists and account teams, you choose the service model that best suits your needs. Fast, Accurate Implementation Your implementation is fast, accurate, and truly turnkey. Personalized training options are available to you and your employees. And options can be added or even turned off as your business grows and changes. HRG Service Model One exceptional benefit of Paychex HR Solutions is having an assigned human resource professional as your dedicated HR consultant. This individual will support you through the establishment and maintenance of all your Paychex services. From on-site enrollment meetings and plan setup to assistance with everyday HR-related issues, your HR professional will work with you to teach you how to best utilize this scalable technology for your needs. Your dedicated HR professional will have a solid background in human resources, often with specialized education and experience. They are backed by a team of qualified professionals at Paychex, including payroll specialists, health and benefits specialists, licensed insurance agents, safety and loss control representatives, 401(k) specialists, HR management systems (HRMS) personnel, and others. Your dedicated professional actively supports you in your efforts to stay abreast of regulatory developments – local, state and federal. They know their business and will learn about yours. This is how they become trusted partners to your management team. Training Your HR professional’s role is to assist in determining which seminars may have the greatest positive impact to your organization. The more your HR professional understands about your business, and the challenges that concern your business, the more effective your HR professional can be in strategically partnering with you to deliver effective training. Our highly qualified HR professionals can provide you with on-site training developed by our award- winning Paychex Training and Development Center. Training topics that are available to you are broken down by the following categories: •Business skills •Employment laws •Health and safety •Human resources •Leadership Paychex Learning Center Your Paychex Professional is available to deliver training to your and your employees. For times when assembling all necessary employees is not practical, our free online training through the Paychex Learning Center is also part of your HR Solutions package. These convenient Learning Center modules are designed by our training and development department – consistently named to Training magazine’s “Top Training 125,” which recognizes organizations with the most successful learning and development programs in the world. Effective Management Tools The Paychex Learning Center provides comprehensive recordkeeping and control to track and report on employees’ training, provide individual training transcripts for managers, assign controls for manager- and employee-level access, and provide printed cer tificates for completed courses. Business-Building Topics E-learning modules for your managers and employees are available in five categories: business skills, employment law, human resources, health and safety, and leadership. Compliance Service HR Solutions is designed to support your business, whether a startup or an established business. We customize a solution that assists your efforts to comply with regulations, including proactive training about employment law, leadership, HR management, and effective management tools. These all teach you how to keep within the employee laws on a local, state, and federal level. Our service also includes creating an OSHA-compliant safety program tailored for your business including employee certification training. Paychex also provide state and federally mandated positing in one easy-to-use online poster kit. We monitor the information included for federal or state changes and will provide updates when necessary. Retirement Paychex is the number one 401(k) recordkeeper serving more than 70,000 plans nationwide. Paychex retirement services offers you a choice of: •Thousands of investment options. •Comprehensive plan administration. •Competitive administrative fees. The process is simple. You make three decisions: choose a matching contribution level, a vesting schedule, and investment options. Employees make two: the deferral percentage and the selected investments. By integrating your 401(k) with payroll, you enjoy automatic calculation and transfer of contributions to investment providers – as well as a seamless flow of data for recordkeeping, reporting, and compliance. Experience the Paychex Retirement Plan. Paychex Retirement Plan Services offers: •Ease of complexity. Minimize administration time and improve accuracy with integrated payroll and 401(k). •Flexibility to tailor a plan to your needs. Thousands of investment options, multiple plan design choices, and no proprietary requirements. •Exper t service at every step. Plan design guidance, a dedicated onboarding specialist, and committed service for the life of your plan. •Comprehensive solutions to changing fiduciary regulations with 3(16), 3(21), and 3(38) offerings. Insurance We offer comprehensive health insurance benefits from Paychex Insurance Agency, Inc. to your employees. Licensed agents work with top-rated national carriers to deliver a range of insurance, including group health, workers’ compensation, auto coverage, business owner’s policy, employment practices liability insurance, crime and fidelity bonds, umbrella coverage, and more. Streamline benefits administration with complete administrator oversight and ESR reporting services. •Automated eligibility determinations •Fast enrollment and processing •Highly accurate current and historical transaction data •Powerful communication tools •Carrier billing audit tools HSA A Health Savings Account (HSA) is a tax-sheltered savings account that is similar to an IRA, but designated for qualified medical expenses – allowing the account holder to pay for them with pretax dollars. The employee, not the employer, owns the account. Any unused funds remain in the employee’s HSA account and earn tax-free interest. FSA An FSA is a health/dental or dependent-care budgeting tool that benefits both employers and employees. Employers can see reduced payroll taxes – social security, Medicare, and unemployment – as well as a way to defray health insurance increases. Employees’ contributions are automatically deducted from their salaries before taxes are taken out, which may increase their net compensation. Easy setup and reduced paperwork keep your involvement with FSA administration to a minimum. Our comprehensive service transparently integrates with payroll processing. EAP Employee Assistance Program (EAP) is a work-life benefit that can help reduce employee absenteeism and increase productivity. The program includes an early-intervention protocol that offers counseling referrals, a prescription discount card, online training courses, financial and legal consultation, a wellness program, and a personal assistant to help with day-to-day and major life events. Employee Handbook Build a robust, online employee handbook that meets your company's needs now and in the future. •Pre-developed content •intuitive navigation •legally reviewed federal and state policies •easy customizing and updating capabilities Your company's handbook can be created quickly and efficiently and is readily available for distribution. Safety Paychex safety program helps ensuring that workplace safety meets OSHA regulations. Paychex analyzes your safety and risk exposure and recommends steps to help your business meet OSHA requirements. Assistance includes: •A dedicated Paychex Safety Expert. •Development of safety programs that meet OSHA requirements. •Customized employee-level safety and training materials. •Employee training materials via live or recorded WebEx® webinars. •Exper t resources and assistance with safety issues as needed. Employee Training Program Examples OSHA recordkeeping Compressed gas Fire prevention, evacuation, and extinguishers Fall protection Forklifts Lockout/Tagout Personal protective equipment Respiratory protection Crisis and disaster planning Ergonomics First aid General safety awareness Machine guarding Noise and hearing conservation Trenching and shoring Blood-borne pathogens Construction and contractor safety Electrical safety Hand-tool analysis Back safety Paychex Learning Enhanced Increase employee engagement with a fully customizable learning management system (LMS). In addition to everything included with Paychex Learning Essentials, you’ll be able to create your own trainings and upload previously created trainings. HR Online/ HRMS Paychex HR Online, an internet-based human resources management system (HRMS), provides a scalable, secure solution to assist in the administration of your HR policies and processes. Paychex hosts and supports your data, which can ease costs by minimizing the need for complex systems, IT expertise, and time-consuming upgrades. Features and benefits include: Management Self-Service • Paid-time-off scheduling and automated approvals help reduce paperwork. • Notification of important employee events can be sent and received. • Employee personnel records housed in a safe, secure environment can be easily viewed. • Modules and reminders of employee performance appraisals, vacation and sick hours, and other aids boost productivity. • Customizable new-hire task list allows more efficient management of post-hiring activities. • Access to various hiring and employee management forms and reports helps save time in many aspects of HR responsibilities. Employee Self-Service • Ready access to the company employee handbook. • Easy and convenient benefit option review. • Important management notices and reminders, such as benefits enrollment deadlines and time-off approvals. • Access to tools and forms – including a paid-time-off calendar, expense reports, payroll deduction authorization, request for time off, FSA reimbursement claims, and more. Paychex Works directly with HIREtech to simplify the process and help businesses claim the valuable tax credits they deserve. •Tax credit screening service is provided at no charge. Contingency fee is only paid if credits are found. •Flexibility with phone, paper, or web screening •Credit calculation as well as earned credits reports and supporting documentation for audits Fin Fit FinFit is a comprehensive financial wellness employee benefit that offers a variety of online tools and education to assist employees in meeting their financial goals. FinFit also makes emergency shor t-term loans available to employees, providing an alternative to 401(k) loans and payroll advances. FinFit loans are offered directly to employees, at no cost to employers and at substantially lower costs than other short-term financial solutions. Employees repays the loan directly through a payroll deduction process. Paychex has partnered with HireRight™ – an award winning provider of background screening services trusted by more than 45,000 business around the world. Employee Screening Essentials is a series of different screens offered together in a single easy-to-use package. Each background screen includes: •National Criminal Database search •Address History search •Social Security Number (SSN) Validation •National Sex Offender Registry search. America's Largest Provider of Outsourced HR Services •Paychex was recognized by Inc.com as the provider of the best HR outsourcing for small businesses overall. Paychex was chosen based on its wide range of services, hands-on assistance, and customizable offerings.November 2017 •One of the World’s Top Companies for HR –Workforce 100 List •One of World’s Most Ethical Companies –Ethisphere® Institute •One of the World’s Most Admired Companies –Fortune •One of the World’s Most Innovative Companies –Forbes •Ranked No. 1 in total number of 401(k) recordkeeping plans in America –PLANSPONSOR •Paychex HR Serves Over 900,000 Worksite Employees •Paychex Flex was presented with a 2016 TekTonic Award –HRO Today HR Solutions Includes: Human Resource Management •Dedicated human resource professional •HR consultation and assessments •Onsite training •Regulatory guidance •HR management system •Employee personnel files •Employee handbook •Supervisor procedures manual •Performance management •Required state and federal labor posters •Paychex Learning Center (online training courses) Employee Benefits •ACA compliance services •Premium Only Plan (POP) •Flexible Spending Account (FSA) •Retirement services planning and recordkeeping •Employee assistance program (EAP) •Employee discount program •COBRA administration Payroll •Payroll processing (report how you prefer – online, phone) •Taxpay •Employee pay options •Direct deposit •Check •Paycard (Skylight) •New-hire repor ting •Time-off accrual •Garnishment payment service •Paychex Repor t Center •General Ledger Reporting Service •Employee access online Property and Casualty Insurance •State Unemployment Insurance administration •Claims administration •Benefit charge audits •Wage verifications Safety Services •Federal and state safety and health compliance •Employee safety and health management •Employee safety training media •Holistic safety training seminars Recruiting, Interviewing & Selection •Employee Screening Essentials •Onboarding Essentials •Customized job descriptions •Interviewing and selection manual •Interviewing best practices •Legal requirements •Prescreening best practices •New-employee orientation •Compensation manual •Salary benchmarking Paychex HR Online •Human resource management system (HRMS) centralizes access to organizational directories, company documents, dynamic forms, and more Add-On Products/Services Create a welcoming new hire experience with an electronic process to collect, sign, and store new-hire documents. With onboarding, you can reduce administrative costs and standardize new hire paperwork by collecting: •Form I-9, Form W-4, state tax forms •Gender and race/ethnicity information •Direct deposit data •Acknowledgement of the employee handbook •Acceptance of company policies Paychex Flex Time Our time and labor management solutions allow you to save time, improve payroll accuracy, and ultimately save money. Residing in the cloud for real-time data access, and designed to be exceptionally easy and intuitive to use, Paychex Flex Time gives you unprecedented visibility and control over your labor costs, which can help drive tangible increases in savings, output, and performance. •Manager Dashboards Real-time data for strategic decision-making with analytics and advanced key performance indicator (KPI) tracking. •Performance Trends Analyze labor data and identify patterns to help predict operational needs. •Employee Dashboard Empower employees with easy tools to record time, transfer departments, check schedules, and view time-off balances and requests. City of Orono, MN Created Date: 3/30/2020 Quote Number: Q-333095 Per Pay Period Fees Per Pay Period Fees Payroll Frequency Quantity Rate Payroll Delivery Bi-weekly 1 $11.50 HR Solutions - Per Employee Bi-weekly 56 $1,055.74 Employer Shared Responsibility - Base Bi-weekly 1 $67.05 Flex Time Base Fee Bi-weekly 1 $16.20 Flex Onboarding Bi-weekly 56 $40.20 TOTAL:$1,190.69 Monthly Fees Monthly Fees Quantity Rate Employee Handbook 56 $0.00 TOTAL:$0.00 Annual Fees Annual Fees Quantity Rate Quarter/Year End Report Delivery 4 $48.00 W2 Delivery 1 $20.00 One-Time Fees One-Time Fees Net Total Implementation Fee $2,500.00 HIREtech Remote I-9 $0.00 HIREtech E-Verify $0.00 Implementation fees will be split out over 5 months(applicable to HR Solutions setup fees only). Notations: * Totals displayed do not include sales tax where applicable. * Prices are subject to change with advance notice; promotions are excluded from change. * Additional training content for Paychex Learning Product offering is purchased through the e-commerce tool site by authorized users. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Rental Licenses for the license period of April 27, 2020 to December 31, 2021. 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental licenses as listed in Exhibit A for the license period of April 27, 2020 to December 31, 2021. The Rental License Applicants in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of April 27, 2020 to December 31, 2021. Exhibits A. Listing of Rental Licenses Item No.: 5 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A City Council 2020 Rental License RL20-000009 Chris Carlson 100 RL20-000010 Tony Strumstad 100 License# Licensee Total License Fees AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the issuance of a 2020 Hennepin County Water Patrol Special Event Permit for use of Long Lake by the Long Lake Rowing Crew. 2. Background. The Long Lake Rowing Crew (LLRC) is again requesting permission from the Water Patrol for a Sheriff’s Special Event Permit for use of Long Lake for regular rowing practice during the 2020 boating season. The Water Patrol standard procedure requires written approval by the affected local government bodies prior to issuing such permits. Hours of operation are proposed to be similar to previous years (see Exhibit A). 3. Public Comment. The City has not received any comments regarding this use. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject to the provisions stated in Orono’s previous years proposals: 1) no organized practice on Sundays, and 2) the activity shall not impede the use of the Summit Park Beach facilities and access by the public. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to send a letter to the Sheriff’s Water Patrol approving issuance of the Special Event Permit for the Long Lake Rowing Crew for the 2020 season subject to the above-noted conditions. Exhibits A. LLRC Practice Times B. Water Patrol Special Event Permit Application Item No.: 6 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approval of Hennepin County 2020 Special Event Permit – Long Lake Rowing Crew Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to accept a donations received from community members to assist with the battle against COVID 19. 2. Background. The Police Department has received several donations in the past few weeks from community members to assist officers COVID 19. The donations have included hand sanitizer from J. Carver, N-95 and surgical masks from several residents and water and Coke products from Coca -Cola.. The donated masks and sanitizer will help protect officers when responding to calls and assisting people in our community. 3. Donations J. Carver Distillery (Gina Holman) – Hand Sanitizer for office and squads Franz Weiglein- (300) N-95 Masks Mark Kroll – (10) N-95 Masks Coca Cola (Kurt Ritter) and Mark Roll for organizing the donation – Several cases of water and Coke products. 25:2 Solutions (Eric Jackson) – (28) – 3D printed filtered masks 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to accept the donations and thank community members for support against COVID 19. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion for approval to accept donations of hand sanitizer, masks and beverages and thanks to the community members and businesses for your kind and generous donations. Item No.: 7 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approval to Accept Donations Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of a firearms. 2. Background. Over the last several years the police department has acquired several guns (3) by various means. Some have been taken during search warrants and others have been seized when used illegally. These 3 guns will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. 2. Project Scope. Disposal of firearms. 18-011702 Crossman 66 Powermaster BB SN-D02209416 18-001712 Daisy BB Gun SN-193BB 18-001712 Remington Wingmaster 870 20 ga SN-S606558U 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the disposal of a firearms as listed above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to dispose of a firearms as listed above. Orono Public Works will cut up and destroy these 3 guns. Item No.: 8 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Firearms Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of unclaimed property. 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. 2. Project Scope. Disposal of unclaimed property. To include the following 1. Extension ladder Case #19-5014 2. Pallet Jack Case #20-1302 3. Giant Mountain Bike Case #20-2015 4. Woman’s Mountain Bike Case #20-580 3. 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 and bikes will be donated to Free Bike for Kids. Item No.: 9 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of Unclaimed Property Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: JG Reviewed By: Approved By: DJR 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-$16 for Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Employees, $10-$16 for Utilities Maintenance Workers; $15.00-$20.00 for the Clubhouse Manager; and $13 for the Administrative Scan Clerk. The Clubhouse Manager will be a part time employee. All other employees will be seasonal and fall under the 6 month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA membership. 3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates. Name Position Wage ($/hr) Remarks Approved 1-13-20 Danielle Middendorf Sledding Hill Attendant $12.00 Returnee Approved 2-24-20 Marie Jorland Clubhouse Manager $16.00 Returnee Danielle Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $13.00 Returnee Wendy Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $13.00 Returnee Marshall Hambro Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Calvin Schmidt Parks and Golf Maintenance $14.00 Returnee Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Rebecca Anderson Seasonal Utility Maintenance $14.00 Returnee Approved 3-9-20 Chad Stowell Parks and Golf Maintenance $15.00 Returnee Ron Steffenhagen Parks and Golf Maintenance $14.00 Returnee Scott Prochnow Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Fermin Aragon Parks and Golf Maintenance $14.00 Returnee Approved 3-30-20 Kimberly Haug Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 New hire Claudia Whitely Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 New hire Lloyd Engler Parks and Golf Maintenance $12.00 New hire Requesting Approval Mitchell Hall Parks and Golf Maintenance $16.00 Returnee John Schmidt Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire Jacob Goman Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire Alicia Johnson Administrative – Scan Clerk $13.00 Returnee 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above. Item No.: 10 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Appointment of 2020 Seasonal Employees Presenter: Jason Goehring Parks and Golf Course Supervisor Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: JBarnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding vacation and re-dedication of conservation easements impacting several lots in the Lakeview of Orono development. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete on February 14, 2020. Additionally, the 60-Day review period was extended and now expires on June 13th. 3. Background/ Summary. At the April 13th City Council meeting the Council reviewed the staff reports, public comments, and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. The Council voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the application as presented and directed staff to draft an approval resolution for adoption at the April 27th meeting. 4. Staff Recommendation. Based on Council’s direction, staff has drafted an approval resolution for consideration. One resolution must be recorded against each property affected. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Draft Council Minutes References City Council Memo + Exhibits of 04/13/2020 PC Memo + Exhibits of 03/16/2020 Item No.: 11 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description:LA20-000012 – Source Land Development Inc., Lakeview of Orono – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L7B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L9B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L13B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L15B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L17B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L20B3 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEDICATED WITH THE PLAT LAKEVIEW OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA L21B1 FILE NO. LA20-000012 WHEREAS, the City of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2020, Chase Peterson o/b/o Source Land Development, Inc., (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for vacation of portions of the Grant of Permanent Flowage and Conservation Easement and Restrictive Covenant for Wetlands (the “Conservation Easement”) recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder on August 25, 2015, as Document No. T05284392 within the plat of Lakeview of Orono over property legally described and depicted on Exhibit A attached hereto (hereinafter "Subject Property''); and WHEREAS, the Applicant’s request includes dedication of new conservation easement areas resulting in a net increase of approximately 16,000 square feet of conservation area within Lakeview of Orono; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, the Planning Commission voted 4 in favor of and 2 against a motion to deny the requested vacations of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council considered the request to vacate a portion of the Conservation Easement; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the application, the public input, the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 WHEREAS, following the hearing and consideration of the proposed vacation, the Council has determined that it is in the public interest to vacate the Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property. WHEREAS, the City Council finds that vacation of portions of the Conservation Easement are in the interest of the public. Environmental sensitivity was a driving factor during the creation of the Lakeview of Orono development supporting the establishment of the Conservation Easement. The new dedication of areas proposed to be added to the Conservation Easement enhance environmental protection; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has provided evidence that the lots deemed “unbuildable” by the developer are in fact unbuildable. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Orono that the portion of the above-described Conservation Easement as it affects the Subject Property is hereby vacated, subject to the City receiving a revised Conservation Easement in a form acceptable to the City. Adopted this 27th day of April, 2020, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ________________________ __________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. 16. LA20-000012 – SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC., LAKEVIEW OF ORONO – RESOLUTION Staff presented a summary of packet information. Walsh noted he was at the Planning Commission meeting and members decided to either vote all of it or none of it rather than do any kind of piecemealing, which does not help the Council with a direction in terms of how they voted. Mr. Chase Peterson, Source Land Development, stated it has been a good project. They have about 13 lots remaining, and there are issues with the lots that make them undesirable or tough to build on. Adding additional costs on to buyers is something that they often stay away from. They knew they had to make some changes and they had to give something back to the community/Orono, and they decided to get creative and tinker with some of the conservation lines to provide some building elbowroom and make potential buildings a little more buyer-friendly. In doing that, they get away from disturbing natural space, adding retaining walls, grading costs, etc. They have gained support from a lot of the local neighbors. There have also been a couple of concerned neighbors, and they have answered their concerns by giving them an agreement with some tree privacy, etc. They were a little upset that they did not get much feedback/guidance from the Planning Commission other than a simple no, and as a result, have presented the same application to the City Council. Walsh asked how many lots the original plan contained. Mr. Peterson answered that it was 46 lots. Walsh said they did a good job figuring out where to put the houses in relation to the nature, environment, and septics because they are down to 5-10% of the lots and that it is hard to get it perfect upfront. He said they are adding more than they are taking and noted one of the big concerns was going around the corner on North Arm Drive and moving the driveway to allow for sight view. Mr. Peterson said they could have done it differently and hopefully perfectly. There are a lot of moving parts: septic locations which have to be on virgin soil; each site has to have a primary and secondary well location; conservation on the lots; a building footprint that may be undesirable/very costly. They have done a pretty good job on the other lots and are down to the last few where they need to make changes in order to have them buildable. He is hopeful to wrap up the development and have 13 more homes. Crosby said the developer was very thoughtful and did a nice job. Mr. Peterson commented that the sight distance for the driveway is 315 feet and referenced some images in Council members’ packets which illustrated the potential sight line of the potential driveway. Printup noted there was one person who was adversely affected and had a real problem, potentially. He wanted to see on the map where that area would be. Walsh said he thought it was Lot 22, who was three doors down, so they would not be affected directly. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. Curtis agreed with Walsh and said the owner’s comments were in the packet and thought it was a Mr. Crandall. Printup stated the comment was something about buying the lot and expecting to have some open space and then losing the open space. Curtis said the comment came from the owners of Lot 10 and indicated that area on the map. She said that Mr. Peterson worked out an agreement for some screening. With regard to any of the letters in the packet, if there was a follow-up from the letter, she included that also. She believed their concern was mitigated. Printup asked if there was a switch of some land. Walsh indicated that was in regard to Lot 17. Curtis indicated a hashed area on the map and said the applicant is asking for that area to not be conservation easement and would flip the building site in that location. In conjunction with that, they want to do an administrative action to move the lot line over so the building area is wider on Lot 17 along North Arm Drive. Walsh asked if the conservation would then move to the dark green area on the map. Johnson indicated Walsh was correct. Printup said he is trying to see how it affects the neighbors when they expected something conserved as opposed to things being switched. He stated several years ago when this project was coming about it was very emotional and it was hard to figure out the lot situation at that time but that it is nice to see all of the conservation area. Walsh agreed and said it is nice that they are also adding more conservation area. Curtis indicated on the map the concern that the owners of Lot 10 had. Walsh asked Staff if the Lot 10 owners’ problem had been solved. Curtis stated she believed so and the Lot 10 owners no longer had concerns. Mr. Peterson said they did address the concerns from the Lot 10, Block 1 owners. They will plant some privacy trees for the owners and the owners would retract their original letter. He said he thought Printup was referring to the Lot 21, Block 3 owner. He does not know what his concerns are or how to answer them; he was always going to have a neighbor there, and having a house on the other side of the lot is not going to be in his view. Mr. Bryce Johnson commented that the value of adding Lot 9 as a conservation area should not be missed and is extremely important to people who use the park in the development and along North Arm Drive. In addition to working together between Citizens for Lakeview and Source Land, they connected the park with trails that lead from Lakeview Parkway to the park, and one of the trails goes through Lot 9. It aids the entire conservation aspect of getting through the park and also viewing it from the park and the people MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. that use the park daily. When the plan was first presented, there were 4 driveways on North Arm, then it went down to 3, and going back to 4 is not unreasonable. He said Source Land has done a good job overall on the development in preserving what they were going to do and creating all of the conservation areas, which is why many people support the project as a total package. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve LA20-000012 – Source Land Development Inc., Lakeview Of Orono – Resolution. VOTE: Ayes 5 (Johnson, Crosby, Seals, Printup, Walsh) Nays 0. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To approve the summary ordinance for the grading and land alteration amendment and authorize its publication. 2. Background. The City Council approved changes to the regulations for Grading and Land Alteration activities on April 13, 2020. Due to the length of the ordinance, Staff seeks authorization to publish a summary ordinance, which is allowed. The summary ordinance will save on publication costs. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the ordinance as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve the ordinance as drafted. Exhibits A. Summary Ordinance References CC Staff report $ Exhibits 4/13/2020 Item No.: 12 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: LA19-000091 – City of Orono Text Amendment Related to Grading and Land Alterations Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Page | 1 Final Draft SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS FOR GRADING AND LAND ALTERATION ACTIVITIES THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY, INCLUDING THE SHORELAND OVERLAY DISTRICT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on April 13, 2020, Ordinance 243, Third Series, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN, that, because of the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. 243, Third Series, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication. NOTICE IF FURTHER GIVEN that the ordinance adopted by the Council amends Chapter 78 of the Orono City Code regarding regulations and definitions applicable to hauling, grading, stockpiling, vegetative removal, and other grading and land alteration activities throughout the community, including the Shoreland and the Lake yard areas. This ordinance amends the Orono Code by clarifying the regulations for these activities. The Ordinance was reviewed by the Minnesota State DNR for conformance with applicable state law and found to be conforming. The complete ordinance is available for inspection by any person on the city website or by requesting the information. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota, this 27th day of April, 2020. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Summary Ordinance published in The Laker Pioneer newspaper the week of ________, 2020. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider approval of a license for the owner of 3415 Crystal Bay Road for Dock Site C. 2. Background. On March 9, 2020, via Ordinance 239, Third Series, the City Council established a dock licensing program, granting eligibility for the property owners of 4 parcels on Crystal Bay Road to place a seasonal dock over city property. The applicant, property owner of 3415 Crystal Bay Road has requested a license to place a dock over Dock Site C, and have submitted proof of ownership and registration for one boat to be docked, and submitted information indicating ownership of the property. The applicant has provided payment for the 2020 season. This dock is already installed. It was installed some time before April 8th. The applicant has paid double the license application fee. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the dock license permit for Dock Site C. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve the dock license, authorizing the Mayor and the Administrator to sign the license agreement. Exhibits A. Dock Site Map B. Dock Plan C. License Agreement References Boat and Ownership information Item No.: 13 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Dock License for Dock Site C Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 50. 0 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Dock sites This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 3/13/2020 3:20 PM 35 Feet City Limits Parcels (2/1/2020) AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider approval of a license for the owner of 3407 Crystal Bay Road for Dock Site D. 2. Background. On March 9, 2020, via Ordinance 239, Third Series, the City Council established a dock licensing program, granting eligibility for the property owners of 4 parcels on Crystal Bay Road to place a seasonal dock over city property. The applicant, property owner of 3407 Crystal Bay Road has requested a license to place a dock over Dock Site D, and have submitted proof of ownership and registration for one boat to be docked, and submitted information indicating ownership of the property. The applicant has provided payment for the 2020 season. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve the dock license permit for Dock Site D. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should approve the dock license, authorizing the Mayor and the Administrator to sign the license agreement. Exhibits A. Dock Site Map B. Dock Plan C. License Agreement References Boat and Ownership information Item No.: 14 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Dock License for Dock Site D Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 50. 0 © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 0 Legend Dock sites This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: 3/13/2020 3:20 PM 35 Feet City Limits Parcels (2/1/2020) Hennepin County Property Map Date: 4/20/2020 Comments: 1 inch = 50 feet PARCEL ID: 1711723430115 OWNER NAME: Town Of Orono PARCEL ADDRESS: 38 Address Unassigned, Orono MN 00000 PARCEL AREA: 0.01 acres, 354 sq ft A-T-B: Abstract SALE PRICE: SALE DATA: SALE CODE: ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-Residential HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 TAX TOTAL: $0.00 ASSESSED 2020, PAYABLE 2021 PROPERTY TYPE: Vacant Land-residential HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $0 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2020 60ft length 28 ft 15+ from property line 15FT + from west property 15 ft 1 DOCK SITE LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT is made on April 27, 2020 between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation, located at 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55323 (the “City”), and William L. Wolfson, an individual who owns property at 3407 Crystal Bay Road (“Licensee”). WHEREAS, the City has made available dock sites at specified locations on public property and public rights of way; WHEREAS, Licensee wishes to construct and maintain a dock at a dock site and agrees to the terms of this License Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. License to Use Property. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License Agreement, the City hereby grants to the Licensee a license to use Dock Site # D (“Dock Site”), as designated on the official Orono Dock Location Map. 2. Term. The term of this License Agreement shall be for ten (10) years and will commence on April 27, 2020 and end on November 1, 2029 unless terminated prior thereto as provided herein. 3. Conditions. The City and the Licensee agree that the Licensee will use the Dock Site subject to the following conditions: A. Docks. The Licensee shall maintain only one (1) dock at the Dock Site. B. License plates. Licensee shall securely fix the license plate issued by the City to the street-side end of the licensed dock. License plates shall be maintained by the Licensee and shall remain the property of the City. C. Removal of docks. Upon termination of a dock license, the Licensee must completely remove the licensed dock and all accessory items, including but not limited to stairs leading to the dock from the public property or public right of way. Any dock or accessory item that has not been removed will be removed by the City and all costs the responsibility of the last license holder for that Dock Site. D. Dock Construction; specifications and dimensions. The dock on the Dock Site shall comply with the following regulations: 1) The dock shall comply with LMCD regulations and all applicable state laws and regulations; 2) Docks shall be constructed of materials approved by the Dock Inspector; docks shall be of plank or rail construction; and all dock posts shall be of equal height above the dock; 2 3) Docks shall not be located closer than ten (10) feet to a neighboring dock license site or private property line unless City Council grants an exception. 4) Docks may not be permanently installed. E. Fires. No fires of any kind shall be permitted on the Dock Site. F. Landscaping. Licensee shall not cut or disrupt any trees or other vegetation along the shoreline in any way. All landscaping activity must be approved by the City. G. Mowing. Licensee shall mow and maintain the Dock Site area. H. Trails and Sidewalks. Licensee shall not obstruct the trails or sidewalks adjacent to the Dock Site in any way. I. Watercraft. The Licensee shall only moor watercraft that were declared on the Licensee’s Dock License Application at the Dock Site. If the declared watercraft is removed from the City dock program, the Licensee may substitute a replacement watercraft upon providing the City with the documentation it requires. Newly declared replacement watercraft may be subject an additional LMCD fee. Mooring of watercraft not owned by the Licensee is permitted for a period of up to 48 hours, only two (2) times in a calendar year. Except as described in the Orono City Code and herein, no watercraft shall be moored at the Dock Site. J. Dock accessories. All dock accessories must be approved in writing by the Dock Inspector prior to use at the Dock Site. K. Parking. Licensee agrees not to park at the Dock Site. L. Dock Storage. The dock must be removed from the water no later than November 1. The dock and dock accessories may not be stored on the Dock Site between November 1st and April 1st. 4. Use and Control of Property. Except as provided herein, the Licensee shall have the exclusive use and control of the Dock Site and the same rights, obligations, and liabilities as a private property owner. The Licensee shall be permitted to use the Property for the purposes described in this License Agreement and shall not use the Property for any other purposes. The Licensee shall not use the Dock Site, or permit anything to be done in or about the Property, which will in any way conflict with any law, statute, ordinance, or governmental rule or regulation. The Licensee shall use and keep the Dock Site in a clean and orderly condition. 5. City Access. City staff shall be free to enter the Dock Site for any reason at any time to perform maintenance, landscaping, inspections, and other regulatory functions. 6. Failure to Comply. If the Licensee fails to comply with the terms of this Agreement, the City Code, a state statute or a state regulation, the Licensee shall be notified in writing of the way or ways the dock or Dock Site area does not comply. The Licensee shall have fourteen (14) days to remove the dock or otherwise bring the Dock Site into compliance. If the violation is not corrected within fourteen (14) days, the license shall be revoked, this Agreement shall be terminated and all property shall be removed from the dock lease site unless, within the 3 fourteen (14) days, the Dock Administrator receives from the Licensee a written request for a hearing. 7. Payment. The Licensee agrees to pay for all costs of bringing the Dock Site into compliance, including the costs of removing property from the dock site. 8. Indemnification. The Licensee agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City from and against all liability, damages, penalties, judgments, or claims of whatever nature arising from injury to person or property sustained by anyone arising out of use by the Licensee, its members, guests and invitees and occupancy of the Dock Site and will at Licensee’s own cost and expense defend any and all suits or actions (just or unjust) which may be brought against the City or in which the City may be impleaded with others upon any such above-mentioned matter, claim, or claims. This indemnity and hold harmless agreement will include indemnity against all costs, expenses, and liabilities incurred in or in connection with any such claims or proceedings brought thereon and the defense thereof. All of the indemnifications contained in this License Agreement shall survive the expiration or termination of this License Agreement. 9. Liability Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain during the term of this License Agreement a blanket or general liability insurance policy against claims for personal injury, death, or property damage occurring in connection with the use and occupancy of the Dock Site. 10. Property Damage Insurance. Licensee will, at Licensee’s sole cost and expense, provide and maintain all risk property insurance during the term of this License Agreement in an amount sufficient to cover all items of property owned, maintained, or controlled by Licensee, its members, guests and invitees on the Dock Site. 11. Transferability. Dock licenses may not be sold, assigned, licensed, or otherwise transferred in any way to any person, partnership or corporation, except that the license may be transferred to a purchaser of the license holder’s residential property within the City. Dock space may not be rented. 12. Waiver of Default. Any waiver by the City of a default under the provisions of this License Agreement will not operate or be construed as a waiver of a subsequent default by Licensee. No waiver will be valid unless in writing and signed by the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk on behalf of the City. 13. Invalidity of Provisions. If any term or provision of this License Agreement or any application hereof to any person or circumstance is to any extent found to be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this License Agreement or the application of such term or provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is held invalid or unenforceable will not be effected thereby and each term and provision of this License Agreement will be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 14. Entire Agreement. This instrument together with the Lease Agreement contain the entire and only agreement between the parties and no oral statements or representations or prior written matter not contained in this instrument will have any force and effect. This License Agreement cannot be modified in any way except by writing executed by both parties. 4 15. Governing Law. This License Agreement will be governed exclusively by the provisions hereof and by the laws of the State of Minnesota, as the same from time to time exists. 16. Attorney’s Fees. The Licensee shall pay all of the City’s costs, charges, and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and fees of agents and others retained by the City, incurred in enforcing Licensee’s obligations hereunder or incurred by the City in any litigation, negotiation or transaction in which Licensee causes the City, without the City’s fault, to become involved or concerned. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective the day and year first above written. CITY OF ORONO BY: Mayor Dennis Walsh Attest:__________________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk LICENSEE: Printed Name: AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to receive council feedback on the proposed sanitary sewer service line inspection program and associated draft ordinance changes. 2. Background. The City continues to work toward reducing Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) into the City’s sanitary sewer system. See Exhibit A for more on I&I. Excessive I/I can create backup problems as it overwhelms our system, it is also very expensive. Orono pays the Metropolitan (Met) Council to treat all of our sewage. The City’s bill is adjusted year to year based on the previous year’s flows going into the Met Council system. In addition the city is fined for any exceedances of our flow allocations. To date the vast majority of I&I mitigation work has been on public infrastructure (sewer mains pipes and manholes) and while these have shown some improvement there is still considerable I&I entering our system. A key contributor to the I&I we are experience is very likely the private service lines that connect to our system. One method of addressing I&I coming into the sewer system via private service lines is with a point of sale inspection policy. The city does provide for inspections in our current ordinance however it is focused on illicit discharges into the system such as cross connections from sump pumps. At the October 26th Council work session staff presented the concept and received initial guidance. 3. Program proposal. The Sewer Service Inspection Program consists of two components: inspections and compliance. City code currently contains a section (14-189) for inspections and compliance aimed at cross connections. The proposal contains updates establishing more reasonable timelines and adding some specificity to inspections required for rebuilds. In addition the proposal includes a new section (14- 190) aimed at establishing a point of sale inspection. Draft code revisions are at Exhibit B. a. Inspection requirement. Inspection of a sewer service line will be required when a property connected to the city sanitary sewer is sold (Point of Sale) or in conjunction with a Sewer connection of disconnection permit. The inspection will look to identify infiltration into the sewer service line via cracks, separations or root intrusions as well as looking to inflow via cross connection from gutters, sump pumps, and foundation drains. The inspection will consisting of a visual inspection and televising of the service lateral to ensure no cross connections or signs of infiltration. Inspection will be completed by a public works employee, however the proposed ordinance does provide a provision for a licensed plumber to perform the inspection and provide proof of the inspection and video to the city for review. b. Compliance requirement. If the inspection shows the property to be fully compliant then a certificate of compliance will be issued. The certificate will be good for 10 years. Brand new sewer services complying current installation and testing requirements will also be issued a Certificate as part of the existing utility connection inspection program. If the property is not compliant a correction notice would be issued and the corrections made by the property owner within 60 days. (Current code says 14 days). Once corrected the property owner will schedule a follow on inspection and if the compliant a compliance certificate issued. If a property owner fails to comply a surcharge will be added to the utility bill. The surcharge amount will be set in the Fee Schedule. 4. Cost. The cost to implement the program is estimated to be $19,500/ year in labor (130 inspections x 3 hours per inspection x $ 50/hr). A push camera cost $8000. Item No.: 15 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: Sanitary Sewer Service Line Inspection Program-Draft Ordinance Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: City Engineer/Public Works Director Report 5. Funding. The cost of the program will be covered by inspection fees. The following table included the additions to the exhibit C Utility Rates and Fees of the Fee Schedule to fund the program: Residential Sanitary Sewer Service I&I Inspection $ 250 Commercial Sanitary Sewer Service I&I Inspection $ 750 Sanitary Sewer Service Surcharge $ 100/ month 6. Implementation. Step Date Description a. Final Staffing Thru May 20th 2020 • Staff updates ordinance per council direction • Final staff coordination with sister agencies b. Program Approval May 26th 2020 • Council approves Program and Ordinance changes. c. Communication May 26th – August 23rd 2020 • Notification to Title companies of POS requirements • Update to Website • Newsletter article • Notification message on utility bills d. Equipment procurement • Procure push camera system • Procure PPE and cleaning supplies e. Staff Training and preparation • Ensure minimum of 2 staff are NASSCO PACP certified • Finalize forms • Add Inspection to Citizen Serve and Cartegraph web applications • Train admin staff f. Program Active August 24th 2020 • First Inspection 7. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the city adopt a sewer service line inspection program including a Point of Sale Component to assist the city in address in our I&I issue. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Review and provide direction to staff on the proposed Sanitary Sewer inspection Program and draft ordinance. Exhibits A. Inflow and Infiltration Background B. Draft Ordinance C. Draft Website Communications D. Draft Inspection Form Exhibit A: Inflow and Infiltration Background The City continues to work toward reducing Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) into the City’s sanitary sewer system. Infiltration is clear water that enters the sanitary sewer system through broken or cracked pipes, defective joints, faulty connections, or other defects in the mains, services, or manholes. Inflow is clear water that enters the sanitary sewer system through direct connections such as rain leaders, area drains, sump pump connections, foundation drain tile, or commercial/industrial discharges. (see illustration to right) Excessive I/I can create backup problems as it overwhelms our system, it is also very expensive. Orono pays the Metropolitan (Met) Council to treat all of our sewage. Sewage from the City flows into the Met Council interceptor system and is routed to their treatment plants. If clear water enters the sanitary sewer, we have to pay to have it treated by the Met Council. This raises the sewer rates. I&I is monitored by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES). The City’s bill is adjusted year to year based on the previous year’s flows going into the Met Council system. In addition the city is fined for any exceedances of our flow allocations. The exceedance warnings and fines are closely associated with high rainfall events and saturated soils pointing to an I&I issue (See charts at right). To date the vast majority of I&I mitigation work has been on public infrastructure (mains and manholes) and while these have shown some improvement there is still considerable I&I entering our system. Although there is still work to be done on the city mains and manholes, a key contributor to the I&I we are experience is very likely the private service lines that connect to our system. MCES estimates that as much as 80% of I&I may come from private sources. One method of addressing I&I coming into the sewer system via private service lines is with a point of sale inspection policy. Several Communities within the metro area have developed point of sale inspection policies/ programs. The city does provide for inspections in our current ordinance however it is focused on illicit discharges into the system such as cross connections from sump pumps. Sources of inflow and Infiltration (I&I) I&I March & July 2019 1 ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE amending Orono Municipal Code Sections 14.166 and 14- 189 and adding Sections 14-190, 14-191, and 14-192 related to inspections of sanitary sewer service connections. THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Orono Municipal Code Section 14.166is hereby amended by adding the following definitions: Infiltration: An indirect connection or discharge of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. Inflow: Any direct connection of clear water into the sanitary sewer system. Sewer Service Lateral or Service Lateral: The portion of the sanitary sewer system that generally is perpendicular to the sewer main and extends from the sewer main to the structure being served. SECTION 2. Orono Municipal Code Section 14-189 is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows: Sec. 14-189. - Prohibited discharges of groundwater/stormwater into the sanitary sewerage system. (a) No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged, directly or indirectly, any stormwater, surface water, groundwater, roof runoff, subsurface drainage or cooling water to any sanitary sewer. Any person having a roof drain, sump pump, unauthorized swimming pool discharge, cistern overflow pipe or surface drain connected and/or discharging into the sanitary sewer shall disconnect and remove any piping or system conveying such water to the sanitary sewerage system. (b) Inspection. Every person owning improved real estate that discharges into the city's sanitary sewerage system shall allow inspection by authorized city employees or its agents of all properties or structures connected to the sanitary sewerage system to confirm there is no sump pump or other prohibited discharge into the sanitary sewerage system. (1) In lieu of authorizing a city inspection of the property, the property owner may furnish a certificate from a licensed plumber, in a form acceptable by the city, certifying that the property has no prohibited discharge in the municipal sanitary sewer system. All inspections and inspection reports must include a date-stamped video record of the complete lateral line from the property to sewer main. All inspections must be performed and reports completed in accordance with City standards and specifications. Once a sewer service line is televised and the line is deemed to be in good working order by the public works department, the line does not need to be re-televised for 10 years. 2 (2) Connection and Disconnection Permit Inspections. Any property owner or consumer applying for a sewer connection or disconnection permit from the City shall agree to an inspection of the structure's sump pump, footing or foundation drain discharge and sanitary sewer service lateral for compliance with this Code. No permanent occupancy for a new structure shall be issued without a certificate of I&I compliance. These inspections must be completed by a city inspector. (c) Any owner of any property found to be in violation of this section shall make the necessary changes to comply with this division, and such change shall be verified by authorized city employees or agents. Any property or structure not inspected or not in compliance shall, following notification from the city, comply within 14 60 calendar days or be subject to the surcharge as provided in subsection (f) of this section. (d) Existing buildings with sump pumps and all newly constructed buildings with sumps shall have a discharge pipe installed to the outside wall of the building. The pipe attachment must be of rigid permanent-type plumbing, such as PVC, copper or galvanized pipe. The discharge shall extend outside of the foundation and may not be pumped directly onto any public right- of-way unless approved by the public service director or his designee. Any disconnects or openings in the sanitary sewer shall be closed and repaired in compliance with applicable codes. (e) Upon verified compliance with this division, the city reserves the right to reinspect such property or structure or require the property owner to provide a certificate of compliance from a licensed plumber in a form acceptable to the city at least annually to confirm continued compliance. Any property found not to be in compliance upon reinspection by the city shall, following notification from the city, comply within 14 60 calendar days or be subject to the surcharge provided for in subsection (f) of this section. (f) A surcharge set by the annual fee schedule adopted by the city council is imposed and shall be added to every utility billing to properties not in compliance with this division. The surcharge shall be added to every quarterly utility billing until the property is in compliance as determined by the city. If the surcharge is not paid in a timely manner, the delinquent payments may be certified for collection with the following years' property taxes. (g) The city council, upon recommendation of the city administrator and the city engineer, shall hear and decide requests for temporary waivers from the provisions of this division where strict enforcement would cause a threat to public safety because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration. Any request for a temporary waiver shall be submitted to the city administrator in writing within 14 30 calendar days of notification of noncompliance. Upon approval of a temporary waiver from the provisions of this division, the property owner shall agree to pay an additional fee for sanitary sewerage services based on the number of gallons discharged into the sanitary sewerage system as estimated by the city engineer. (h) If a City drain tile or storm sewer system is available to the property, Stormwater and all other unpolluted discharges may be connected to it shall be discharged to such drainage facilities as are specifically designated subject to approval by the city engineer. If a public system is not available, these discharges must be accommodated on the owner's property. (i) The imposition of the surcharge shall not limit the right of the city to seek an injunction in district court ordering the person to disconnect the nonconforming connection to the sanitary sewer or from pursuing any other legal remedies available; or in the alternative, the city may 3 correct the violation and certify the costs of correction as an assessment against the property on which the correction was made. SECTION 3. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 14 is hereby amended by adding Section 14-190 as follows: Sec. 14-190. –Point of Sale Certificate of Inflow and Infiltration Compliance. (a) No person shall sell, advertise for sale, give or transact a change in title or property ownership of real property with one or more buildings or structures, without first obtaining a certificate of inflow and infiltration (I&I) compliance from the City (b) Required. No building permit for a remodeled structure will be issued without a certificate of I&I compliance unless an escrow agreement is in place with the City. (c) Inspection. The owner or owner’s representative is required to complete an inspection and obtain a certificate of compliance issued by the City before such property is offered for sale, gifted or transferred, and before the owner or owner’s representative enters into any contract for deed or other transaction changing the party responsible for the property. (1) A certificate of compliance shall be issued by the City upon successful completion of an inspection. A certificate of compliance shall be valid for 10 years. (2) This inspection requirement will be met by having the property owner contract with a licensed plumber to perform the inspection. The plumber must inspect the property’s sump pump, sewer service lateral, and groundwater drainage system, and upon completion, return an inspection form provided by the City documenting the results of the inspection. The date-stamped video record shall be submitted to the City and reviewed and approved by the City for assessment of compliance with this section. All costs associated with an inspection by a privately retained plumber shall be the responsibility of the property owner. (d) Compliance (1) Upon inspection, when the property use is in accordance with City sanitary sewer services regulations, a certificate of I&I compliance will be issued by the City. (2) A certificate of I&I compliance is valid to be used for the transfer of property. (3) The certificate of I&I compliance must be conspicuously displayed on the premises at all times when the property is being shown for sale and the owner is responsible for informing any potential buyers, gift recipients or other persons to whom it intends to transfer title as to its receipt of the certificate of I&I compliance. (e) Corrections. Upon notice that the discharge of clear water on a property is not in compliance with this , the owner or occupant of the property shall cease from discharging clear water in violation of this division and shall make the necessary repairs and corrections to discharge the clear water in accordance with this division. (1) Discharge of clear water in compliance with this shall be completed within 60 days of the date of notice of noncompliance, or as determined by the public works director. 4 (2) If an inspection discloses that use of a property is not in accordance with City sanitary sewer service regulations, a correction notice may be issued by the City permitting the transfer of property, providing; (i) An agreement by the owner or owner's representative has been executed with the City, whereby the owner or owner's representative agrees to complete corrections to the property necessary to bring it within compliance of the City sanitary sewer service regulations within 60 days of the transfer of property. (ii) The seller shall provide proof to the city that funds were placed in an escrow account at closing to cover the required repairs. The security shall be placed in an escrow with a licensed real estate closer, licensed attorney-at-law or a federal or state chartered financial institution. The amount escrowed shall be equal to 110 percent of a written estimate to install or line the service line by a licensed and certified installer. After a complying service line has been installed or lined and a certificate of compliance issued, the City of Orono shall provide the escrow agent a copy of the certificate of compliance. (iii) The owner (or transferor) and any real estate agents involved in the transaction are responsible for disclosing the correction notice to the transferee and all other persons or entities involved in the transaction. The responsibility for repairing any nonconformance with the sanitary sewer service regulations runs with the land and not only rests with the owner or transferor but is also an obligation of the transferee of the property. If repairs are not completed within one year of the first inspection, the inspection becomes invalid and the process starts again, which includes paying the applicable inspection fee. (f) Penalties. A monthly surcharge in an amount duly adopted by the City Council and set forth in the City’s fee schedule shall be assessed against any property found to be in violation of this section. A surcharge will be assessed for every month during which the property is not in compliance. This charge shall cease when the property has been inspected and acceptable certification of compliance is submitted to the City. SECTION 4. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 14 is hereby amended by adding Section 14- 191 as follows: Sec. 14-191. - Appeals. Application for appeal of any administrative determination made pursuant to this division shall be addressed to the city administrator within 30 days of the determination. Applications shall at a minimum identify the property for the appeal sought, the name of the property owner, and describe in detail the determination which is being appealed. Within 60 days of receipt of the application, the City Council shall make its decision on the matter and send a written copy of such decision to the property owner by mail. SECTION 5. Orono Municipal Code Chapter 14 is hereby amended by adding Section 14- 192 as follows: 5 Sec. 14-192. - Severability and Validity. The provisions of this division are hereby declared to be severable. If any provision, clause, sentence, or paragraph of this division or the application thereof to any person, establishment, or circumstances be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of other provisions or application of this ordinance. SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this 24th day of February, 2020 on a vote of __ ayes and __ nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. _____________________________ ATTEST: Denis Walsh, Mayor ______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2020. Point of Sale Website info Definitions Inflow and Infiltration (I/I) is the excess flow of clear water into the City's sanitary sewer system. Because the sanitary sewer system was not designed to handle this excess clear water, it becomes overloaded during times of high groundwater or heavy rainfall. This can cause basement flooding or bypassing of raw wastewater to local streams and lakes Inflow is when clear water from illegal connections of sump pumps, downspouts, and foundation drains is channeled directly into sanitary sewer pipes. Infiltration is when groundwater seeps into sewer pipes via cracks or leaky joints. Cross Connection. A cross connection is when a portion of the stormwater system is connected to the sanitary sewer system. Often, this is a hose leading from the sump to a laundry tub or a floor drain or a sump pump with a hose emptying into a drain. Cross connections are a significant cause of inflow and infiltration. Why is I&I a problem? The excess clear water from I/I problems uses sanitary sewer capacity needed for wastewater. The result is sewer backups and increased costs for needlessly putting clear water through the wastewater treatment process. Water that goes down any drain in your house leads to the sanitary sewer system and eventually ends up at a wastewater treatment plant, where it is treated before being released back into the environment. Wastewater from Orono travels through the City’s sanitary sewer system to the Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is operated by the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services Division (MCES). MCES treats wastewater for communities in the seven county metropolitan area. The MCES, which provides regional wastewater collection and treatment for the metropolitan area, requires communities with excess I/I to invest in local reduction remedies and to urge compliance, incorporates surcharges for communities with excess I/I. Since sanitary sewer rates are based on the number of gallons that flow through the City sanitary sewer system, treating clear water is costly to everyone. I/I Inspections Program To comply with MCES directives regarding I/I, the City inspects homes and businesses in Orono to determine if roof drains, foundation drains, sump pumps, and other clear water sources are connected to the sanitary sewer system. The goal of this program is to reduce excessive flows that enter the sanitary sewer system so the City, and its utility customers, won't have to pay MCES surcharges. Who is subject to an inspection? Those properties connected to the Municipal Sanitary Sewer who do not have a valid certificate of &I Compliance when one of the following situations occurs: Prior to Sale: All properties in Orono must be inspected and required to be in compliance before they can be sold. With Permits: Property owners who apply for sewer connection or disconnection permits will also be subject to an inspection With Street Reconstructions. The City will conduct I/I inspections as part of its annual Pavement Management Program (PMP) the year prior to the street reconstruction. Compliance. For properties that pass inspection, the City issues a Certificate of I/I Compliance to the property owner and keeps a copy on file at City Hall. The Certificate is valid for 10 years. Properties that don’t pass inspection are issued a correction notice delineating the problems. Repairs should be completed within 60 days of receipt of the correction notice. If repairs are not completed a monthly surcharge will be applied to the utility bill until the property is in compliance. I/I Problem Spots. Sanitary Service Line. The inspection involves televising the sanitary sewer service out to the City sewer main (to identify cracks and leaks) and checking the sump pump discharge system and roof drains and leaders (to identify improper connections to the sanitary sewer system). Down spouts. Roof drains and leaders direct storm water from roof gutters to the ground through pipes and downspouts. Roof drains should not be connected to the sanitary sewer but should discharge to the ground outside of a building. If your roof drains are connected to the sanitary sewer, disconnect them, plug any open connections to the sanitary sewer using a non-shrink permanent material, and redirect the roof drains onto the ground outside the building Foundation Drains. Foundation drains are underground pipes that collect storm water from around the base of a building and into a sump basket, where it is then pumped outside of the building. Foundation drains should not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Sump Pumps. Sump pumps are designed to capture surface or ground water that enters basements or crawl spaces and pump it away from the house. The basic sump system includes drain tile, a sump pit, a sump pump, a float or switch, and a drain line. The sump pit extends below the slab and collects surface water that enters the basement/crawl space or groundwater that rises to the slab. Sump pumps should not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Sump pumps should drain into the City’s storm sewer system through one of two methods: a direct connection (a pipe from the house to the main storm sewer line), if available, or directly onto the ground (preferably 20 feet from the house and not into a neighbor’s yard Steps for Inflow and Infiltration Inspections 1. Verify Need For Certification. Call the City at 952-249-4603 to verify that your property is in need of certification before beginning the I/I inspection process. 2. Submit Application and Pay Fee. • The application fee is $250 for residential properties and $750 (per building) for commercial or multi-unit buildings • In person: Submit your application and fee in person at City Hall. • Online: Applications may also be submitted online and the fee paid by credit card (Citizen Serve application). 3. Schedule Inspection • Call 952-249-4600 between 8 am and 4:30 pm to schedule an inspection. Provide permit number, if application was submitted online, and at least 24-hour advance notice. • The appointment will take approximately one and one-half hours for residential properties and a minimum of three hours for commercial or multi-unit properties. • A responsible adult must be present at all times during the inspection. 4. Prepare For Inspection. Before the inspection, the property owner must do the following: • Make sure the water is turned on at the property. The inspection cannot be completed without water. • Locate the four-inch diameter vertical wastewater pipe that runs down through the basement from a bathroom above. This pipe will have an access point called a cleanout. Cleanouts are usually located on the pipe between approximately six inches and two feet from the basement floor. • Make sure the cleanout cover is in working condition before the inspection can be performed. To ensure the cleanout cover is in working condition, the cover should be loosened and removed, then reinstalled so that a watertight seal is achieved. • Make sure the floor area around the cleanout is clear (a five-foot radius). • If there is a cleanout cover located on the floor in the basement, this cover should be in working condition. The inspector may need to gain access to any cleanout covers located in the basement floor, but the inspection cannot be performed through this type of cleanout. Even if the property owner has a cleanout cover located in the floor that is easily accessible and used for sewer cleaning, the inspector must use the cleanout in the vertical four-inch diameter wastewater pipe. • If you have a sump pump, make sure it is accessible for inspection. • Make sure the sump pump discharge piping is visible 5. Wait for Review. • Allow up to five working days for the City to review the inspection video and issue a compliance certificate or correction notice. • If problems are found • You will receive a correction notice from the City identifying the problem(s).Repairs should be completed within 60 days of the first inspection, and the City can grant an extension of another 60 days. • Correct the problems and call the Public Works Department to schedule another I/I inspection. If your property is then found compliant, you will receive your compliance certificate. If the property is not compliant after two inspections, an additional application fee ($250 for residential properties; $750 for commercial properties) may be charged City Of Orono Point of Sale Sanitary Sewer Inspection Property Address: PID: Owner Information Name: Mailing Address: (if different from Property) Phone: Email: Inspector Information Name: Company/ Organization License number: Phone: Email: Inspection System Standard Pass Fail Roof Drains Roof drains and leaders Roof drains should not be connected to the sanitary sewer but should discharge to the ground outside of a building. If the roof drains are connected to the sanitary sewer, disconnect them, plug any open connections to the sanitary sewer using a non-shrink permanent material, and redirect the roof drains onto the ground outside the building. Foundation Drains Foundation drains are underground pipes that collect storm water from around the base of a building and into a sump basket, where it is then pumped outside of the building. Foundation drains should not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Sump Pumps Sump pumps are designed to capture surface or ground water that enters basements or crawl spaces and pump it away from the house. The basic sump system includes drain tile, a sump pit, a sump pump, a float or switch, and a drain line. Sump pumps should not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Sewer Service Line Sanitary Sewer Inflow & Infiltration (1/1) Compliance Inspection Sanitary Sewer Lines. All sanitary sewer lines serving Property, from the house to the main line, shall be in a safe and functional condition and shall be free from all leaks, failures including but not limited to sags, partially collapsed sections or tree root intrusion. The sanitary sewer lines shall meet the City Code standards and specifications. (Details on back of this sheet) Notes: Inspectors Signature: Date: Owners signature: Date: City Review Service Line Inspection Details Weather Conditions: Approximate Depth of Service Tyep and Size of Service Overall Condition of Service Pipe Please note all connections, fittings, points of concern on service line including infiltration, tree root, cracks, misaligned joints, etc. This report must include a digital copy of the televising. Feet Comment Example: 0 1-10 Start for 4” cleanout in NE corner of Basement Misaligned joint –Infiltration 0 Notes: AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a conditional use permit (“CUP”) to permit plumbing, including a shower, within an accessory building. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete on March 10, 2020. The 60-Day review period expires on May 9, 2020. 3. Background/ Summary. The City Council reviewed this application during their April 13, 2020 meeting. The applicant wishes to install bathroom facilities which include a shower within an accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a kitchen and recreational space. The building is conforming to setbacks, size, use, and design. A CUP is required due to the proposed shower. Attached in Exhibit D is the City Code pertaining to all Conditional Use Permits. During the review, Councilmembers questioned the open violations noted and asked for more information before making a final decision on this application. 4. Violation Concerns. The applicant is the contractor for the subject parcel and the adjacent 2709 Walters Port Lane. There are a number of noted violations on one or both projects: a. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”) and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (“MCWD”) both have files regarding outstanding/unresolved violations at the subject property and the abutting property (2709 Walters Port Lane). The violation notices involve primarily illegal placement of fill material within the floodplain and public water (Lake Minnetonka). Mike Hawkins, a contractor representing the properties, was granted a permit to conduct in-kind replacement of the rip rap along the shoreline by the MCWD. The MCWD handles the rip rap permits under the DNR’s jurisdiction. The rip rap work was initially proposed to be conducted from the ice in winter conditions over the 2018-19 winter. Hawkins conducted the work from land with an excavator and other heavy equipment in the spring of 2019. He used the equipment to disturb the slope area between the two properties and create a land “bench” at the shore by depositing fill material lakeward of the OHWL. The rip rap was placed at the lakeward extent of the approximately 8 feet of illegal fill material. The DNR and MCWD violation notices are attached as Exhibit B. The property owners were notified and have appealed the enforcement action through the DNR process. The appeals are expected to conclude late summer or early fall of 2020. b. Erosion control. Inspectors have noted deficiencies in the erosion control system, included unvegetated soils, damaged or removed erosion control devices, unprotected slopes, etc. Many of the issues may be due to the fact that the plat grading has not been completed. c. Driveway. 2709 Walters Port Road and 2710 Pence Lane are to exist as independent properties. There have been reports that contractors working at 2709 Walters Port Road have utilized the Pence Lane private drive and vice versa, in violation of the Pence Lane Item No.: 16 Date: April 27, 2020 Item Description: LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR Addition subdivision condition prohibiting such crossover traffic. The required snow fence boundary delineation between the two properties has not been consistently in place. d. Driveway condition. Continual maintenance issues regarding the drivability and accessibility for the shared driveway to inspectors. It is required that they maintain access to the property for inspectors and emergency access. e. Unpermitted work. The contractors working at both sites have a history of conducting unpermitted work and making changes to approved plans (grading, roofline, etc.) before the changes have been approved by the City. 5. Conditions for approval. The following are the conditions listed in the Code which must be met in order to grant the conditional use permit. The Owners must agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building 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. iv. Regarding future subdivision of the Property: 1. No future subdivision will be approved that places the oversized accessory building within a lot that has no principal building 2. If the Property is subdivided, the oversized accessory building and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the oversized accessory building. 3. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the oversized accessory building shall remain. 6. Public Comment. Two letters were received from the abutting neighbor and their attorney opposing the CUP application due to the open violations. These letters are included under Exhibit C. Bill Griffith, the attorney representing the abutting neighbor, spoke at the April 13, 2020, City Council meeting opposing the application due to the open violations and requested additional screening be required. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval, subject to the conditions listed above. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Approve or amend the included approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Notice of Violations and applicants response C. Public Comments D. City Code for CUP 78-911 E. City Council Report 4/13/2020 F. Draft CC Minutes 4/13/2020 References CC Exhibits 4/13/2020 PC Exhibits 03/16/2020 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-328(7) & 78-916 FILE NO. LA20 -000016 WHEREAS, on January 22, 2020, Paul Thomas Design Build o/b/o Eric and Elizabeth Vogstrom (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a conditional use permit (hereinafter the “CUP”) pursuant to City Code for the property addressed 2710 Pence Lane and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Pence Lane Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-328(7) to allow plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 16, 2020 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP to allow plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building; and WHEREAS, on April 13, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff, ultimately tabling action for two weeks; and WHEREAS, on April 27, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested CUP for plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA20-000016. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 1.47 acres in area. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following: a. A conditional use permit for plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building. 6. In considering this application for CUP for plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed CUP upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The Council finds that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed accessory building improvement including the plumbing fixtures are compliant with the zoning ordinance. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The Property is served by City sewer and private well. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed accessory building with a garage and entertaining space is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The accessory building including plumbing is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the house on the Property and the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed accessory building is expected to be residential-looking in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the Property. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the accessory building with entertaining space which includes plumbing is not expected to have any adverse impacts. The applicant has included a narrative in the exhibits to the Planning Commission noting the accessory building will be used by the occupants of the principle dwelling and nonpaying guests. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The accessory building will be situated in a conforming location and will not be significantly visible when viewed from off the Property or Kelly Ave, and the views from the neighbors will be screened somewhat by existing vegetation and the physical separation. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed accessory building with plumbing is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed building will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed building has been visually designed to conform to the residence on the Property, and will not have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; the Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement and have noted the narrative that all lighting will be downcast; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory structure with a bathtub or shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 16) The plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the intended use of the accessory building. 17) The Owners agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the Property providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. d. Regarding future subdivision of the Property: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the accessory building within a lot that has no principal building ii. If the Property is subdivided, the accessory building and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the accessory building shall remain. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit to allow plumbing including a bathtub or shower in an accessory building pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-328(7) in conjunction with the construction of a new detached garage; subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 3. The conditional use permit granted by this resolution runs with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (April 27, 2021). 4. The undersigned Owners hereby agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the Property providing that the accessory building will not be: e. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. f. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. g. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. h. Regarding future subdivision of the property: i. No future subdivision will be approved that places the accessory building within a lot that has no principal building ii. If the Property is subdivided, the accessory building and principal building will be located together within a lot that meets the minimum lot area requirement for the given size of the accessory building. iii. In subdivision approval, the setback required for the accessory building shall remain. 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 27th day of April, 2020. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor ______________________________ ________________________________ Eric Vogstrom, Property Owner Elizabeth Vogstrom, Property Owner STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020, by Eric Vogstrom, spouse to Elizabeth Vogstrom. ____________________________________ Notary Public STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 2020, by Elizabeth Vogstrom, spouse to Eric Vogstrom. ____________________________________ Notary Public PUBLIC WATERS RESTORATION ORDER RPN: F890592922006 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes, Section 103G.2372, and Minnesota Rules, part 6115.0255, the Commissioner of Natural Resources hereby orders Eric Joel Vogstrom, 2618 Casco Point Rd, Wayzata, MN 55391 to restore the bed and bank of Public Water (#27-133P) on your lot (Lot 2 on attached survey maps) at 2710 Pence Lane, Orono, MN 55331. Findings of Fact: 1. On July 29th, 2019 DNR Area Hydrologist, Jason Spiegel, received notice from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District that a placement of fill appeared to have taken place below the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) of Public Water 27-133P (Lake Minnetonka) on located in Hennepin county at 2710 Pence Lane, Orono, MN 55331. 2. DNR Conservation Officer Leah Weyandt visited the location and issued a Resource Protection Notice (RPN) for a potential Public Water violation on August 8th, 2019. 3. On August, 13th 2019, DNR Area Hydrologist, Jason Spiegel inspected the site along with staff from Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, the City of Orono, and DNR Conservation Officer Leah Weyandt. The inspection confirmed that fill had occurred within the bed of the public water below the Lake Minnetonka OHWL of 929.4 ft. 4. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District staff requested a survey of the work and Gronberg and Associates (licensed MN land surveyor) completed a survey of the property on August 9th, 2019. The survey located the current (post fill placement) location of the OHW. Comparison of the OHW location of the natural (prior to fill placement) OHW, surveyed on April 4th, 2017, reveals that fill had been placed in an area approximately 200’ long by 8’ wide (0.04 acres) of public water to create a flat bench along the shoreline (identified by blue hatching on attached map). The fill had a maximum depth of approximately 3 ft. at the southern edge of the flat bench and riprap sloped southward from there to match the previously existing lakebed elevation. The survey also revealed that excavation had taken place in an approximately 15’ diameter area (identified by red hatching on attached map). 5. On Wednesday September 4, 2019, DNR Area Hydrologist, Jason Spiegel used the Gronberg and Associates survey to locate and flag the location of the OHW before the fill and excavation took place. The pre-existing OHW location was identified by installing orange flags along the shoreline. 6. No permit application was made with DNR or Minnehaha Creek Watershed District for work in public waters to allow the placement of fill or excavation. A permit is required under Minnesota Rules, Part 6115.0190 for the placement of fill into public waters, and 6115.190 Subp. 3 prohibits the placement of fill to create upland expect where expressly authorized. A permit is required under Minnesota Rules, Part 6115.0200 for excavation in public waters. Order: You shall accomplish restoration by doing the following: 1. Install a silt curtain along the entire south/southwestern edge of the filled area to contain any fill dispersed during the restoration work. 2. All fill must be removed from the public water to repair the bed of the public water to its pre-project bed elevation. Removed fill must be disposed of at an appropriate upland location. After the fill is removed, the area must match the adjacent undisturbed existing grade on the western and eastern edges (no excavation beyond the filled area and depth may occur). A map is enclosed showing the area of public water where the fill must be removed. To assist with the restoration process the OHW has been surveyed and marked with orange flags at the restoration site (photo attached). 3. All equipment intended for use at the project site must be free of prohibited invasive species and aquatic plants prior to being transported into or within the state and placed into state waters. All equipment used in designated infested waters, shall be inspected by the Permittee or their authorized agent and adequately decontaminated prior to being transported from the worksite. For more information, refer to the Best Practices for Preventing the Spread of Aquatic Invasive Species (http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/ewr/invasives/ais/best_practices_for_prevention_ais.pdf). For assistance, contact your Regional Invasives Species Specialist (Keegan Lund 651-259-5828). A list of designated infested waters is available (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/ais/infested.html). 4. Allow natural re-growth of native aquatic plants (such as cattails and bulrush) within the disturbed area described above. No further destruction of any emergent vegetation, such as cattails or bulrush, shall take place unless authorized with a DNR Aquatic Plant Management Permit. 5. The restoration work described in 1 - 2 above must be completed by October 31, 2019. If work is delayed by weather or other factors, you must contact the Area Hydrologist (contact information below) and request an extension. 6. Contact Area Hydrologist Jason Spiegel (Jason.spiegel@state.mn.us or 651-259-5822) for a site inspection within seven days of completing the work described in Items 1-2 of this Order. The culmination of successful restoration is the issuance of a Certificate of Satisfactory Restoration. This Order is final and binding on you, unless within 30 days of the date on which it was served on you, you appeal the terms and conditions of this restoration order to the commissioner by filing a written request for review. Please mail any such request to: DNR Ecological and Water Resources, Violations Coordinator, 500 Lafayette Rd., St. Paul, MN 55155- 4032 Violation of this order is a misdemeanor. Order Created by: _______________________________________________ __________________ _________ DNR Hydrologist Signature Printed Name Date Order Served by: _______________________________________ _______ ___________________ _________ Conservation Officer Signature Badge # Printed Name Date Officer Issuance Record: in person; or by certified mail on / / C: DNR Enforcement WREO, Leah Weyandt DNR EWR District Manager, Jeanne Daniels DNR EWR Violations Coordinator, Jack Gleason DNR EWR Regional Manager, Dan Lais City of Orono, Melanie Curtis Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Cole Thompson Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, Erin Manlick Jason Spiegel 09/23/2019 592 Leah Weyandt 09/25/19 25 1909 Vogstrom Lot and Area of Fill to be restored. No excavation was present on Lot 2. Orange Flags marking Original OHW Location Overview of Lot 1 and Lot 2 violations and Gronberg Survey. From:Gregory Hueler To:Kelli Hueler; Denny Walsh; Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; mjohnson128@comcast.net; Melanie Curtis; Laura Oakden; Griffith, William C. Subject:Dunkley/Vogstrom development Date:Friday, April 24, 2020 12:55:40 PM This letter is written to the City Council in regards to 2710 Pence Lane and 2709 Walters Port, the Dunkley/Vogstrom development. In light of statements made at the April 13th City Council meeting, we ask that each City Council member review the attached documents and video evidence, as well as our statement below. Please include this in the public record. We ask that each member take a serious and objective look at the many facts on record related to the Dunkley/Vogstrom development. Statements made by Eric Vogstrom on 4/13: 1. Please review the video documentation attached that was taken on two separate days in the first two weeks of March this year. Eric Vogstrom’s statement that the driveway issue was resolved a long time ago was categorically false. After you review the videos, ask yourselves if you and your family could or would have tolerated the condition of the driveway, we’ve been forced to use to access our home since last spring. The Dunkley/Vogstrom position has been that the current driveway condition existed before they purchased the property. All documented photo evidence completely refutes that notion and there is pending Arbitration in which we are seeking repair. https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZKo0CHB1usz31MXQk3- oTwsk384pSm8q https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LQ9PT6yCIk- Z2B2YptQ3Ea0BIiKOyc28 2. PLEASE review the attached DNR Restoration Order that was issued in 2019 with no corrective action take by either party. Eric Vogstrom’s statement that the shoreline issue is mainly on the Dunkley’s property was totally false. According to the DNR Restoration Order that was issued specifically for Eric Vogstrom’s property (not neighbor opinion), Eric Vogstrom’s entire shoreline was unlawfully altered. Contrary to comments made at the April 13th meeting by certain Council members, there is not a current DNR investigation underway. The facts are, that the DNR completed a thorough investigation and they have already issued the attached Restoration Order. Preview attachment Vogstrom restoration order.pdfVogstrom restoration order.pdf2.1 MB 3. Eric Vogstrom accused us of incorrectly represented that the Dunkley/Vogstrom development has had stop work orders. They in fact have. His statement is false. The Dunkley/Vogstrom development has had stop work orders and other issues related to work either done outside the scope of a permit or without a proper permit. Please discuss the issues with staff and review the City record. Also, last summer on the weekend when some of the most egregious shoreline violations occurred, the police, City staff, and the Mayor, were all blatantly lied to by Eric Vogstrom. He represented to them that the “unlawful” alteration of the lakeshore actively underway was actually approved and within his rip-rap permit. This is not personal opinion or “accusation” as suggested by the emotional comments made by the builder and also some Council members. Please consult the public record. 4. In addition, Eric Vogstrom’s comments that his proposed new structure is in front of our garage and sufficient landscape screening has been agreed to were false. At the April 13th meeting, Mr. Crosby moved to approve the requested CUP. This was completely consistent with his conduct and voting record regarding the Dunkley/Vogstrom development at past meetings. Mr. Crosby has publicly acknowledged he has derived financial benefit from his relationship with the Dunkleys. Our legal counsel provided a letter to him and the City Council, regarding the state statutes that require Mr. Crosby to recuse himself in matters where he has a conflict of interest. Mr. Crosby has continued to advocate for the Dunkley/Vogstrom requests in almost every case. This is a matter of fact and public record, not opinion. Please review the voting record and Mr. Crosby’s strongly supportive comments regarding this development since its inception. Mr. Crosby has consistently spoken up, made motions and advocated for the Dunkley/Vogstrom development. The video documentation of City Council meetings has allowed neighbors who were unable to attend, to observe what has transpired. Mr. Crosby has diligently given voice to the false narrative that the difficulties with the Dunkley/Vogstrom development are personal and between neighbors, or more specifically with the Hueler’s. It is incumbent upon City Council members to look at the body of accumulated evidence and facts related to the Dunkley/Vogstrom development, rather than be swayed by a convenient narrative that distorts the truth and is designed to distract them from the facts. At the same April 13th meeting, certain Council members promoted the idea that Eric Vogstrom’s CUP request should be rubber stamped and that the building was just a garage. If this was just a garage rather than a nearly 2,000 square foot fully equipped living facility, where compliance by Eric Vogstrom is required for the permit, this would have been a non-issue. The notion that Eric Vogstrom will respect a piece of paper he signed and comply with City code, doesn’t reflect the pattern of facts to date. Last summer, several neighbors observed, Eric Vogstrom’s dock being utilized for seasonal boat docking by parties other than Vogstrom. When we asked Eric, why people were walking through our yard to go to his dock, he told us that “they are just friends of mine using my stuff “. Given the shoreline violation and driveway issues we were already burdened with, as well as the tone towards us at the June City Council meeting, we chose not to register a formal complaint. Instead we documented the violation relative to dock use through photos and confirmed by registration that neither boat belonged to Vogstrom. If any additional dock rental is attempted this summer, we will register a formal complaint with all appropriate parties. Respectfully, Greg & Kelli Hueler -- Gregory W. Hueler, DDS Midwest Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery, PA 13875 Highway 13 Frontage Rd Suite 50 Savage, MN 55378 952-226-7940 main 11800 Singletree Lane Suite 404 Eden Prairie, MN 55344 952-452-9151 main ClearChoice Dental Implant Center 7450 France Avenue South Edina, MN 55435 952-831-4242 main ClearChoice Dental Implant Center 3130 Cleveland Ave. N. Arden Hills, MN 55112 763-515-4000 main April 6, 2020 City of Orono Mayor Walsh & Councilmembers 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 SENT VIA US MAIL AND E-MAIL Re: Vogstrom Conditional Use Permit Dear Mayor Walsh and Councilmembers: This office represents Greg and Kelli Hueler (the “Huelers”) who reside at 2715 Pence Lane (“Hueler Property”), Orono (“City”), Minnesota. This letter pertains to the conditional use permit (CUP) application (the “Application”) by Paul Vogstrom (“Vogstrom”) to construct a shower in a detached garage at 2710 Pence Lane, Orono, Minnesota (the “Vogstrom Property”). The Vogstrom Property is still in violation of the City’s shoreland ordinance and state shoreland rules, as well as the subdivision resolution that created the parcel. Pursuant to Minnesota law and City Code the City must address the violations in conjunction with the Application; and as long as the violations exist, the City cannot make the findings required to issue a CUP. The Vogstrom Property, together with the property at 2709 Walters Port Lane, Orono, Minnesota (the “Dunkley Property) are currently the subject of ongoing proceedings related to violations of the City and state shoreland rules. These properties were previously a single parcel and have been the subject of substantial shoreline alterations in violation of the City code state shoreland rules. In September of 2019, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources issued restoration orders to both the Dunkley Property and the Vogstrom Property (RPN: F890592922006) arising out of the unlawful fill and excavation below the ordinary highwater level. The activities on the properties constitute a violation of Minnesota Rules, and by extension, a violation of the City Code. These proceedings have not been resolved and the required restorations have not yet been completed on either property. The Vogstrom Property has also repeatedly violated the conditions of subdivision approval (File No. LA18-000072) related to the shared driveway with the Hueler Property. Specifically, conditions number 4 and 6: Subdivision Condition No. 4 No driveway connection over Lot 2 to the private driveway shared by Lot 2 and 2715 Pence Lane shall be provided for Lot 1 or any other lot. City of Orono Mayor Walsh & Councilmembers April 6, 2020 Page 2 Subdivision Condition No. 6 The common driveway shared by Lot 2 and 2715 Pence Lane shall be maintained to provide an acceptable driving surface at all times. Our clients have confirmed that Vogstrom has removed the construction fence allowing both the Dunkley Property (Lot 1) and the Vogstrom Property (Lot 2) to access the shared driveway in violation of the above conditions. Minnesota Statutes Section 462.357 462.357, subd 1a.(i) requires that in evaluating all conditional use permits, the city “shall” require the property owner to address storm water, vegetative buffer, and “other conservation-designed actions.” The shoreland regulations falls squarely within the category of conservation-designed actions. Accordingly, the City has a statutory obligation to address the outstanding violations. Any CUP approval must be conditioned on reconciling the shoreland regulation violations. The City Code also requires compliance with the City’s zoning ordinance as a pre-requisite to the issuance of a CUP. Pursuant to City Code Section 78-916(a)(2), the City must find that the proposed use is or will be “compliant with the zoning code.” Here, the proposed use is a single- family home with the addition of a shower in the accessory structure. The existing shoreland ordinance violations and subdivision ordinance violations preclude the City from concluding that finding number 2 is met. Accordingly, as long as there are zoning violations, the City cannot make the required findings and is therefore unable to approve the Application. Vogstrom has repeatedly demonstrated disregard for the City Code and subdivision approvals. It is incumbent upon the City Council to hold Vogstrom accountable for the ongoing violations and ensure compliance with the City Code. Sincerely, William C. Griffith, for Larkin Hoffman Direct Dial: 952-896-3290 Direct Fax: 952-842-1729 Email: wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com Enclosure cc: Greg and Kelli Hueler (via email only) City of Orono Mayor Walsh & Councilmembers April 6, 2020 Page 3 4850-1038-9689, v. 1 From:Kelli Hueler To:Laura Oakden; Melanie Curtis; ghueler@gmail.com; John Thiesse; Christopher Bollis; ericksonrobert@comcast.net; Matt Gettman; Dennis Libby; Mark McCutcheon; JonRessler@outlook.com; Denny Walsh; Aaron H. Printup; Victoria Seals; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson Subject:Vogstrom permit request Date:Friday, March 13, 2020 1:02:20 PM Dear Laura, Thank you for sending the plans and sketch for what is being proposed by Eric Vogstrom. They are very revealing. It’s incomprehensible that the City could consider this nearly 2,000 square foot structure as anything other than a multipurpose dwelling, including space for guests or other occupants and something that clearly requires variances for a guest house. We understand the City staff believes that by having Eric Vogstrom sign a document prohibiting overnight use and other forms of occupancy that in fact he will comply with the permit. It would be both irresponsible and naïve to consider issuing this permit, based on the repeated violations on record. Before any action is taken on the Vogstrom request it is incumbent on the Planning Commission members to review the many permitting violations, stop work orders, and gross misrepresentations made by Vogstrom. There are many examples of problems with compliance related to City permits, or lack there-of for work done prior to obtaining the appropriate permit. One very stark and egregious example of total disregard for the limits of a permit was the unauthorized alteration of the shoreline of both 2709 Walters Port and 2710 Pence Lane. Unfortunately, the City believed Vogstrom was being truthful when he represented that he was simply completing work within his permit from the Watershed allowing him to put in riprap. This was a blatant misrepresentation. Even when multiple concerned residents contacted the City about the activity, the work continued, based on the belief that Vogstrom’s work was in compliance with his permit. The result was, in the words of a state agency staff member responsible for evaluating the damage, one of the most egregious unlawful alterations of the shoreline they had ever seen. Once the violation had occurred, the City didn’t have any enforcement ability and could not bring forth any consequences. Nothing happened to resolve the situation until the DNR got involved. Vogstrom’s violations often occur after the City offices close for the weekend, so Staff cannot be contacted. One of the weekends when obvious shoreline alteration was occurring we called the police, as instructed by the City Staff regarding the numerous weekend violations, and additionally reached out to Mayor Walsh. Vogstrom produced a copy of his permit and insisted that riprap installation was all that was being done, so the work was allowed to continue. Even when many of the residents on Carmen Bay knew Vogstrom was intentionally extending his shoreline and using heavy equipment within the 75 foot setback to haul substantial amounts of dirt to accomplish the extension. Plumes of dirt were reaching well past other people’s docks (photos were taken), but the work went on due to Vogstrom’s blatant misrepresentations to City officials. Believing that this additional structure will not be used as a guest house would be at a minimum irresponsible, based on the evidence of past violations and the City’s experience with Vogstrom to date. It would mean that the City is knowingly granting a permit to Vogstrom they cannot monitor and have no ability to enforce. This structure should either not have sewer and water brought to it, or Vogstrom should attempt to obtain all necessary permits to build a guest house, which adequately reflects its size and functionality described on the plans. Additionally, the proposed location of this guest house further deviates from what was the character of the area and attempts to jam a third dwelling as close as possible to our driveway easement and entrance to our home. Any building, including the proposed guest house should be closer to his home currently under construction and buffering landscaping should be required. If it has no sewer/water and is truly used as an entertainment building, we respectfully request that this home still be located closer to the Dunkley property. We already have flashing lights and loud music coming from the Dunkley’s newly built arcade and pool facility (which amplifies the sound). The activity has many times continued until well after 2am on weekdays. Additional noise and traffic this close to our house will be intolerable. We respectfully request that the City undertake a thorough review of the combined Vogstrom/Dunkley projects before considering any additional permitting for Vogstrom. All aspects of his projects should be fully in compliance with City Code and any other Agency (Watershed and DNR) orders. Sincerely, Greg & Kelli Hueler (1) (2) (3) ARTICLE V. - CONDITIONAL USES DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Secs. 78-886—78-910. - Reserved. DIVISION 2. - PERMIT Footnotes: --- (16) --- State Law reference— Conditional use permits, Minn. Stat. § 462.3595. Sec. 78-911. - Purpose. In order to give the district use regulation the flexibility necessary to achieve the objectives of this chapter, in certain districts, conditional uses are permitted, subject to the granting of a use permit. Conditional uses include those uses generally not suitable in a particular zoning district, but which may under some circumstances be suitable. When such circumstances exist, a conditional use permit may be granted. Conditions may be applied to issuance of the permit, and a periodic review of the permit may be required. The permit shall be issued for a particular use and not for a particular person. Because of their unusual characteristics, conditional uses require consideration so they may be located properly with respect to the objectives of this chapter and the comprehensive municipal plan and with respect to their effects on surrounding properties. In order to achieve these purposes, the council is empowered to grant and to deny applications for conditional use permits and to impose reasonable conditions upon the granting of these permits. (Code 1984, § 10.09(1)) Sec. 78-912. - Reference to planning commission. Before the council may grant conditional use permits for such conditional uses as prescribed in the district regulations of this chapter, the request shall be referred to the planning commission for study concerning the effect of the proposed use on the ordinance and on the character and development of the neighborhood and for recommendation in regard to granting such conditional use and its conditions, if any, or for the denial of such conditional use. The council may by unanimous action waive reference to the planning commission. (Code 1984, § 10.09(2)) Sec. 78-913. - Application. Whenever this chapter requires a conditional use permit, an application in writing may be filed with the zoning administrator, together with such filing fee as may be established by the council and shall be accompanied by a site plan and such information and showing as may be necessary or desirable, including but not limited to the following: Site plan drawn at scale dimensions with setbacks noted. Location of all buildings, heights and square footage. Curb cuts, driveways, parking spaces. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (a) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Off-street loading areas. Drainage plan. Type of business, proposed number of employees by shift. Proposed floor plan with use indicated and building elevations. Sanitary sewer and water plan with estimated use per day. A lighting plan showing the lighting of parking area, walks, security lighting and driveway entrance light. A landscape plan with a schedule of the plantings. An abstractor's certified property certificate showing the property owners within 500 feet of the outer boundaries of the property in question. (Code 1984, § 10.09(3); Ord. No. 210 3rd series, § 13, 6-25-2018) Sec. 78-914. - Failure of planning commission to act. If no recommendation is transmitted by the planning commission within 60 days after referral of the application for conditional use to the commission, the council may take action without further awaiting such recommendation. (Code 1984, § 10.09(4)) Sec. 78-915. - Hearings and notice. The planning commission or council may hold a public hearing on each application for a conditional use permit as required by section 78-48. At the public hearing the planning commission or the council shall review the application and the statements and drawings submitted with the application and shall receive pertinent evidence concerning the proposed use and the proposed conditions under which it would be operated or maintained. Any party may appear at the hearing in person or by agent or attorney. Subject to such limitations as may be imposed by the council, the planning commission or the council may adopt rules for the conduct of proceedings before it. Such rules may include provisions for the giving of oaths to witnesses and the filing of written briefs by the parties. The city shall provide for a record of the proceedings, which shall include the minutes of the meetings, the findings, and the action taken on each matter heard, including the final action. (Code 1984, § 10.09(5); Ord. No. 210 3rd series, § 14, 6-25-2018) State Law reference— Conditional use permit hearings, Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 2. Sec. 78-916. - Granting of permit. The planning commission may recommend and the council may grant a conditional use permit as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: Consistent with the community management plan; Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (b) (c) (d) in the future; Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; and Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. A conditional use permit may be granted subject to such conditions as the council may prescribe. A conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the city council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. A certified copy of any conditional use permit shall be filed with the county recorder or registrar of titles. The conditional use permit shall include the legal description of the property included. (Code 1984, § 10.09(6); Ord. No. 77 3rd series, § 1, 7-12-2010) Sec. 78-917. - Denial of permit. The council shall set forth contemporaneously in writing and in detail all the reasons for the denial of the conditional use permit application. No application for a conditional use permit which has been denied wholly or in part shall be resubmitted for a period of six months from the date of denial, except on grounds of new evidence or proof of changes of conditions found to be valid by the planning commission. (Code 1984, § 10.09(7)) Sec. 78-918. - Lapse of permit. A conditional use permit shall lapse one year following the date on which it became effective unless prior to that time a building permit is issued by the building inspector and construction is commenced and pursued toward completion on the site which was the subject of the conditional use permit application. A conditional use permit may be renewed for an additional period of one year provided the request is filed prior to the expiration of one year from the date when the use permit is filed with the zoning administrator. The council may grant or deny an application for renewal of a conditional use permit. In no case shall more than three, one year extensions be granted. (Code 1984, § 10.09(8); Ord. No. 153 3rd series, § 4, 8-10-2015) Sec. 78-919. - Lapse of use. Should a conditional use permit lapse or cease for a period of six months, future use shall be in conformance with the terms of this chapter unless such lapse or cessation is determined to be due to illness, natural disaster or acts of war. (Code 1984, § 10.09(9)) State Law reference— Conditional use permit duration, Minn. Stat. § 462.3595, subd. 3. Sec. 78-920. - Conditional use permits for nonconforming uses. All nonconforming uses actually and legally existing on December 1, 1974, shall be issued a conditional use permit upon application not later than January 1, 1976. Such conditional use permit shall allow the continuation of the nonconforming use to the same extent and degree as then existing on December 1, 1974. Such permits shall be granted without application fee, and the council shall be limited in such permits to the full and accurate statements of the conditions pertaining to the existing uses. Such permits shall not be subject to periodic review. (Code 1984, § 10.09(10)) Sec. 78-921. - Conditional use permit review. The city hereby reserves the right to inspect the premises where a conditional use permit has been issued, after receiving permission from the property owner or receiving the appropriate court order, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance or and conditions imposed. Conditional use permits shall not be subject to periodic council review for the purpose of change or revocation unless such a review is one of the conditions of the original permit or unless the actual land use is determined to be in violation of the terms of the permit. (Code 1984, § 10.09(11); Ord. No. 192 3rd series, § 1, 4-10-2017) Sec. 78-922. - Unlawful act. It is unlawful to violate any condition of a conditional use permit. (Code 1984, § 10.09(12)) Secs. 78-923—78-945. - Reserved. DIVISION 3. - REQUIREMENTS FOR SPECIFIC USES Subdivision I. - In General Sec. 78-946. - Conditional use permit for essential services. A conditional use permit is required for all structures, including utility poles and rights-of-way, which are an integral part of a system for public transportation as for transmitting power, water, heat, communications, gas or sewage by any public utility. The council shall grant a conditional use permit only after a showing that the public safety, health and welfare will not be harmed by the essential services. Personal wireless services and commercial broadcasting antennas and towers shall not be considered essential services. (Code 1984, § 10.03(17); Ord. No. 161 2nd series, § 2, 6-7-1997) Sec. 78-947. - Reserved. Editor's note— Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 1, adopted Dec. 10, 2018, repealed § 78-947, which pertained to mining and derived from Code 1984, § 10.03(25). Sec. 78-948. - Reserved. Editor's note— Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 2, adopted Dec. 10, 2018, repealed § 78-948, which pertained to soil processing and derived from Code 1984, § 10.03(26). Sec. 78-949. - Commercial recreation. A conditional use permit is required for commercial recreation uses. The council shall grant a conditional use permit only after the applicant demonstrates that public safety, health and welfare will not be negatively affected by the use, in particular the use will not create traffic congestion, interfere with the operation of adjacent uses, and create an unreasonable demand for public safety services. If a commercial use is part of a multi-tenant building, any exterior alteration shall be compatible with the architectural style of the building. Such conditional use permit may include conditions to mitigate potential adverse effects on adjacent uses including but not limited to restricting the hours of operation and total floor area of the use. (Ord. No. 47 3rd series, § 4, 7-28-2008) Secs. 78-950—78-965. - Reserved. Subdivision II. - Reserved Footnotes: --- (17) --- Editor's note— Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 3, adopted Dec. 10, 2018, repealed §§ 78-966—78-969, which pertained to land alteration and derived from Code 1984, § 10.03(19)—(24); Ord. No. 163 2nd series, §§ 1, 2, adopted Dec. 8, 1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 1, adopted April 4, 1998; Ord. No. 133 3rd series, § 1, adopted Jan. 26, 2015; Ord. No. 188 3rd series, §§ 2, 3, adopted March 22, 2017. The user's attention is directed to § 78-1590 et seq. Secs. 78-966—78-1000. - Reserved. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a conditional use permit (“CUP”) to permit plumbing, including a shower, within an accessory building. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and was considered to be complete on March 10, 2020. The 60-Day review period expires on May 9, 2020. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant wishes to install bathroom facilities which include a shower within an accessory building with a garage on their property which includes a kitchen and recreational space. The building is conforming to setbacks, size, use, and design. A CUP is required due to the proposed shower. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On March 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to recommend approval of the requested CUP subject to the recording of the required covenants. 5. Public Comment. A letter dated April 6th 2020 from Mr. Bill Griffith, representing the Huelers, was submitted opposing the application. An email dated March 13, 2020 from the Huelers, an abutting neighbor, was submitted opposing the project for the Planning Commission review. Mr. Bill Griffith spoke against the application and noted an open violation regarding shoreline issues. Councilmember and neighbor Richard Crosby spoke supporting the application. The owner and applicant were in attendance and stated they will be meeting all the requirements for the CUP. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends to provide direction for a resolution and review the conditions listed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution. Exhibits Exhibit A. Public Comment Exhibit B. Proposed Plans Exhibit C. Draft PC Minutes Exhibit D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 03/16/2020 Exhibit A. Application Item No.: # Date: 13 April 2020 Item Description: #LA20-000016, Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, CUP, Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: Exhibit B. Proposed Survey & Hardcover Exhibit C. Landscape Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 15. LA20-000016 – PAUL THOMAS DESIGN BUILD, 2710 PENCE LANE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Staff presented a summary of packet information. Johnson noted they have had this same type of request that they have granted to people, and it’s been fairly rubber-stamped as long as the people agree to the conditions. He asked Mattick if there is a reason for the City not to grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in the meantime when there are ongoing, existing, and historical violations on a property. Mattick asked Johnson if he was referring to the alleged violation on the shoreline. Johnson said he understands that issue is open and that there were other issues with the use of the driveway, etc. Mattick noted the request in front of the Council involves a bathroom/plumbing in the garage. He would like to take a closer look at the connectivity between the two issues. When someone makes a request, the Council can impose conditions that are reasonably related to the request. He does not know the status of the current code violation, but his understanding is they are set to have a hearing, they have challenged the finding and are still working their way through the process. He is not sure the Council can wait to have the process played out, because there is a 60-day rule. If the City wants to tie the shoreline issue with the restroom in a garage, the City will have to look at how to address it. He did not think it is as simple as saying a violation was found on the property so the City is not going to grant the CUP. Mr. William Griffith asked the Council to look at the survey being displayed and indicated one of the difficulties with the proposed garage is that it appears to be in the Huelers’ front yard the way the lot is configured as you come down the joint driveway. He thought there was discussion both at the Planning Commission and elsewhere about some screening of that building. He noted another question, looking at the driveway as it runs through Lot 2, is there has been continuous use of that driveway to service Lot 1, which is a subdivision condition when the lot was created that prohibits that driveway use. They asked the City to confirm, as they are issuing the permit, that the applicant is in compliance with the shoreline issues and driveway issues and provides screening of the building. Mr. Eric Vogstrom, 2710 Pence Lane, said the garage is more in front of the Huelers’ garage and there is not another place he could put it. Originally, he wanted to be farther back so he could build a 4-5 car garage. By him being 130 feet from the lake instead of 75 feet, he could only do a 3-car garage. The driveway issue was settled a long time ago and he hasn't had any violations yet. They also do not have any stop work orders on his property, as was mentioned to the Planning Commission. With respect to the DNR issue, that is mainly on the Dunkley property, and the Dunkleys are in the process of disputing that. He does not see how that has anything to do with this property. He is going to be building a garage with or without a bathroom, but adding the other items is setting a ridiculous precedence. The Council does not have any precedence as far as screening. City Staff and the Planning Commission have recommended approval. He is going to be working with the Huelers as far as screening on the entire property by planting pine trees together, and to have him do screening for this is unprecedented and unfair. If he moves the building, it would be more in front of their house, and that does not solve any problems. He also has the ability to put another 1,000-square foot building on his property. He wants a garage like everyone else in Orono. He feels it’s a rubber-stamp deal. He hopes to be treated fairly like everyone else who has brought a similar issue to the Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Crosby stated as long as this is in compliance, noting that it cannot be used as a rental unit, the City should move forward and draft a Resolution to accept. Walsh said they are called CUPs because they are conditional, not a rubber stamp. Otherwise, it would be in the code that people can just do it. He noted at the Planning Commission, Mr. Vogstrom said he had talked with the Huelers and said it would not be a big deal to put some screening there. There are some outstanding violations that might mostly be on the Dunkleys’ but it is also on Mr. Vogstrom’s. Part of the conditions is that it gets cleaned up, similar to when your child cleans their room, they can have dessert. Johnson noted right now there is an investigation into whether they did anything wrong and the Council does not know the findings with the DNR. It does not sound like the City has any jurisdiction on that issue and he is hesitant to loop that issue in. The screening item is between the neighbors. Mr. Vogstrom is not asking for a variance for the location of the garage, he is in a complying location, so he does not have an obligation to the City to have screen age. There has been a lot of turmoil in the area and it may be an opportunity for some good will, but it’s not the City’s business. In his experience, when bathroom requests come up, as long as the applicant understands the conditions, he supports approval. Printup stated he would like to learn more about the issues and asked for the item to be tabled for two weeks. He noted the CUP stays with the land forever, even if the garage blows down. Printup moved to table LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit for two weeks. Walsh asked what information Printup would like to gather. Printup stated it would be the DNR regulations on the shoreline, to hear more about the CUP and how it affects the land, and to try to untangle the issues with the property and to categorize everything. Crosby noted it is a bathroom in a garage, it is not complicated, and he did not think anyone needed to reach out to the shoreline. He hoped the neighbors could work together on the screening but did not think that was something the Council could dictate to them. He asked Mattick for his input. Mattick noted they would need to find the connection with whatever they pull in. Crosby said he did not think it would be an ample reason to pull something in so it could be held as leverage. He stated the CUP would be approved for almost any other home in Orono, so there is no reason to not move ahead. Seals stated there have been a lot of challenges and nothing has been simple or normal on this corner. When she sees the address, she knows exactly where it is, and that is not normal. Her thought process is, he has a right to build a garage, but why is everything such a tangled mess and is there something the Council is missing that needs to be checked on. She commented that Printup was not saying no but wanted two more weeks before making a decision. Seals seconded the motion to table LA20-000016 – Paul Thomas Design Build, 2710 Pence Lane, Conditional Use Permit. Johnson asked if the applicant had an opinion about tabling it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, April 13, 2020 6:03 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Paul Vogstrom, 2731 Eden Lake Road, Hanover, said he understands the project has been complicated and there are a lot of accusations. They want to get the project done. He understands the Council does not think two weeks is a big deal. This matter is going on and on because the Huelers keep raising accusations. He has tried to work with them. The Huelers were for the plan back at the Sketch Plan meeting, and because they could not come to terms on buying some property from the Dunkleys, all hell broke loose. He is sorry that it has been what it’s been, but it’s a simple application that everyone else gets approved for, and now everything’s got to be looked at. He said other subcontractors drive on different driveways. He does not think anyone has crossed the line and they have signs up and they do everything they can. It is not fair that the neighbors keep yelling and screaming, and they are abiding by everything and keep getting delayed and jumping through hoops. He recommends the Council move forward with the project and stop setting precedence that neighbors can just complain. He asked the Council to reconsider tabling the item. Crosby said he is strongly against tabling the matter and thinks it needs to be moved forward. He believes if it was any other project, without a doubt it would get stamped and not stopped. Personal feelings cannot get in the way; the Council has to be logical and look at the project and decide how the Council would have voted in another instance. If the home was on another road in Orono, it would go forward. The City has to be non-judgmental and consistent. If the Council tables the matter, they are not being consistent. Printup stated his motion stands. Walsh commented that everything mentioned were good points and he did not think a couple weeks would hurt to gather more information. Johnson said there have been a lot of problems with the relationship and the City should be cautious and do the right thing because of the issues. However, a bathroom in a garage is not an issue the Council should hold up. VOTE: Ayes 3 (Printup, Seals, Walsh), Nays 2 (Crosby, Johnson). From:Melanie Curtis To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:FW: Dunkley/Vogstrom Develpment Date:Monday, April 27, 2020 5:01:08 PM Melanie Curtis (952.249.4627 *mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK! From: sheila bakke [mailto:SHEILABAKKE3@msn.com] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:59 PM To: Denny Walsh <dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn.us>; Aaron H. Printup <aprintup@ci.orono.mn.us>; Victoria Seals <vseals@ci.orono.mn.us>; Richard Crosby <rcrosby@ci.orono.mn.us>; mjohnson128@comcast.net; Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>; Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us>; wgriffith@larkenhoffman.com Cc: KelliH@hueler.com; Gregh@gmail.com Subject: Dunkley/Vogstrom Develpment Dear Council Members: My husband and I live at 2765 Pheasant Road. Our lot borders Pence lane and, as a result, our kitchen, three bedrooms, and two of our bathrooms look out at Pence Lane. We have observed the heavy trucks filled with demolition debris from Habermann's house, logs (most likely ready for resale) from the numerous perfectly good trees that were cut down, heavy machinery being hauled to and from the construction site, as well as, truckload after truckload of dirt being hauled up land and past the new construction as the new shoreline was being configured. Often the trucks drove as fast as was physically possible, loading and dumping all day long (on weekends). I have just read the letter that Greg Hueler wrote and concur with everything he said about its previous condition and deterioration since the Dunkley/Vogstrom development began. Prior to this project, It was a paved road I that walked on regularly to connect with Kelly Avenue. Perhaps could have benefited from a new seal coat, but in no way was it ever broken up, full of deep holes and basically the horrible dirt road it is now. It was probably horrible by the time Vogstrom purchased it from Dunkleys, but there is no way anyone in all honesty could say it was that way when the Dunkley's purchased the property from the Habermanns. Hopefully this sheds a little additional light on the misrepresentations that have persisted throughout this project. It seems that Orono has had a laissez faire policy with this project and almost always has given in to pressure from the wealthy in lieu of following Orono's own policies. Sincerely yours Sheila Bakke 952 471-7264 From:Melanie Curtis To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:FW: Letter to the Council from Greg Hueler on April 24, 2020 Date:Monday, April 27, 2020 5:00:52 PM FYI Melanie Curtis (952.249.4627 *mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us All permitting is now done through our new online portal - LINK! From: Steve Bakke [mailto:bakkeco@att.net] Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 4:54 PM To: Denny Walsh <dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn.us>; Aaron H. Printup <aprintup@ci.orono.mn.us>; Victoria Seals <vseals@ci.orono.mn.us>; Richard Crosby <rcrosby@ci.orono.mn.us>; mjohnson128@comcast.net; Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us>; Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us>; William C. <wgriffith@larkinhoffman.com> Cc: kellih@hueler.com; ghueler@gmail.com; Sheila Bakke <sheilabakke3@msn.com> Subject: Letter to the Council from Greg Hueler on April 24, 2020 Members of the Orono City Council: I am Steve Bakke at 2765 Pheasant Road. The back of our property is adjacent to the driveway in question and adjoins the Dunkley/Vogstrom development. From our personal observations over the past two years, these projects have been a travesty of miscompliance from the outset. Everything that the Huelers claim - and document - is, to the best of our knowledge, factual. We are also personally aware of Mr. Crosby's bias in favor of the Dunkleys dating back to before these projects, in his dealings with various neighbors including the Habermans prior to the sale of their property. Clearly he should recuse himself, or be forced to. You have the power to require the Dunkleys and Eric Vogstrom to toe the line from this point forward, and to assess consequences if they don't. Use that power. Do it with a sense of fairness for every citizen of Orono. Steve Bakke Date Application Received: March 23, 2020, Date Application Considered as Complete: April 13, 2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: June 12, 2020 To: Mayor Walsh, City Council Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: April 27, 2020 Subject: #LA20-26, Jay Pomeroy/Orono Public Schools, 2687 Wayzata Blvd W, Site Plan Approval Background Orono Public schools applied for (Case # 17-3935) and received (Resolution 6769) a conditional use permit to operate their bus garage out of the subject property in June of 2017. Later that year, they purchased the property. In addition to bus parking and minor repair, the site will include employee parking and a fuel station. Buses will be stored indoors, and enter the building from the rear. Due to bus turning movements, the drive area to the south of the building needs to be expanded, into the adjacent property, 2605 Wayzata Blvd West. That owner will provide an easement, in lieu of selling a portion of that property. The City Ordinance Sec. 78-827(c) allows private access, truck circulation, and undivided parking to encroach into an otherwise required 10 foot setback. The applicant has prepared a site plan to address the issues identified during the Conditional Use Permit review. The site improvements include: 1. Expansion of the parking lot to the NE of the building. 2. Adding the fuel island to the east of the building. 3. Expansion of the circulation area south of the building, into the adjacent parcel. 4. Landscape screening north of the parking lot. Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 5 Industrial 89,216 s.f. (2.05 ac) 75,903 s.f. (85 %) 53,143 s.f. (59.5%) 60,504 s.f. (67.8%) Application Summary: The applicant is requesting site plan approval to utilize the property for their bus garage operations. Improvements include screening. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the site plan as presented. FILE #LA 20-26 April 27, 2020 Page 2 of 3 Site Plan Analysis: The use has been permitted through the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit in 2017. The Council is primarily asked to confirm the proposed screening plan, attached as Exhibit B, is consistent with Council expectation. While buses are proposed to be parked indoors, they are not prohibited from parking out of doors, increasing the importance of the screening. Full plans can be found in Exhibit C. The relevant condition identified during the Conditional Use Permit was: 1. A berm and landscape screen shall be added to the north of the employee parking area, plan to be approved by staff. The berm shall undulate in height, between 2 and 6 feet in height, and include grasses, shrubbery, and evergreen trees intended to provide screening of parked school buses. The landscape plan provided includes raised berms on either side of the entrance off of Wayzata Blvd. The berm on the right (east) is noted to be 3-3.5 feet higher that the existing slope, and about 2 feet higher than the adjacent parking area. The berm on the left (west) of the drive rises to about 6 feet above the adjacent parking area, and about 5 feet above current elevation. The plans include retention of existing evergreens on the west side. New trees proposed include 10 spruce and pines on the west side, and 11 spruce and pines on the east side. The trees range in height from 8 to 12 feet. The plans do not propose any shrubbery. Applicable Regulation: Site Plan Review (Section 78-145) Before granting approval of the site plan review, the City Council shall determine that the proposal: 1) Is compatible with surrounding land uses; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. 2) Preserves existing unique and natural features of the site and minimizes impacts to wetlands, floodplains, and shoreland areas; Watershed district has reviewed the plans and granted a permit for stormwater management. 3) Creates harmonious relationship of buildings and open space with natural site features and with existing and future buildings having a visual relationship of the development; The City Council should review the proposed landscaping and confirm the screening plan is acceptable. 4) Achieves a safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian circulation system; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. 5) Places no excessive demands on services and infrastructure, including local streets; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. 6) Conforms to the city's plans for parks, streets, and walkways; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. 7) Conforms to the Orono Community Management Plan; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. FILE #LA 20-26 April 27, 2020 Page 3 of 3 8) Incorporates sufficient landscaping to reasonably screen undesirable features and to enhance the image of the development; The City Council should review the proposed landscaping and confirm the screening plan is acceptable. 9) Protects abutting properties and does not create detrimental disturbances to surrounding properties; Reviewed as part of the Conditional Use Permit, approved in Resolution 6769. 10) Conforms to all requirements of this chapter unless a variance has been granted. Confirmed 11) Incorporates efforts to conserve energy whenever practical. Confirmed. Roof mounted solar panels have been approved. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the Council comfortable with the proposed landscaping/ screening plan? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed landscaping plan Exhibit C. Proposed Plans Exhibit D. Resolution 6769 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:03/23/2020 Address:2687 WAYZATA BLVD W LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number:3311823130002 Land Use Number:LA20-000026 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Address: INDEPENDENT SCH DISTR #278 685 OLD CRYS STAL BAY RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant:Name: Jay Pomeroy Company: Anderson-Johnson Associates, Inc. Address: 7575 Golden valley Road, Suite 200 Minneaspolis, MN 55427 jpomeroy@ajainc.net Contact Information:Associated Contact: ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Orono Schools is proposing changes to their bus garage site at 2687 Wayzata Blvd, including extension of pavement extending over the south property line to allow for adequate turning for buses leaving the garage. Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: 1 0 C 5 . 1 1 9 C 5 . 1 4 " W I D E S I N G L E W H I T E P A I N T S T R I P E 1 5 C 5 . 1 4 " W I D E W H I T E P A I N T S T R I P E @ 3 ' O . C . ( T Y P I C A L ) 10 2 3 1 0 2 6 1 0 2 5 1 0 2 4 9 . 0 0 ' 47.75' 1 8 . 5 0 ' 18.50' R 1 0 . 0 0 ' 1 0 2 3 1 0 2 2 1021 1020 1022 1 2 C 5 . 2 5 - N O R W A Y S P R U C E ( P i c e a a b i e s , 1 0 ' H T , B & B ) 1 - B L A C K H I L L S S P R U C E ( P i c e a g l a u c a d e n s a t a , 1 2 ' H T , B & B ) 2 - B L A C K H I L L S S P R U C E ( P i c e a g l a u c a d e n s a t a , 1 2 ' H T , B & B ) 3 - S W I S S S T O N E P I N E ( P i n u s c e m b r a , 8 ' H T , B & B ) S E E D & M U L C H D I S T U R B E D A R E A S 1 0 2 6 1 0 2 7 1 0 2 8 1 0 2 9 1 0 2 5 10 2 5 1 0 2 7 5 - B L A C K H I L L S S P R U C E (Picea gla u c a d e n s a t a , 1 2 ' H T , B & B ) 3 - S W I S S S T O N E P I N E (Pin u s c e m b r a , 8 ' H T , B & B ) 2 EXISTING EVERGREENS(15" AND 18" cal.) 5 E X I S T I N G E V E R G R E E N S ( 8 " c a l . ) 2 - NORWAY SPRUCE(Picea abies, 8' & 10' HT, B&B) 10 2 0 10 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 1 C5.2 19 C5.1 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT STRIPE @ 3' O.C. AND PAINTED 'NO PARKING'(TYPICAL) PAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL (TYP) 4" WIDE SINGLE WHITE PAINT STRIPE NO PA R K I N G 10 C5.1 10 C5.1 11 C5.1 11 C5.1 11 C5.1 15 C5.1 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT STRIPE @ 3' O.C. (TYPICAL) 4" WIDE WHITE PAINT STRIPE @ 3' O.C. (TYPICAL) 4" WIDE SINGLE WHITE PAINT STRIPE 19 C5.1 C5.1 21 C5.1 12 COORDINATE ISLAND CONSTRUCTION WITH OWNER'S PROPANE CONTRACTOR. BOLLARDS TO BE CENTERED ON 24" WIDE CURB RIBBON AND @ 4' O.C. (MAX.). CONCRETE SLAB TO BE 3-6" ABOVE PAVEMENT FINISH GRADE (SEE SHEET C6.1). 1023 10 2 3 1026 1025 1024 1024 C5.2 4 C5.1 21 21 C5.1 6' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE (TYPICAL) MATCH EXISTING 9.00' 26 . 1 9 ' 9. 0 0 ' 47 . 7 5 ' 18.50' 18 . 5 0 ' R1 0 . 0 0 ' R4.0 0 ' 135.13' 34. 0 0 ' 3 4 . 4 1 ' 28 . 3 5 ' 24 . 6 5 ' 27 4 . 3 5 ' 25.00' 26 . 0 0 ' 14.00' 22 C5.1 102 3 102 2 10 2 1 10 2 0 10 2 2 10 2 1 PROVIDE MINIMUM 6' WIDE GRASS REINFORCEMENT MESH (Spec 354334) AT PRETREATMENT STRUCTURE OUTLET. EXTEND ACROSS BOTTOM OF BASIN PROVIDE GRASS REINFORCEMENT MESH (Spec 354334) AT FILTRATION AREA OVERFLOW AREA AND DOWN SLOPES TO MATCH AREA ON PLANS 12 C5.2 5 - NORWAY SPRUCE (Picea abies, 10' HT, B&B) 1 - BLACK HILLS SPRUCE (Picea glauca densata, 12' HT, B&B) 2 - BLACK HILLS SPRUCE (Picea glauca densata, 12' HT, B&B) 3 - SWISS STONE PINE (Pinus cembra, 8' HT, B&B) SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND MINERAL SOD (BASIN AREA) SEED & MULCH DISTURBED AREAS SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND MINERAL SOD (BASIN AREA) SEED & MULCH DISTURBED AREAS SEED & EROSION CONTROL BLANKET AND MINERAL SOD (BASIN AREA) 1026 1027 1028 1029 1025 10 2 5 1027 5 - BLACK HILLS SPRUCE (Picea glauca densata, 12' HT, B&B) 3 - SWISS STONE PINE (Pinus cembra, 8' HT, B&B) 2 EXISTING EVERGREENS (15" AND 18" cal.) 5 EXISTING EVERGREENS (8" cal.)2 - NORWAY SPRUCE (Picea abies, 8' & 10' HT, B&B) 19 ' 22.78' (verify) 23 . 2 8 ' 10 C5.1 R 3 . 0 0 ' PROTECT CATCH BASI N REMOVE FENCE INCLUDING FOOTINGS SAWCUT, REMOVE PAVEMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW PROTECT SLAB PROTECT PROTECT CONC SLAB/ ELECTRICAL PROTECT PAVEMENT TO REMAIN SAWCUT, REMOVE CURB AND PAVEMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW REMOVE FENCE INCLUDING FOOTINGS REMOVE ROCK MULCH AND LANDSCAPING REMOVE MAILBOX AND SLAB REMOVE WALL, DECORATIVE BRICK EDGING, LANDSCAPING AND SIGN PROTECT FENCE TO REMAIN SAWCUT, REMOVE PAVEMENT TO ALLOW FOR NEW (VERIFY) 0 15 301 C6.1 TRANSPORTATION CENTER REMOVALS PLAN LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E S I T E P L A N N I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G AN D E R S O N - J O H N S O N AS S O C I A T E S , IN C . 75 7 5 G O L D E N V A L L E Y R O A D S U I T E 2 0 0 M I N N E A P O L I S . M N 5 5 4 2 7 FA X ( 7 6 3 ) 5 4 4 - 0 5 3 1 P H ( 7 6 3 ) 5 4 4 - 7 1 2 9 20 2 0 S I T E I M P R O V E M E N T S OR O N O P U B L I C S C H O O L S LO N G L A K E , M I N N E S O T A IS D 2 7 8 - O r o n o P u b l i c S c h o o l s 68 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d Lo n g L a k e , M N 5 5 3 5 6 DI S T R I C T TR A N S P O R T A T I O N CE N T E R RE M O V A L S , L A Y O U T AN D F I N I S H I N G P L A N 19 0 9 5 11 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 JR P JR P C6 . 1 17 2 C6.1 TRANSPORTATION CENTER LAYOUT & FINISHING PLAN LEGEND REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM) CONCRETE PAVEMENT REMOVALS CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER REMOVALS BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT REMOVALS ROCK MULCH/ LANDSCAPING REMOVALS FENCING REMOVALS TREE REMOVALS SAWCUT 1 C5.1 NOTES: 1.REFER TO SHEET C0.0 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO SHEET C3.2 - SWPPP NARRATIVE, LEGEND, NOTES AND ESTIMATED QUANTITIES FOR RELATED INFORMATION. 3.MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SITE AND PROTECT EXISTING VEGETATION AND SITE FEATURES (CURBS, WALKS, PAVEMENTS, OVERHEAD AND UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, SIGNAGE, FENCING, ROADWAYS, ETC.) WHICH ARE TO REMAIN. 4.REPAIR OR REPLACE EXISTING PROPERTY AND SITE FEATURES, INCLUDING GRASS AND VEGETATION, WHICH IS TO REMAIN THAT IS DAMAGED BY THE WORK, TO OWNER'S SATISFACTION AND AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE OWNER. 5.VISIT THE SITE PRIOR TO BIDDING; BE FAMILIAR WITH ACTUAL CONDITIONS IN THE FIELD. EXTRA COMPENSATION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED FOR CONDITIONS WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN DETERMINED OR ANTICIPATED BY EXAMINATION OF THE SITE, THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS AND THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE PERTAINING TO EXISTING SOILS, UTILITIES AND OTHER SITE CHARACTERISTICS. 6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HIRE THE SERVICES OF A UTILITY LOCATOR COMPANY TO LOCATE ALL PRIVATELY OWNED UTILITIES THAT MAY BE DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS. 7.TREE PROTECTION: INSTALL 4' ORANGE SNOW FENCE AT DRIP LINE OF TREES TO BE PROTECTED. MAINTAIN DURING CONSTRUCTION. REMOVE AT COMPLETION. 8.ALL APPLICABLE DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB, EDGE OF PAVEMENT, CENTERLINE OF FENCE, OR PROPERTY LINE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 9.CHECK ALL PLAN AND DETAIL DIMENSIONS AND VERIFY SAME BEFORE FIELD LAYOUT. 10.SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED 18" BEHIND THE BACK OF CURB OR EDGE OF PAVEMENT. 11.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS, INCLUDING DETERMINATION OF ALL QUANTITIES, PRIOR TO THE WORK. BASE BID AMOUNT INCLUDES ALL WORK TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH IS ILLUSTRATED ON THE PLAN, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. REFER TO SHEET C3.2 FOR ESTIMATED QUANTITIES. PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT PAINTED ACCESSIBLE SYMBOL PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGN RETAINING WALL WITH FENCE PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SOIL REINFORCEMENT SCOUR PROTETION - REFER TO SPECIFICATION PROPOSED STORMWATER PRETREATMENT STRUCTURE 1 C5.2 2 C5.2 19 C5.1 21 C5.1 4 C5.2 12 C5.2 AD D 3 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 9 1 CI T Y 4 / 6 / 2 0 M.E. (24.0) 23.5 23.0 M.E. (22.9) M.E. (24.0) M.E.(24.2) M.E. (22.5) 22.6 M.E. (23.0) 23.1 M.E.(24.0)M.E.(24.0) H.P. (23.2) TW= 23.0 BW= 22.5 TW= 23.0 BW= 20.0 TW= 23.0 BW= 22.5 TW= 23.0 BW= 20.0TW= 23.0 BW= 20.0 1023 10 2 3 1026 1025 1024 26.5 1024 REGRADE EXISTING BASIN. REMOVE VEGETATION, STRIP AND STOCKPILE TOPSOIL, ESTABLISH SUBGRADE, CONSTRUCT BASIN PER DETAILS. A A 3 C5.1 1 C5.1 M.E. (24.5) 22.0 22.5 22.7 22.8 23.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 CB1 (EXISTING) RIM = 1016.2 (EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) INV. = 1013.6 EXISTING - FIELD VERIFY) CONNECT DRAIN TILE TO EXISTING STRUCTURE. INV. = 1015.00 DT INV. = 1018.50 DT INV. = 1017.50 102 3 102 2 10 2 1 10 2 0 10 2 2 10 2 1 10 2 0 10 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 M.E. (22.0) 21.0 M.E. (21.9) M.E. (21.0) M.E. (21.9) M.E. (23.0) M.E. (23.0) M.E. (22.9) PROPOSED FILTRATION AREA 6P TOP OF SOIL MIX = 1020.00 BOTTOM OF SOIL MIX = 1018.00 SURFACE AREA = 2,049 SF HWL = 1021.44 EOF = 1021.00 12 C5.2 STORMWATER PRETREATMENT STRUCTURE. PROVIDE CURB CUT AT INLET. RIM = 1022.00 21.0 11 C5.2 5 C5.2 6 C5.2 1026 1027 1028 1029 1025 10 2 5 30.0 1027 3-3.5' HIGH LANDSCAPED BERM CONSTRUCT 5'(+/-) HIGH LANDSCAPED BERM 0 15 30 LA N D S C A P E A R C H I T E C T U R E S I T E P L A N N I N G C I V I L E N G I N E E R I N G AN D E R S O N - J O H N S O N AS S O C I A T E S , IN C . 75 7 5 G O L D E N V A L L E Y R O A D S U I T E 2 0 0 M I N N E A P O L I S . M N 5 5 4 2 7 FA X ( 7 6 3 ) 5 4 4 - 0 5 3 1 P H ( 7 6 3 ) 5 4 4 - 7 1 2 9 20 2 0 S I T E I M P R O V E M E N T S OR O N O P U B L I C S C H O O L S LO N G L A K E , M I N N E S O T A IS D 2 7 8 - O r o n o P u b l i c S c h o o l s 68 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d Lo n g L a k e , M N 5 5 3 5 6 DI S T R I C T TR A N S P O R T A T I O N CE N T E R GR A D I N G A N D DR A I N A G E P L A N 19 0 9 5 11 / 2 0 / 2 0 1 9 JR P JR P C6 . 2 15 1 C6.2 TRANSPORTATION CENTER GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN AD D 3 1 2 / 1 1 / 1 9 1 LEGEND REFERENCE KEY TO SITE DETAILS DETAIL I.D NUMBER (TOP) DETAIL SHEET NUMBER (BOTTOM) EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION PROPOSED CONTOUR PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ME = MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICE AT STORM SEWER INLET PROPERTY LINE PROPOSED SOIL REINFORCEMENT SCOUR PROTETION - REFER TO SPECIFICATION LIMITS OF FILTRATION AREA SAND PROPOSED STORMWATER PRETREATMENT STRUCTURE PROPOSED DRAIN TILE 1 C5.1 1020 20.6 NOTES: 1.REFER TO SHEET C0.0 - TITLE SHEET FOR GENERAL NOTES. 2.REFER TO SHEET C3.2 - STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN- NOTES AND SWPPP NARRATIVE FOR RELATED INFORMATION. 1 C5.1 3 C5.1 A 12 C5.2 5 C5.2 5 C5.2 11 C5.2 6 C5.2 CI T Y 4 / 6 / 2 0 Date Application Received: March 18, 2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: March 30, 2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: May 29, 2020 To: Mayor Walsh and Councilmembers From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: April 27, 2020 Subject: #LA20-000023, Kelley Parrow o/b/o Weis Builders, 2635 Kelley Parkway, RPUD Amendment, Public Hearing Background On August 27, 2018, the City Council adopted Resolution 6894 approving the Master Development Plan, RPUD Final Plat, and CUP for a 72-unit senior assisted-living building at 2635 Kelley Parkway. The RPUD for the Stonebay Senior Living did not include any signage within approval language. When a RPUD is silent on a topic the guidelines of the underlying zoning district are applied. The underlying sign district permits a single sign to be 6 sq.ft in size. The applicant is requesting a RPUD amendment to include signage which would allow for a monument and wall sign which is standard for a larger complex. Similar to the neighboring apartment complex approved 4.13.2020. Staff have included below the proposed language for allowable signs: 1. Signage shall be limited to the following: a. A maximum of one monument sign 5 feet high, 20 square feet of text, 55 square feet in total area. b. Two building wall signs, a maximum of 50 square feet each, a maximum of one sign to be located on the north and south wall of the structure. c. Changeable copy of any type is not permitted d. Only external lighting with downcast lights directed onto the sign shall be permitted. Internal backwashed lights are permitted. For comparison, non-residential uses in residential zoning districts are permitted 20 sq ft of wall signage, and 32 sq ft of free standing signage, in a structure 8 feet high. The apartment building next door was permitted 50 sq ft of wall signage. Public Comments Neighborhood comments were received and included in your packets. Most of the comments has questions regarding the lighting of the signs. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Council find that that the proposed sign language is reasonable? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an RPUD amendment to allow for signage to the Stonebay senior assisted-living complex. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE #LA20-000023 April 27, 2020 Page 2 of 2 Planning Staff Recommendation The submitted monument sign and proposed sign language are generally consistent with the neighboring RPUD for the apartment complex. The monument sign is reasonable for the size of the senior living complex and size of the parcel. Staff recommends approval of the RPUD amendment subject to those comments and conditions. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Monument Sign and Site Plan Exhibit C. Narrative Exhibit D. Public Comments Exhibit E. Final Plat Resolution 6894 Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Letter View Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 03/18/2020 Address: 2635 KELLEY PKWY LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3311823120009 Land Use Number: LA20-000023 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: APEX HOLDINGS LLC Address: 16135 55TH AVE N PLYMOUTH, MN 55446 Applicant: Name: Kelley Parrow Company: Weis Builders Address: 7645 Lyndale Avenue S Minneapolis, MN 55423 kelleyparrow@weisbuilders.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Kelley Parrow kelleyparrow@weisbuilders.com Associated Contact: APEX HOLDINGS LLC Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Stonebay Senior Living Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application 0 Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application El Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application ❑ Variance Application ❑ Applicant Signature: 4 P, file:///C/Userslioakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(2).htm[4/21/20201:02:28 PM] INDEPENDENT LIVING | ASSISTED LIVING | MEMORY CARE PROPOSED BUILDIN G Footprint = 41,705 s.f.FFE=1027.8GARAGE=1017.0Phone(952) 937-51507699 Anagram DriveFax(952) 937-5822Eden Prairie, MN 55344Toll Free(888) 937-5150 STONEBAY SENIOR LIVING – ORONO MN MONUMENT SIGN The owners of Stonebay Senior Living are requesting a variance to the City of Orono’s Monument Sign Ordinance. The entrance for the project is situated on Kelly Parkway. The project is between Kelly Parkway and Wayzata Blvd. Kelly Parkway has residential developments with commercial and government offices. Our project is designed to serve seniors and we 72 apartment homes for them. The ability for seniors to easily identify our building is important for the residents, their families and our ongoing marketing efforts. The current signage ordinance limits the overall size to 6 sq. ft. We have submitted a monument sign that is professionally designed with a size of 3’0” ft by 6’8”. This size is typical of other senior facilities. As you can see from the sign design, this size is needed to display the property name, logo and description of senior services. The latter is critical because not all senior building offer similar services. The Monument sign provides the first key impression for community. The owners are committed to making Stonebay an exceptional living experience in Orono, and our monument sign needs to display the same. From:CLARK JENNEY To:Laura Oakden Subject:Re: Stonebay Assisted Living Proposed Sign LA20-000023 Date:Monday, April 20, 2020 10:33:36 AM Laura, Thank you for sending me the detail of the proposal regarding lit signage facing out condominium at 2670 Kelley Pkwy. I copied it and passed it on to our residents facing the new senior living facility. The following is the results of the survey: The sign is aesthetically pleasing and matches the outside decor of their and our building. We would rather see it on the west side of the driveway, but not a big issue Our possible concern, that we ask be addressed at the Council Meeting, is the lighting: The three lights face down , which is fine, the question is are the bulbs inside recessed enough to not see the glare of the bulb? Is the wattage low, so it does not look like a advertising sign? Is the sign on all night or can it be turned off at a certain hour? Thank you, Clark Jenney StoneBay Condominium 952-473-7077 From: Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, April 9, 2020 10:51 AM To: 'cjoutdoor@msn.com' <cjoutdoor@msn.com> Subject: Stonebay Assisted Living Proposed Sign LA20-000023 Hello Clark, Thank you for reaching out with your questions regarding the proposed RPUD amendment to allow for a sign at Stonebay Assistant Living. Attached is the proposed sign and a site plan. I have indicated with a red circle the proposed location for the sign. Please submit any written comments to me so that they can be included in the packet for the Council to consider. Let me know if you any questions. Thank you, Laura Oakden Planner City of Orono Direct 952.249.4602 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 www.ci.orono.mn.us All Permitting is done through our new online portal LINK! From:Helen S. Waldron To:Laura Oakden Subject:Re: RPUD Stonebay Assistant living - 4/27 Date:Monday, April 13, 2020 9:35:38 AM Thanks for your attention. Placement of sign & down lighting seems appropriate Helen Waldron Sent from my iPhone On Apr 13, 2020, at 8:30 AM, Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Hello Helen, Thank you for reaching out with your questions. The submitted sigh plan shows the lights to be down facing on the sign. The site plan is showing the face of the sign to be east/west so people using Kelley can read the sign. I will submit your email as public comment for the council to review. Please let me know if you have any further questions or comments. Thank you Laura Oakden Planner City of Orono Direct 952.249.4602 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 www.ci.orono.mn.us All Permitting is done through our new online portal LINK! From: Helen Waldron [mailto:hswmn38@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 2:32 PM To: Laura Oakden <loakden@ci.orono.mn.us> Cc: CLARK JENNEY <CJOUTDOOR@msn.com> Subject: RPUD Stonebay Assistant living - 4/27 Hi Laura, I live across the street from the development in the Stonebay Condominiums. RE; monument and lights I believe the biggest objections would be to brightness of light, time they are on(i.e at night), and how they face, Looks like lights might be facing down- thus less obtrusive. Will sign face north/south (to the road) or east/west along Kelley. I am happy to answer any questions. Thanks for your attention, Helen Waldron VP Stonebay HOA Board 612-308-3856 hswmn38@gmail.com � T\ Ho CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6 8 9 4 A RESOLUTION GRANTING MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND FINAL PLAT OF STONEBAY EIGHTH ADDITION; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT NO. 16 FILE NO. LA18-000034 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") has adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, Apex Holdings, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company (hereinafter the "Developer") is owner of the property located at 2635 Kelley Parkway within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Outlot D, Stonebay Addition (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, on August 28th 2017, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 6786 granting General Concept Plan, CUP for an assisted living facility use, Preliminary Plat, Community Management Plan Amendment, and Zone Change Approvals for the proposed development, which includes the following elements: 1. Rezoning of the Property from RR -113 PUD Single Family Rural Residential Planned Unit Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; 2. Construction of a single, two-story, 72 -unit senior assisted living facility. WHEREAS, in October 2017, the Metropolitan Council also granted approval of the 2008-2030 Orono CMP amendment; and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2018, the Developer filed a formal application with the City for rezoning, Master Development Plan, and final plat approval for a 72 unit senior care facility on the Property; and WHEREAS, City staff and consultants have reviewed the final plans for this and hereby approve each and identify them as part of the official record for PUD No. 16. WHEREAS, the Developer has completed or has agreed to complete all other Page 1 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6894 requirements of the Zoning Code and related Ordinances of the City including: 1. Completion of and adherence to all requirements and conditions of Resolution No. 6786. 2. Dedication on the plat of Drainage and Utility Easements. 3. Submittal of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit approving the grading and stormwater management facilities plan for the development of the Property as proposed per the approved Grading, Drainage and SWPP Plan as noted herein. 4. Payment of the Sewer Connection and Water Connection Charges at the time of the building permit as established in Resolution No. 6786 as follows: a. Sewer Connection Charge: $6,330/acre x 3.5 acres = $22,155.00 b. Water Connection Charge: $10,480/acre x 3.5 acres = $36,680.00 5. Payment to the City of Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fees for the development of the Property in the amount of $29,715.00 as established in Resolution No. 6786. 6. Payment of a Park Dedication Fee in the amount of $159,250.00, modified from the Fee established in Resolution No. 6786, to accommodate a reduction based on the number of memory care units [(24 senior, 24 assisted; and 1 memory care unit) 49 units x $3,250.00]. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based on the findings of Resolution No. 6786, the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant Master Development Plan; Conditional Use Permit, and Final Plat Approval for PUD No. 16, subject to the following conditions: 1. The approvals are granted subject to conditions established within Resolution No. 6786 and plans attached herein as Exhibit A. 2. Upon the final approval and execution of this Resolution the City Council shall formally approve an ordinance amending the official zoning map of the City to rezone the Property from RR -113 PUD Single Family Rural Residential Planned Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District. 3. The Developer shall execute the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement as required by the MCWD. 4. The residence structure developed on the property shall be in conformity with the location, design and size requirements established in Resolution 6786. Any proposed development determined by the City to not be in conformity with said approvals may be made only after Page 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 6894 approval by the city. Any substantial changes shall be recorded as amendments to the recorded copy of the final development plan. 5. Developer shall organize a preconstruction meeting following issuance of a building or grading permit on site. 6. Prior to commencement of construction, the City will inspect and document the condition of Kelley Parkway and the sidewalk along the south side of Kelley Parkway. The Developer shall be responsible for any damage that occurs as a result of their activities. 7. Developer shall recognize that no access directly onto Wayzata Boulevard shall be permitted at any time. 8. If construction of the development has not commenced, defined here as acquisition of a building permit for the principal structure, the City Council may declare the approvals granted within this Resolution as null and void. 9. Trail Improvement. The Stonebay Master Plan identifies a trail along the south property line of the Property. A public trail is planned along the north side of Wayzata Boulevard within that right of way. In order to eliminate trail redundancy, the Developer shall pay for any connections to the trail from the internal trail or sidewalks desired by the Developer. 10. The approvals granted in this Resolution shall become effective only when all conditions of approval requiring actions by the Developer have been satisfied. Adopted by the Orono City Council on this 271 day of August, 2018. ATTEST: am -'o- IL�'- Anna Carlson, City Clerk Page 3 Dennis Walsh, Mayor ii 0 O v a RI 1 6894 Resol. No. #LA18-000034 F V < a O Y gI d O/ O / / "EFv UY ?�It tiF pp F8a _333FiS ' W� q \ g$ Lj / a € {418 aa? IS L— — — lit — —-- i— —tt, -J a RI 1 6894 Resol. No. #LA18-000034 F fi 6 tg < a "EFv UY ?�It pp F8a _333FiS sg88 q € {418 aa? IS L— — — lit — —-- i— —tt, -J SW OOsez Jiv,91.00N I A /n/ / /-7 /7 I I /v V/i/vvv I • 8g8 6O € @ g�afr g� � / / I I / e — Z*rre 09.K OON :- ------------ WS i vA C7 i 'iI 8� Cj ti p- C3 I C i I I a RI 1 6894 Resol. No. #LA18-000034 F IS L— — — — — —-- i— —tt, -J OOsez Jiv,91.00N A /n/ / /-7 /7 I I /v V/i/vvv I a RI 1 6894 Resol. No. #LA18-000034 F •2010 etsteeoe Proh . S.rA— — F1* nal Development Plans for Removals, Site, Grading, Utilities & Landscape for Orono Senior Housing 2635 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota Prepared for: Apex Holdings LLC 2110 Lynciale Avenue South Suite C Minneapolis, MN 55405 Contact: Sanjeev Mangalick Emaik sanjeevmanaglick®comcast net Prepared by. WestwoW IBBT Baypm '�wew�.pv�e0nr. 1�1BByaa seen NBRw IBee 0B1d1m Bwtbleeelaw� Project number: 0011740.00 Contact: Ryon M. Bluhm Sheet 15 IDrooing. Drainage & Eroelon control Ran Notes • NO. DATE REV92M S}ffi18 03/20/1e r:mi at.. — A-— Pion. 05/wpe city cwnment./Stor'- 07/11/1e wo1-- c-1. oe/oe/te tit, co. —'. os/00/18 city comment. Final Development Plans for Removals. Site. Grading, Utilities & landscape for Orono Senior Housing sem, •seed. " D"M Shore 1 at1e if two 0 0 uo + 0 1 0 9® e 0. 3 i S3 w 0$ o® Be ow - dD Al Sx 1. $11 10 Ai r� r) O\ M Sx bll ���> C y a z'zuoq IN all, a P. `A jig n P i t0 A..8 9 4 .��P wes,nooa rronpnana a...rte. xnn C,11 M H-. 114H &00,9: 611 or coWl.ca„ ®Sign i egmd Site DevelagmaLty Site Legend G� site Notes caR Rv GwPa An PK. 83 YOQGi.0E91idADgi PROPERTY MEA: ISZ395 SF (3.50 AC) PROPOSED PARKING G� St STOP SON 30' % 3O RI -1 EXISTING ZOMNG W-18 PUD UMEWOROIIKD PA%t t STALLS 39 _ PROPER, LINE PROPO'gD 20MNG APIA SIKEAY PAAKRA siul_R M T4 AMT 62 HANDICAP AC[ESSIBIF 12' XIS' R)-- TOTAL EASEMENT LINE SJ DO NOT ENTER 30' % 30' RS -1 BUILDING GROSS SIE: 30.%6 SF — S,4 BEGIN ONE WAY 24' X 30' 'X1 FLOOR-AEA-RA1Mk 0.52 CURB'� �SETBACK , CUTTER NUIDBA NEIOR: 2 STORIES (A'-1� PERM" AREA: 50.522 SF (1.34 AC) 36408 AREA. 03.M• �— fENNtE IMPERVIOUS AB3.SF (LIS AC) 51.601 Q Q CONCRETE PAVEMENT TOTAL VNNITSI TO UMTS (SE ARCH PLANS FOR DETAILS) O WNp1ETE SIDEWAK / �� '� STAMPED CONCRETE PAVEMENT .L Q HEAVY DUTY &1UL11NDUS PAYMENT NUMBER DE PARKING STALLS TRANSFORMER — — — — — — — — — — — — — O SITE LKNITING •._". _ 5 SON T TRAFFIC / P KELLEY PARKWAY -- `POWER POLE soLLARO Pow "q) , PIA ...,� \ e5.4Y V X2X f _ — , PLAY - .., S1 1 S4 _ p --__— Pw' — \ \ 4 13 w \ — — 1. Ass— — — — — ——aw.1G2sTR.a — =�'— �Q .' s. 24' m I 0 4F D — — Aam' AAs• �� � \ \ I AF Pias P J O U I 1 1 m I H I N E P RJeU NY n3 I I \ \I I N I \ \ I 1 � H PS I G \ 4 � T WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST (HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 112) --------- Ire--��� 6686/B NA�r � Apex Holdings LLC Zm Ly bb A— 9.6 SIGN, C 68INespWh, MIN SSM 1. BAOIORCUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT OBTAINED BY WESTWOO) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. ON 06/02/2016- Z LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS 5KONN ON MB PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE CONTRACTOR SHALL MELD VERIFY STE CONOIMNS AND UTRIIY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CMSTRUCTION. F ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. THE ENGINEER SHOULD SE NOTIFIED NMEMAIELY. 3. REFER 10 BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT SEAONGS DIMENSIONS AND AREAS 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BIEDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. S ROPER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DMENSONS AND LOCATIONS OF EXITS. RAMPS. AND TRUCK COCKS. 6 ALL CURB RADE SHALL BE 3.0 FEET (TO FACE OF OMB) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. T.ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MARITANNG TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SKXI AS BARRICADES. WARRING SIGNS 01 CTKNIL SONS. BAGGERS AND LIONS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT DE TRAFFIC MERE NECESSARY PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES STALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL COFORM TD APPROPRIATE INDOT STANDARDS B. BITUMMOM PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE N ACCORDANCE WITR THE RECOMIENDATONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER' 16 CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TALE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AWB PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADAVCETNT PROPERTIES It. CONTRACTOR TD PROVIDE MTCD CONSTRUCTION PHASED TRAFFIC CONTROL AS REOARM TO PROTECT WORKMEN AND THE PUBLIC 11 THE CONDITION OF ME REGIONAL POND ADJACENT TO THE SITE MST BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND CONTRACTOR PRIOR TD AND WORK THE POND BOTTOM W57 BE VFAINED WITH SURVEY PRIOR TO MY WON(, AND ONCE WORK COMMENCE$ THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING MY SEDIMENT ADDED TO THE POND DIE M STE CONSTRUCIAN. 13, THE CONDITION OF KELLEY PARKWAY AND ADJACENT SIDEWALK MUST S VERFED WITH VIDEO OR PICTURE ANY DAMAGE TO THE STREET OR SOMALI AFTER WORK COMMENCES SHALL BE DEFIED TO BE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY M REPAIR Site Key Notes O AW12 ORB AND GUTTER B PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP C TRAFFIC ARROW (TYP.) D HMMA ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING EBITUNNOUS PAYMENT (SEE DETAIL) FGUT MATCH EXISTING CURB. TER AND VALLEY SECTION GEXISTING CONCRETE CURB N PLANTED AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) I CONCRETE STOEWALK J FLUSH CURB K TRANS!TION TO FLUSH CURB L TRASH EMOOSURE (SE ARCHITECTURAL PIANS) M OOEROROIAA PARKING ENTRANCE N DELIVERY TRUCK PARKING OEMPLOYEE PARKING P FIRE LANE 0MO LAMENT SAN R NIDNCH COURTYARD S PROPOSED 1RANSOtMER LOCATION T PIOBC SHELTER U REFAMNG WALL AL WALLS OVER 4 FEET N MIGHT M BE DESIGNED BY A STRUC1UAL ENGINEER AND A FMCE PROVIDED. V PROPOSED DR AGE AND UTILITY CASEMENT WRAN GARDEN X TRUNCATED DOMES Orono Senior Housing MMM, lwl 4 �� 4D,,,.PSPpm.a.F Har 06/!9/17 o.c 4 Or 13 Site PLM PROPOSED BW'ILDING O ©� Q r I� I Ym L ■IY11 `®'i.� O 10 4 � T WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST (HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY 112) --------- Ire--��� 6686/B NA�r � Apex Holdings LLC Zm Ly bb A— 9.6 SIGN, C 68INespWh, MIN SSM 1. BAOIORCUND INFORMATION FOR THIS PROJECT OBTAINED BY WESTWOO) PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. ON 06/02/2016- Z LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES AS 5KONN ON MB PLAN ARE APPROXIMATE CONTRACTOR SHALL MELD VERIFY STE CONOIMNS AND UTRIIY LOCATIONS PRIOR TO EXCAVATION/CMSTRUCTION. F ANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. THE ENGINEER SHOULD SE NOTIFIED NMEMAIELY. 3. REFER 10 BOUNDARY SURVEY FOR LOT SEAONGS DIMENSIONS AND AREAS 4. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CURB OR EXTERIOR FACE OF BIEDING UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. S ROPER TO ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT BUILDING DMENSONS AND LOCATIONS OF EXITS. RAMPS. AND TRUCK COCKS. 6 ALL CURB RADE SHALL BE 3.0 FEET (TO FACE OF OMB) UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. T.ALL CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE B612 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MARITANNG TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SKXI AS BARRICADES. WARRING SIGNS 01 CTKNIL SONS. BAGGERS AND LIONS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT DE TRAFFIC MERE NECESSARY PLACEMENT OF THESE DEVICES STALL BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL COFORM TD APPROPRIATE INDOT STANDARDS B. BITUMMOM PAVEMENT AND CONCRETE SECTIONS TO BE N ACCORDANCE WITR THE RECOMIENDATONS OF THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER' 16 CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN FULL ACCESS TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TALE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AWB PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADAVCETNT PROPERTIES It. CONTRACTOR TD PROVIDE MTCD CONSTRUCTION PHASED TRAFFIC CONTROL AS REOARM TO PROTECT WORKMEN AND THE PUBLIC 11 THE CONDITION OF ME REGIONAL POND ADJACENT TO THE SITE MST BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY AND CONTRACTOR PRIOR TD AND WORK THE POND BOTTOM W57 BE VFAINED WITH SURVEY PRIOR TO MY WON(, AND ONCE WORK COMMENCE$ THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING MY SEDIMENT ADDED TO THE POND DIE M STE CONSTRUCIAN. 13, THE CONDITION OF KELLEY PARKWAY AND ADJACENT SIDEWALK MUST S VERFED WITH VIDEO OR PICTURE ANY DAMAGE TO THE STREET OR SOMALI AFTER WORK COMMENCES SHALL BE DEFIED TO BE CAUSED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND THE OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY M REPAIR Site Key Notes O AW12 ORB AND GUTTER B PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMP C TRAFFIC ARROW (TYP.) D HMMA ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE AND STRIPING EBITUNNOUS PAYMENT (SEE DETAIL) FGUT MATCH EXISTING CURB. TER AND VALLEY SECTION GEXISTING CONCRETE CURB N PLANTED AREA (SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN) I CONCRETE STOEWALK J FLUSH CURB K TRANS!TION TO FLUSH CURB L TRASH EMOOSURE (SE ARCHITECTURAL PIANS) M OOEROROIAA PARKING ENTRANCE N DELIVERY TRUCK PARKING OEMPLOYEE PARKING P FIRE LANE 0MO LAMENT SAN R NIDNCH COURTYARD S PROPOSED 1RANSOtMER LOCATION T PIOBC SHELTER U REFAMNG WALL AL WALLS OVER 4 FEET N MIGHT M BE DESIGNED BY A STRUC1UAL ENGINEER AND A FMCE PROVIDED. V PROPOSED DR AGE AND UTILITY CASEMENT WRAN GARDEN X TRUNCATED DOMES Orono Senior Housing MMM, lwl 4 �� 4D,,,.PSPpm.a.F Har 06/!9/17 o.c 4 Or 13 Site PLM 6 U Ali N im �(�5i�b <� i{ 8 Us` Y< ,�< m ai .B � G `Ji ~ az� �' iUFW `< bG { �' ■ pp 8 85 d i ra d �� § `¢ 8� 5= 4 a FqW sk€ � 'a Do's a a3 a saga g� ow ug ig` $ W NIN €it W_ �ff`�g a� $�_@ �' ay 3j a �a_���"F FI ` �� s �e 'm � dg. a a O s s a �'n �gg agz oda 8< o �� a F• s .H a � Way s 249 1 9 NO 'a y Fps- d� n a� a "W� :� =�n � x a §� o c% a � 4� p a a; g< ae� 3 p a Ju Em rA o �€ n � �s ��J!E ;.? € a� = � O O NIS is �� O gop 9<' 7 J x FO, `►L�i F gad; H I $gig ' Y bj b 1 I I pyp y Sill I Utility Legend PRGRERTY UNE ________ EASEMENT UNE ... CURB AND GUTTER - —N� SANITARY SEVER —HA-� STORM SEWER —I— WATER .- ------- 4 ANI—•y HYDRANT GATE VALW L _ "..L'dMCTro Ftes1N0>R.Ptc swrun - FLARED SECTION -m Hidi.i. m°Im,ucnli,. �NanRI7Y (rATH CLASS RwRM) r ,N1i vAW -" KELLEY PA-RPW-,A y`MI11O1 - -GPE�GP / ,ILMI m S161Y 4R �-.:t��yN]RY • •.. • 1 .. _. aIM.tN2 AT IIIMIvtlw�,0 ,A(It 1i46 t '.. .....,_ - _... H]WRA SWTMv SWIM Xnart, xPtlly LNmN[TA Ct w1H H�rpR - FDR EE4RN MkMYFMt w mY.W, A,sB6vAL T LF- NP.— \j— I OAR — — — —�-F-�IFb I- - » rI 4NbWnf V I I I E-,0,0.00 I I I _ _ _ WAPAiWmt�iIFWAtw�' i I, II I I I HATE INltl�c cw n Apex Holdings LLC ZOO Lyn A— SmtF %iw C @w - M*WHWPWWB• A4J SS4WS .b894 COI 48 H.- W- 61VBinW: 671 a ca11677.com General Utility Notes C—. c. -d ANMN.. t. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AHD/ON ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PUNS ME BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VAR WS .-TY CONPMIES AND LNITE. MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. ME INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BENG EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WRIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTEY ME DINER OR ENGINEER OF DISCREPMCJES 2 ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATER MAN INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE AND IN ACCORDANCE MEN THE CURRENT EDITION OF STANDARD SKIN CATNNS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERMCE UNE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY SEVER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION' AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 3. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTIR SHALL OBTAIN TIE NECESSARY FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED WORN OR VERIFY MEN THE OWNER OR ENGINEER THAT PERMITS HAW BEEN OBTAINED. PERMIT FEES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTNACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE ARRANGED WTH ME OWNER 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO MCHITECTURAL PUNS FOR EXACT LOCATION AND DR.IENSIONS OF DOORWAYS, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS. PRECISE BUIpNG DMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILONG UTILITY CONNECTION LOCATIONS S ALL PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED N ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MPROPIRATE UTILITY COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COOL IE THE SERVICE LUNE CONSTRUCTION WIN THE UTUTY COMPANIES 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY CITY PERMITS FOR UTILITY CONNECTINS AND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MPROWD BY THE CITY. THE CITY SHALL BE NOTIEED 48 -HOURS PRIOR TD C ENO WTH THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ON MY REWIRED TE!VNG. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE, INTERFERE NTH, CONNECT MY PPE OR HOSE TO. OR TM MY WATER MAN BELONGING TO YHE On UNLESS DULY AUTHOFDZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. MY AGWRSE CONSEWENCES OF SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ME TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 7. WATER MAIN LENGTHS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL LENGTHS. ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PIPE WHEN INSTALLING ON SLOPES OR WHEN DEFLECTIONS ME REWIRED. THE JOINT DEFIFCTONS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM KO -MENDED 81 THE PIPE MANUFACTURER OR BY LOCAL GOWRNNG SPECIFCATONS. FITTINGS REWIRED TO CONSTRUCT WATER MAN SHALL BE NCLUDED N WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION. &PROVIDE WATER MAN THRUST RESTRAINTS PER CITY STANDARD REQUREMENIS. B. A MINIMUM WRMAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES S REWIRED AT ALL WATER MAN CROSSINGS WTH SANITMY SEWER DR STORM SEWER. la UTILITY SERVICES TYPICALLY TERMINATE 5' DUTSXE BUILDING WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON NOTED. 11. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 12 ALL WATER ONES SHALL BE DUCTILE RON WRAPPED IN POLYENYIENE. CUSS 52 WITH 7.5' MINIMUM COVER. PROVIDE MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 16' FRO. SMEARY SEWER k STORM SEWER NSULATE WATER MAN F LESS THAN 7.5' OF COWR IM INSULATION SHAT. BE DOW STYROFOAM M BRAND 35 OR EQUIVALENT, WTH 4 INCHES OF TRCXNESS 14. SANITARY SEWER PIPE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING ENWLOPE SHALL BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PW) SOW M OR 26. SDR 26 S REOURED FOR DEPTHS GREATER THAN 15 FEET. SANITARY SEWER RPE "THIN 5 FEET OF BUILDING AND UNDER FOOTNGS, PIPE SHALL BE PW SCHEDULE M. 1S STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CUSS 5 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS IB' AND SMALLER. CLASS 3 FON PIPE DIAMETERS 21' AND LARGER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MTH R-4 GASKEM OR HDPE STORM SEWER PPE F ALLOWED BY THE CITY. HOPE STORM PIPE SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2818. PIPE SHALL BE WATER TOUT ACCORONG TO ASTM .3212 REQUIREMENTS SEE PUN FON LOCATIONS WHERE RCP IS REWPED. PW STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE SCHEDULE 10 PIPE RAKED ERA SECTIONS SHALL BE RCP WTH TRASH WARDS B RP -RM. 16. SIGNS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR MANHOLES. GATE VALWS AND FLARED END SECTIONS IN THE AREA EAST OF THE RETAINING WALL TO MARX UNITES. SILROM JtWtHL;ASIINU S(3itUVlt STWUCIURE CASa1G TYR Orono Senior Housing cTH,,,o, xin,e.oH. X 0' SED' 60' BO' 00�.T.nJTvm.e.q 06/19/17 . 6 OF 13 Utility Plan III I 4•IOR25m0 I yl II PROPOSED BOLDING o a r I I E•IaN.ao E Io Xm w>N Footprint = 397976 s.i. 6 w I,IN FFE=1026.0 GARAGE -107.0 I�Ht"100°'u IY � FMC LTW MItEQWttAD Y,mi.�e I I ONE6IWMIPAIL WINM,.tt PLUHs I i I 10m°° r °i*W C61F6T \ � wT vAHW I6A"6n H.R oeAAs w .,B.at E1G�10a. Pl �6 GOMONAI[ �MI I,A,nY R tr CdN[cr ro I_,- v- Ems M#TCW, __ 1 IIOWu _ - - 16111 ni IWI.H H v,Y Id __Nt.IOII.w____________ r AFFBNWHAW 4mLLN _, _- _ _ _ AMI - .BILffi_____________ ImD WAY L041101F THD WAYZATA BOULEVARD WEST (HENNEPIN COUNTY STA7E ASD HIGHWAY nti --- - Apex Holdings LLC ZOO Lyn A— SmtF %iw C @w - M*WHWPWWB• A4J SS4WS .b894 COI 48 H.- W- 61VBinW: 671 a ca11677.com General Utility Notes C—. c. -d ANMN.. t. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AHD/ON ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PUNS ME BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VAR WS .-TY CONPMIES AND LNITE. MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. ME INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE RELIED ON AS BENG EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WRIFY EXISTING CONDITIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTEY ME DINER OR ENGINEER OF DISCREPMCJES 2 ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATER MAN INSTALLATIONS SHALL BE PER MINNESOTA PLUMBING CODE AND IN ACCORDANCE MEN THE CURRENT EDITION OF STANDARD SKIN CATNNS FOR WATER MAIN AND SERMCE UNE INSTALLATION AND SANITARY SEVER AND STORM SEWER INSTALLATION' AS PREPARED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA 3. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTIR SHALL OBTAIN TIE NECESSARY FEDERAL. STATE AND LOCAL PERMITS FOR THE PROPOSED WORN OR VERIFY MEN THE OWNER OR ENGINEER THAT PERMITS HAW BEEN OBTAINED. PERMIT FEES SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTNACTOR UNLESS OTHERWISE ARRANGED WTH ME OWNER 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO MCHITECTURAL PUNS FOR EXACT LOCATION AND DR.IENSIONS OF DOORWAYS, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS. PRECISE BUIpNG DMENSIONS AND EXACT BUILONG UTILITY CONNECTION LOCATIONS S ALL PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED N ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OF THE MPROPIRATE UTILITY COMPANY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COOL IE THE SERVICE LUNE CONSTRUCTION WIN THE UTUTY COMPANIES 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY CITY PERMITS FOR UTILITY CONNECTINS AND UTILITIES SHALL BE INSPECTED AND MPROWD BY THE CITY. THE CITY SHALL BE NOTIEED 48 -HOURS PRIOR TD C ENO WTH THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION ON MY REWIRED TE!VNG. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPERATE, INTERFERE NTH, CONNECT MY PPE OR HOSE TO. OR TM MY WATER MAN BELONGING TO YHE On UNLESS DULY AUTHOFDZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. MY AGWRSE CONSEWENCES OF SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBLIC ME TO BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 7. WATER MAIN LENGTHS AS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE HORIZONTAL LENGTHS. ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL PIPE WHEN INSTALLING ON SLOPES OR WHEN DEFLECTIONS ME REWIRED. THE JOINT DEFIFCTONS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM KO -MENDED 81 THE PIPE MANUFACTURER OR BY LOCAL GOWRNNG SPECIFCATONS. FITTINGS REWIRED TO CONSTRUCT WATER MAN SHALL BE NCLUDED N WATER MAIN CONSTRUCTION. &PROVIDE WATER MAN THRUST RESTRAINTS PER CITY STANDARD REQUREMENIS. B. A MINIMUM WRMAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES S REWIRED AT ALL WATER MAN CROSSINGS WTH SANITMY SEWER DR STORM SEWER. la UTILITY SERVICES TYPICALLY TERMINATE 5' DUTSXE BUILDING WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON NOTED. 11. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 12 ALL WATER ONES SHALL BE DUCTILE RON WRAPPED IN POLYENYIENE. CUSS 52 WITH 7.5' MINIMUM COVER. PROVIDE MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 16' FRO. SMEARY SEWER k STORM SEWER NSULATE WATER MAN F LESS THAN 7.5' OF COWR IM INSULATION SHAT. BE DOW STYROFOAM M BRAND 35 OR EQUIVALENT, WTH 4 INCHES OF TRCXNESS 14. SANITARY SEWER PIPE OUTSIDE THE BUILDING ENWLOPE SHALL BE POLYVINYL CHLORIDE (PW) SOW M OR 26. SDR 26 S REOURED FOR DEPTHS GREATER THAN 15 FEET. SANITARY SEWER RPE "THIN 5 FEET OF BUILDING AND UNDER FOOTNGS, PIPE SHALL BE PW SCHEDULE M. 1S STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE (CUSS 5 FOR PIPE DIAMETERS IB' AND SMALLER. CLASS 3 FON PIPE DIAMETERS 21' AND LARGER UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED) MTH R-4 GASKEM OR HDPE STORM SEWER PPE F ALLOWED BY THE CITY. HOPE STORM PIPE SHALL MEET REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM F2818. PIPE SHALL BE WATER TOUT ACCORONG TO ASTM .3212 REQUIREMENTS SEE PUN FON LOCATIONS WHERE RCP IS REWPED. PW STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE SCHEDULE 10 PIPE RAKED ERA SECTIONS SHALL BE RCP WTH TRASH WARDS B RP -RM. 16. SIGNS SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR MANHOLES. GATE VALWS AND FLARED END SECTIONS IN THE AREA EAST OF THE RETAINING WALL TO MARX UNITES. SILROM JtWtHL;ASIINU S(3itUVlt STWUCIURE CASa1G TYR Orono Senior Housing cTH,,,o, xin,e.oH. X 0' SED' 60' BO' 00�.T.nJTvm.e.q 06/19/17 . 6 OF 13 Utility Plan I'll CTS OD 1-01 r7-1 000 17 D4 it; t, % 1' :��i.i1 ;l� tit 3,1 �� iio f ..�.. f) �� �e ��. ji: f, !;- , , 11 Opal 9 ifQp 411 I'A Oil 1! mo Ws; hr Opal 9 ifQp 411 I'A Oil 1! mo Ws; "r L'% 00 Mo e 33 s : k3.z 3� L';�Es n IUD= 'ffm P .§i h y.AllA 11,190 baa3A�= � ��'• Y �i q cLytIM0.■a y ■3 J, ggg i q $ 4 � IMP, jll g5y llYy 4 f' e 33 s : k3.z 3� L';�Es n IUD= 'ffm P .§i h y.AllA 11,190 baa3A�= � ��'• sit �i1i T '3. ._... ii._ ,•ls_., lilt R Y �i q cLytIM0.■a y ■3 J, ggg i q $ 4 � IMP, jll g5y llYy 4 sit �i1i T '3. ._... ii._ ,•ls_., lilt R ��- Apex Holdimo LLC MM M Mee Tree Inventory X 0' 36 60' 90' W, eat. e4ow 871 or o08671.eom Orono Senior " 3"/w ' Q Housing Tree In,nbory - _ _..— — _ — — _ _-•vm.. 4-lans KB2 i wUe ATT. wMAOR41 11n /1w1nnIF.UA n.Nc a.c .�.....m. v..,. .nUmc ru OQga N"""' BERIBERI ABM 6 Wo» Veda Kw . TswNnE ATler 2.5- R AS SHOWN H 50'-80' w W • OVERSI(IRY DEUDUUIS TREES Ot TREES ® DQgl1 Wl>D1201Js OYO{fRT EBBED, DIE S'~ WEq � SMO 3 s— YN1. OeA / 01lwaw WAxur 2.5' BB AS SNOB N ]O -6q M a0' -•.O' - THE GREATER P ONE TREE PER 1.000 GROSS SW ARE RET P RUUDNG Tim • WRf, G! Y.RO FK 5 Frmt1WF LAdm 1W1e Wnwkaw Front 2.5' R AS SHOCK 60'-1D' w >D'-sD' OOTPRNT CR ONE THEE PER AO LINEAL FEET P SIE PERNETER. Told Mee (D.1 AC) PRE g NWNMm Elm UNrMR snwkam MPWan 2.5' BB AS SHOWN N bO w AO (NALDNG FOMPRIT . 39.978 SOUARE FEET) 0 LfEOa B9llii T1a $NN 6 SAM. Hma0-1 C1e11lsM trkmMOA wr. MmN Hcds 2.5' R AS SHOWN NSD' W ./d -OD (SITE PERIMETER . 1.607 UKK FEET) OMOIA 16LTIBB 8110 NMATNB ®Bm !80 B®C Mm JT b .MPensN Tres LIMB SdMgP rHNWe1a 8' M. R a— AS SHOWN N 25'-]0' w -25 -9 - DINAR S Tm �D SSC b SNF. Sea. Gab / WWW 'SP•M. Sna 2- ® AS 9DMM H 35� ]O w IS' MEN. r MN RR� WIRED OWRSTORY TREES MUST BE CONRERWS 13 TREES Told A— (D.1 AC) BHS 11 NacA N6 SNucs Pkse dente EmWle b' NI.. R ASI SDR N _AD' w 20- • UNNRSTORY SHRUBS tis SHRUBS . ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODND e Xe..Pr SPruw Rcm mW 8 HT., R AS SHOWx H 60-60' w 2S-]0 - TME GREATER OF OK SMNB PER 300 CROS SQUARE FEET OF BU.IXNG UNLESS NOTED OTIERWY FOOiPRNT CR ONE SWIG PER 30 LREK FEET OF SITE PERIMETER, NOP NNwr PM / Nnw rWMWe B' HT.. BB AS 9DW1 N -60 W - (NJILDNC FOCIPRNT . 3B.9T8 SI2UARE FEET) RIPPENN PMs / P••r WraWs e' NT.. BB M $WDWN H SO M ]0-10' (SITE PERAEIER .1.607 UVEAL RET) NOTE: WANTTIES ON PLAN SUPERMIX LIST WANTITIES N THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. P mdit Nota • OVERSTORY NCIDUWS TREES TOR CONTACT ClR COMMON—GINNEDALLIANCEAT 611 OR CALLBII.CW TO VERIFY LOCATIONS OF ALL INNRGROUND UTUTIES PRIOR TO 1 CONTRATON H • IMAMEOUS TREES • DINAKNTK TREES - -- -' -� ANY PLANTS DA ASI-_ RE 223 SHRUBS IKE CA 2. ACI.L LOTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS SURACT TO FIELD AND DIE LOId11ONS > NO PLANING MILL DE INSTALLED UNM ALL GRADING ANO CONSTRUCTION HM BEEN COWlF1ED N THE 1MM[g61E AREA. ---�— K. ALL SUBSTIulONS MUST N APPROKD BY INE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MIM TO SUBMISSION OF ANY BID AND/OR MOTE BY THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. — AIBETOUIgMS MUST BE APPROKD BY LANOH C ARCHITECT ANO/OR CITY PRIOR TO NSTALLATNW. S CONTRACt'OR SHALL INN)NN ONE YEAR DUARAIIIEE OF ALL PLANT MATENKS. THE WARAMTEE BEGINS ON THE DATE OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS R OWREWS WCTTEN —PTANCE OF TIE INITIAL PLANDNG RERACEMEMT RANT MATERAL SNALL HAVE A ONE YEAR GUARANTEE COLNENCNG PON 'P 1 PLANTND S.AT TIME OF RANTING KL KANTS TO BE SPECIMEN MbE. vRESOTA-GROWN .AND/OR HARDY. SPECMN MADE SHALL JOINERS 70, BUT IS NOT LIMITED • \ F STANDARDS BY, ME ANTS11 SH FROM N A, PESTS W11NARS 05, SCETC. PLSNALL BE FACE FRYYS PE AL N. IS SNALL BE IKE KNEW BROKE OR GAPS, NOES, , DEFRMITES PLANTS SMALL BE F HE MOM BONEN R NAD RANCHES PLANTS SMALL HAYS NEALNY RANWNc AND LEAFING, 1,, • "� • ,7. HAA LOlFERWS 1WEE5 SHALL VE AN ESTABLISHED MAN LEADER AND A NEOHI 10 MOTH RAM O NO LESS MAN Y.S PLANTS TO MEET AMENCAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (AND 260.1-200• OR MOST COVENT YERDON) REOL-HITS FOR SUE ALO TME SPECIFIED. `(= ' • ♦ NBR B. P.— TO BE NSTALLED AS PER MALA B AND STANDARD PLANTING PRAC— B PLANTS SMALL BE YYEgA1ELT RANTED UPON MRIYK AT 511E PROPERLY HEEL -N MATERIALS IF NECESSARY. TEMPORARY ONLY tIl'{(' f 1 _ -� BLWLAP MAY BE LEFT ON FOR TRE A. AFTER NSTKLATF RTHINE ON ONLY BICKADABLE AND 10. AT CONTRACTOR OSCRETOLD N, IVT E ATP P NI �AP UYO. COINACTGR ID VERv THINE AND BURLAP ...All. ALE. ONE YEAR PERq) AMD RE— MY REMNAM MAT:NAL AS •'! F( � `_ 11. MEN THE BALLED t BURLAP TREE G PLANTED. TIE RMT COLLAR/TOOT FLAIR SMALL BE EVEN R RIRRY ABOVE FINISHED RADE. ' 12. REMOVE POT ON POTTED PLAMM SPLIT AND BREAK APART PCAT POTS WEV ♦� l� > I� . WFo 11 PRIAE PLANTS AS NECESSARY - PER STAMAD HUNSCRY PRACME ALD TO CORRECT POM BRANCONG OT EXISTING AND PRPOSEO TREES. ARM •i i /: A ' 11. STES MS PIOAL HAT CONTRACTOR DISCRETION; REP091bN AND PLUMB IF HOT PLUMB AFTER ONE YEAR. MON-PLUUB TARS 10 BE SI—CT M BE0 14 WARANTY REPLACEMENT OR REPAR. sI f{ IS TIE KR ED FSOL AMENDMENTS SMALL BE DETERMINED UPON DTE SOL COEITIONS PRIOR TO RANTING. LANDSCAPE CONWACTM SHALL NOTRY , 1 •i ,. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR TIE NEED P ANY SON. AKNDMCNTS ♦ 7 yP, f r 5� 1 10. BACK, SOL AID TOPSOIL TO ADHERE TO w/DOT STANDARD SPECFOATO N — (COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW) AND TO K NATIVE TP SOL FROM Dt£ NLESS SPECIFIED OERSE SO LAREDS UMW MINIMUM A' DEPTH TORL FOR ALL FREE P ROOM ROCKS LARGER THAN ONE R• NI. DRSCIL DEBINS AND GE K 4�{R1Ii 'N LAWN GRASS AREAS AND 1r DEPTH TOPSOE FOR TREE SHRUBS, AND PEWEMMALS F �� Fri TO BE KL "AlNI DEPTH P SWIND-0 11 —CM AT ALL TACE DWIR. FCKNMA, AND MANTENANCE AREAS TREE AMD — RANTING BEDS SHMMD f OMAW WEM TK SNED HARDFDOD MULCH TO BE USED AROUND ALL PLANTS WTHN TURF AREAS AL ACRAHMA GRAS BEDS l�,{ $HVL NAME 2" NPTN SHREDDED HAROWDD MIL NKCH TO BE FREE OF I-CTENO5 MATE— MULCH AND FABRIC TO BE APPROVED BY OWNER PRIOR To NSTAA nW 1 48N 4 10. EDONG TO BE COMKRCAL GRADE VALLEY -KN BLACK OAUOD (OR EWA) POLY EDOMG OR SPADED EDGC AS 1NOCATED. POLY EDGNG SHALL BE 'I PLACED WM SMOOIN CW1ES AND S1Nt[D WTI KTK 6RItE5 NO FAEAIR ININ A Fp)T OF CENTER WM BAY P TP BEAD AT GRACE. FR MOMCIRS TO WT AB05E WMOUT DAMAGE UNITE CURDS AND SN[FKUt4 FORFDONG WrtIRE POS4BLE SPAMD EDGE TO PROMOS V-SHAPEO DEPTH AND BOTH TO CREATE SPARATNN BETWEEN MLUW AND CRASS, NCIMDUAL TREE. 9NV9. OR PAN GARDEN BEDS TO BE SPACED EDGE. UNLES NOTED OTERWY. TO MATCH EXISTING CONOTO IS (WENE APPLICABLE). IA FAJ�� N T • It KL DSTR1MO AREAS TO BE SHOED EXCEPT POND AREAS AND KY -AND DUFFERS (SEE GRADING RAN / EROSION CWNq.). SOD TO BE STANDARD MINNESOTA MEN AND HARDY BLIEGRAS MIX. FREE OF LAWN RE— ALL TOPSOIL MEAS TO Y RAKED TO KMOHE DERR AND ENSURE RANACE. yV SLOPES OF Y.1 OR GREATER SHALL BE STAKED F NOT RDICATED ON LANDSCAPE RAN SEE EROSION CWIROL RAR. N�' fry 20. PROMDE IRNCATON TO ALL P— AREAS ON DTE. INDICATOR SYSTEM TO BE OESON/bURD BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR. CONTRACTOR 10 PROMDE MRATION MARKS AS -BUILT PLANS AND NORMA PROGRAYYNG LAWN $PRKtLERS/IRRIWIgX SYSTEMS SHALL ALL HAVE RAN SO— TO UWT UNNECESSARY PMTERNO SYSTEM STAWAVE E -YE LL K NTERZED ALD NDINDURING NG STARP NG FIRST YEAR P SYSTEM M SHAHAVE RAR ---�— 5 ARRANTY ON ALL PARIS AND LABOR. ALL INFORMATION ABMT NSTALLATW AND SCHEDUUXG CAN BE OBTAINED FROM THE GEMERAL CONTRMTR. _ 21. CONTRACTOR SMALL PROMOS NECESSARY wATERNC P RMT MATERIALS UIM THE PLANT IS FULLY ESTABLISHED OR IMOAION SYSTEM 15 OPERATONAI. - OWER MILL NOT PROVDE WATER FOR CONTRACTOR. ' 22. REPAIR, KRACE, OR PROLAN SM/SEEO AS REOLAREO FOR MY ROADWAY BOIALVARU MEAS ADJACENT TO THE SEE DISTNYD DURING CONSTRUCMN. �� 2]. REPAIR ALL DAUAN TO PROPERTY FROM RANTING OPERA— AT NO COST TO OPENER. i wUe ATT. wMAOR41 11n /1w1nnIF.UA n.Nc a.c .�.....m. v..,. .nUmc ru OQga N"""' BERIBERI ABM 6 Wo» Veda Kw . TswNnE ATler 2.5- R AS SHOWN H 50'-80' w W • OVERSI(IRY DEUDUUIS TREES Ot TREES ® DQgl1 Wl>D1201Js OYO{fRT EBBED, DIE S'~ WEq � SMO 3 s— YN1. OeA / 01lwaw WAxur 2.5' BB AS SNOB N ]O -6q M a0' -•.O' - THE GREATER P ONE TREE PER 1.000 GROSS SW ARE RET P RUUDNG Tim • WRf, G! Y.RO FK 5 Frmt1WF LAdm 1W1e Wnwkaw Front 2.5' R AS SHOCK 60'-1D' w >D'-sD' OOTPRNT CR ONE THEE PER AO LINEAL FEET P SIE PERNETER. Told Mee (D.1 AC) PRE g NWNMm Elm UNrMR snwkam MPWan 2.5' BB AS SHOWN N bO w AO (NALDNG FOMPRIT . 39.978 SOUARE FEET) 0 LfEOa B9llii T1a $NN 6 SAM. Hma0-1 C1e11lsM trkmMOA wr. MmN Hcds 2.5' R AS SHOWN NSD' W ./d -OD (SITE PERIMETER . 1.607 UKK FEET) OMOIA 16LTIBB 8110 NMATNB ®Bm !80 B®C Mm JT b .MPensN Tres LIMB SdMgP rHNWe1a 8' M. R a— AS SHOWN N 25'-]0' w -25 -9 - DINAR S Tm �D SSC b SNF. Sea. Gab / WWW 'SP•M. Sna 2- ® AS 9DMM H 35� ]O w IS' MEN. r MN RR� WIRED OWRSTORY TREES MUST BE CONRERWS 13 TREES Told A— (D.1 AC) BHS 11 NacA N6 SNucs Pkse dente EmWle b' NI.. R ASI SDR N _AD' w 20- • UNNRSTORY SHRUBS tis SHRUBS . ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SODND e Xe..Pr SPruw Rcm mW 8 HT., R AS SHOWx H 60-60' w 2S-]0 - TME GREATER OF OK SMNB PER 300 CROS SQUARE FEET OF BU.IXNG UNLESS NOTED OTIERWY FOOiPRNT CR ONE SWIG PER 30 LREK FEET OF SITE PERIMETER, NOP NNwr PM / Nnw rWMWe B' HT.. BB AS 9DW1 N -60 W - (NJILDNC FOCIPRNT . 3B.9T8 SI2UARE FEET) RIPPENN PMs / P••r WraWs e' NT.. BB M $WDWN H SO M ]0-10' (SITE PERAEIER .1.607 UVEAL RET) NOTE: WANTTIES ON PLAN SUPERMIX LIST WANTITIES N THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY. Apex Holdhw LLC RID�AW� wC IArpdkl MN; 6810! Orono Senior Housing rU O' NY 60' 90' COLI 15 HRMn e.NNR dWIN, 811 OB eu�611.e{m Cwnm.n pNWM ADOWR OOI7HPVOI.eq OWLR WN/17 NWD 10 Q 19 LMKbcmpe Plan • OVERSTORY NCIDUWS TREES 26 TREES • IMAMEOUS TREES • DINAKNTK TREES ST TREES 12 TREES • UNDERSTGRY SHRUBS 223 SHRUBS Apex Holdhw LLC RID�AW� wC IArpdkl MN; 6810! Orono Senior Housing rU O' NY 60' 90' COLI 15 HRMn e.NNR dWIN, 811 OB eu�611.e{m Cwnm.n pNWM ADOWR OOI7HPVOI.eq OWLR WN/17 NWD 10 Q 19 LMKbcmpe Plan NO IN erg _ G\ KO•-000V.�P30'000VPOOOO'�� O�; ,.�e �.f-°��boao_ogOY'•"-'- f�e�s4� O�0`O d� e ;�ggO�eeogggJ_d_ooee O A ,G +► o y o A e it 40;000000'C.: i I wes1wo I . �� w ` W14 I ° I Apex Holdings LLC Housing L_d_pe pm_ 2M Lynkk A-- S-th SD C M MN 5540 0-1 MID,NwOM � lu.xliD4 ,o fMi eauucu D eD,iau ar su¢ s�(� oos .- i� x Y¢• +DDD on D10rz NIV uL .rz_iae .oxii.4iD [�aviws,iwi oixwxD uiD iU11 rcnNW xo, R� JJI IE' +11NNo WSD1 N.LS ��� OEC101101151REE vLAN4de LAxe IT 'mnxiWpK.L �.zxw`rzw` ;0. •auLLK.— rc ev — aLua o�. oW GPMD. 41NimD AW was ;. 4sii°torr�n e,''"airu of a�vu. unauDwu 4EB�L�SC. FDDi nN4KD DVDiPIXxCa �iG+�xG 1M[6 NiNn.t �.Nw..+ eine m T E RANTNC LAn >� Dm�cu ior�i wwL �.w ax• e.a�r"w. ioii ni w,. s.4v N.T.S eNw...� SNRYB PLANING LAZT NO IN erg _ G\ KO•-000V.�P30'000VPOOOO'�� O�; ,.�e �.f-°��boao_ogOY'•"-'- f�e�s4� O�0`O d� e ;�ggO�eeogggJ_d_ooee O A ,G +► o y o A e it 40;000000'C.: i I wes1wo I . �� w ` W14 I ° I Apex Holdings LLC Housing L_d_pe pm_ 2M Lynkk A-- S-th SD C M MN 5540 0-1 MID,NwOM ef $ s a � 0 _ s= Fig N 12 gel J� NI s sus § as s s SP! w-= 52all go his R I lip, Ix low a I pi 'i ill 111!!-.2 1% 1 all al �I a yai gig lad R5 sit p� K > �NNiddNdd� n •i . d d o d p o9 i d e n d N d" a SY =� g All U d j r, 4-1 11 b tli iE200 JOIN 5H OW ll BID H s x� `l s x� Date Application Received: March 18, 2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: March 20, 2020 60-Day Review Period Expires: May 17, 2020 Extended to July 16, 2020 To: Mayor Walsh, City Council members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: April 27, 2020 Subject: #LA20-24, Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road, Variances – Lot area, Lot width, Hardcover, Side Yard setback Public Hearing The applicant has requested this item be pulled from the scheduled City Council agenda and public hearing. As of this writing, the revised date has not been established. Since the public hearing need to be continued to a certain date and time, staff will confirm the date with the applicant and reschedule the hearing to the appropriate meeting. Exhibit A: Request to pull Exhibit B: 60 Day extension From:Jay Nygard To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Re: LA20-000024 update Date:Friday, April 24, 2020 9:50:07 AM Dear Mr Barnhart, Can you please remove our variance request scheduled for Monday's hearing as we are not done preparing for the hearing. Sincerely, Jay Nygard On Thursday, April 9, 2020, 4:31:20 PM CDT, Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Mr. Nygard, In your email received on April 6th, you stated a need “to formally object to not having that evidentiary hearing.” The Planning Commission meeting was cancelled due to the Covid-19 crisis. Recognizing that the Council will host the public hearing and will invite comment electronically, you may choose to pause your application, to have the Planning Commission review it when they reconvene. If you wish to have the Planning Commission host the public hearing, you should reply to this email with that request AND your written extension of the review period to September 30, 2020. (I do not know when the Planning Commission will reconvene.) It may be necessary to extend this date further. IN anticipation of the public hearing on April 27th, I have reviewed your submittal for variance approval, to reduce the lot area and width of 1380 Rest Point Road. I also note that the proposed lot line configuration would reduce the setback for the existing boat house from about 6 feet to 1 foot. It is the applicants burden to prove practical difficulties. This email should be construed as a request for additional information. Please note that the variances requested are to reduce the existing non-conforming width and area of 1380 Rest Point Road, and to reduce the side yard setback for the existing boat house. Your responses on the practical difficulty form should support those actions. Further, you may wish to address how maintenance will occur on the boathouse with only 1 foot between that structure and the property line. Based on the responses received, staff cannot support the variance. Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 From: Jay Nygard [mailto:jaynygard@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:23 PM To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Re: LA20-000024 update Dear Mr Barnhart, I am disappointed that we will not have a chance to be heard at the planing commission, if fact, I need to formally object to not having that evidentiary hearing. However, it occurs to me that you are sending us to the council straight away to save us time on this project. I would like to remind you of the reasons for this request..The property line was determined many years ago without thought as to the topography of the land along that line. There is a steep drop off just NE of the line which is anywhere from 1' at the street up to 5' at the boathouse. A minor part of our 2004 installed waterfall inadvertently ended up over the property line several inches. There has also been years of contention as the prior people living at 1380 not only refused to maintain the area we are requesting, but allowed noxious invasive species to infest that area and invade our yard. I had to file yearly code complaints in an attempt to resolve this issue. Simply moving the line now to the crest of the hill and following that crest down to the lake shore as seen in the survey we provided to adjust the line will not only resolve these issues for us and any future owners, but for the city as well. There will be no visual impact or difference to either property whether viewed from the street, lake or the air. This is a minor adjustment that does not affect the neighborhood or other properties and is agreed to by both property owners. Thus, I am curious whether or not staff supports this project. If not, what are staff objections to approving this request? Sincerely, Jay Nygard On Thursday, April 2, 2020, 8:44:43 AM CDT, Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Mr. Nygard On March 20th, 2020 you received an email from me providing a preliminary schedule for your application. Since that email, some things have changed, and I want to provide an update: During this time of social distancing, the City Council is holding virtual meetings via GoToWebinar through the City’s website. The April Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled, and the City Council will hold this months public hearings at their meeting on April 27th, this meeting will start at 6:00 pm. You will still receive an email with a staff report/agenda packet the Friday prior to the April 27th meeting but you will not be participating in person. You can participate via phone, computer, or iPad device using a link that will be provided. You will be able to watch the meeting on your device, and participate by using the GoToWebinar “raise my hand” feature to indicate you wish to speak. Applicants will be asked if they have any input or would like to speak so you will be addressed by the Mayor after the staff presentation. The meeting will still be livestreamed on our website as usual, though any participation must be through the GoToWebinar link on the agenda and city’s website. We appreciate your patience, please email with any questions. Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 April 24, 2020 Mr. Jay Nygard 1386 Rest Point Road VIA EMAIL Mound, MN 55364 jaynygard@yahoo.com Re: Variance application File # LA20-000024 At your request, we have removed your item from the City Council agenda and public hearing originally scheduled for April 27, 2020. Since your project has been deemed complete, the 60 day review period expires May 17, 2020. Due to the timing of potential final Council action on your request falling after the 60-day review period, the City hereby notifies you that it is extending the time period for City action under Minn. Stat. § 15.99, subd. 3(f). The initial 60-day period would end on May 17th; the time period is now hereby extended until July 16, 2020. 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 Date Application Received: 03/18/2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: 03/18/2020 60-Day Review Period Extended Expires: 07/16/2020 To: Mayor Walsh + City Council Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 April 2020 Subject: #LA20-000025, John Kraemer, 855 Old Crystal Bay Rd S, Variance: Average Lakeshore Setback Public Hearing Background In 2019, the applicant began construction on a new residence on the property. They’ve been working on other improvements on the property as well. The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to reconstruct the cabin building into an open air structure which is situated in the same footprint and location. The roof is being constructed to match the other buildings on the property with a flat roof where the existing cabin is pitched and two of the walls will be open. As with the sauna rebuild near the lake, the flat roof change reduces the volume of the building. The expansion is into the grade, which does not impact the average lakeshore setback impact to neighbors and the encroachment is minimal. While minimal, it is considered an expansion of a nonconforming building and requires a variance. Existing Cabin: Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance in order to expand the envelope of a building (lower into the grade) as part of an in-kind replacement. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE #LA20-000025 27 April 2020 Page 2 of 5 Proposed Building: Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Practical Difficulty Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the existing conditions: location on the property/setback, floor elevation, roof/ceiling height 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 applicant’s request for a variance to allow the minimum building adjustment downward is reasonable. The variance is supported by the practical difficulties resulting from the existing building location on the property, as well as the existing elevations of the floor and ceiling. The increase in volume is offset by the lowering of the roof, and the building will be less of an impact from neighboring properties. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1A Required Existing Proposed West Side 15’ ±123’ No change East Side 15’ ±65 No change Lakeshore 75’ 147’ No change Average Lakeshore The building is entirely lakeward of the 192’ average lakeshore setback line. Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: The lot exceeds 1.99 acres and is therefore not subject to structural coverage limitations. FILE #LA20-000025 27 April 2020 Page 3 of 5 Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 107,655 s.f. 26,913 s.f. (25 %) 14,115 s.f. (13.1%) 149 s.f. w/in 75’ 14,784 s.f. 13.7% Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Variance (Section 78-1279) The subject property and the neighboring properties are large, and have generous setbacks from the lake. As a result the average lakeshore setback applied to the subject property is nearly 200 feet from the lake. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct the nonconforming accessory cabin to make it more useful, and with an aesthetic more consistent with the new home under construction. The variance is supported by the practical difficulties resulting from the existing building location on the property, as well as the existing elevations of the floor and ceiling. The proposed increase in volume is offset by the lowering/flattening of the roof, and although nearly invisible to the neighbors, and from the lake, the expansion of the building will not impact neighboring properties. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The variance supports the minimal expansion of a non-conforming structure in the average lake setback area. The goals of average lakeshore setback include protecting views from land into the lake, the requested variance to increase the volume of the building by lowering the existing floor while reducing the roof volume is in harmony with the Ordinance. The most adjacent neighbors are separated from the structure and situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the changes to the existing building and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. This criterion is met. FILE #LA20-000025 27 April 2020 Page 4 of 5 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in reconstruction of the existing cabin without footprint expansions yet within the setback in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The variance to permit the downward volume expansion is offset by the lowering of the overall roof peak height. This criterion is 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 request to permit a minor downward expansion of the building lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the neighbors’ views are not negatively impacted; the flat roof design minimized any potential negative impacts; the mature vegetation, topography, and property orientation separate the subject property from the adjacent neighbors. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant proposes to reconstruct a nonconforming building to improve functionality for the owners. The cabin was not constructed by the current owners; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The requested variance will not result in the property being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the building; or result in additional encroachment into the setbacks toward the lake. The new encroachment will not alter the character of the locality. This criterion is met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a residential accessory building 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 proximity of the existing cabin to the lake is an existing condition which is unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location and existence of the lake yard accessory building is an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City, but could be applied to all other properties with lake yard accessory buildings and boathouses. 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 principal structure. The cabin is allowed to be maintained and replaced in kind. Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right, however the building envelope is proposed to be lowered, and the proposed expansion is downward. FILE #LA20-000025 27 April 2020 Page 5 of 5 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variance will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; The Commission should determine whether the modest expansion negates to goals of the code in relation to views into, and out of the property. 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 variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the owners. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Analysis: Staff finds the applicant’s request for variance to allow a minimal building adjustment, a downward expansion offset by lowering of the overall peak height is reasonable. The variance is supported by the practical difficulties resulting from the existing building location on the property, as well as the existing elevations of the floor and ceiling. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance allowing the minor downward volume expansion for the open-sided building. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey Exhibit D. Site Plan Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit F. Aerial Photos Exhibit G. Existing Building Photos Exhibit H. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit I. Property Owners List Exhibit J. Plat Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date:03/18/2020 Address:855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number:0911723210015 Land Use Number:LA20-000025 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: OCBR 1 LLC Address: 4567 AMERICAN BLVD W BLOOMINGTON, MN 55437 Applicant:Name: John Kraemer Company: John Kraemer & Sons Address: 4906 Lincoln Drive Edina, MN 55436 john@jkandsons.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Anthon Ellis anthon@charlieandcodesign.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Screen Porch - Average Lakeshore Setback Land Use Application Type:Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: Project Narrative: This proposal includes a request for an average lakeshore setback variance to reconstruct an existing non-conforming cabin accessory structure within the lakeshore setback. The variance request is to expand the building envelope downward in order to comply with current state building codes. The reconstructed flat-roofed accessory structure will serve as an ancillary use to the one-family dwelling currently under construction, which is permitted by the Zoning Chapter, and will include a screened porch and a wood burning fireplace. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA20-000025 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The requested variance supports the expansion of a non-conforming structure in the average lakeshore setback. One of the goals of the average lakeshore setback is protecting views from land into the lake, and the requested variance to lower the floor elevation of the existing structure to the allowable minimum is in harmony with the Ordinance. The adjacent neighbors are separated from the structure and situated so that their lake views will not be impacted by the change. The proposed structure will not be closer to the lake than the existing and will not negatively impact the views into the property from the lake. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The proposal is to reconstruct a nonconforming structure within the average lakeshore setback to improve functionality for the owners and their property. The existing cabin structure was not constructed by the current property owners. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The requested variance will not result in the property being out of character with the neighborhood; will not expand the footprint of the building; nor result in additional encroachment within the average lakeshore setback toward the lake. The new encroachment will not alter the character of the locality. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations are not a factor for the requested variance. 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: This condition is not applicable. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: This condition is not applicable, as a residential accessory building 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. Response: 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. Response: The proximity of the existing cabin structure to the lake is an existing condition which is unique to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The location and existence of the lakeshore accessory building is an existing condition unique to a small number of properties in the City, but could be applied to all other properties with lakeshore accessory structures. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Substantial property right is provided by the principal structure. The cabin structure is allowed to be maintained and replaced in kind. Expansion of an existing non-conforming structure is not a right, however the building will only be expanded downward in order meet floodplain minimum low floor regulations. 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: Granting the requested variance will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The variance is necessary for safety and will not merely serve as a convenience to the property owners. 9 3 5 9 5 7 9 5 8 9 6 0 9 6 5 9 5 5 9 6 0 9 5 5 9 5 0 9 4 5 9 4 0 9 3 5 9 5 6 9 6 0 9 6 5 970 950945 940 9 3 5 9 3 0 9 3 0 9 6 5 9 7 0 S E N W ( N) P R O P E R T Y LI N E (E) PROPERTY LINE ( E ) P R O P E R T Y L I N E (E) PR OPERT Y LINE (E) PROPERTY LINE ( E ) P R O P E R T Y L I N E (E) PROPERTY LINE (E ) P R O P E R T Y L I N E ( E ) P R O P E R T Y L I N E (E) PROPERTY LINE ( E) P R O P E R T Y LI N E (E) PROPERTY LINE MAXWELL BAY LAKE MINNETONKA ( E ) D R I V E W A Y 7 5 ' L A K E S E T B A C K S U R V E Y L I N E 1 9 2 ' L A K E S E T B A C K 30' SIDE SETBACK 3 0 ' S I D E S E T B A C K 5 0 ' R E A R S E T B A C K 50' F R O N T SET B A C K 30' SIDE SETBACK 30' SIDE SETBACK 5 0' R E A R S E T B A C K 5 0' R E A R S E T B A C K 30' SIDE SETBACK 3 0' S I D E S E T B A C K 30' SIDE SETBACK LOT INFORMATION: SITE INFORMATION SITE PLAN NOTES: CONTOUR KEY: GENERAL NOTES - SITE PLAN 5' NEW CONTOURS 1' NEW CONTOURS ABANDONED CONTOURS 5' EXISTING CONTOURS 1' EXISTING CONTOURS 1 Site Plan SCALE: 1:25 Site Plan A 0.1 - See sheet A0.1 Utility Plan for site utilities layout. Landscape Architect. - Planting, hard surface, grading and drainage plan by areas to Owner before commencing work. - Contractor to propose material storage and staging - Contours shown indicate finish grade. by Owner before final grading and paving. - Driveway location to be staked by G.C. and approved drawings for storm water management information. slope drain tile to outfall. See Landscape Architect's Provide continuous drain tile at perimeter of house and - Provide positive drainage away from all sides of house. final location of building. existing conditions, including setbacks, easements and the Owner. The G.C. is responsible for verification of - This site plan is based on survey information provided by = 13.56% (25% Max) 14,595 sq. ft./107,655 sq. ft. 6,683 sq. ft. 3,107 sq. ft. 209 sq. ft. 420 sq. ft. 4,176 sq. ft. (E) HARD COVER CALCS: (N) HARD COVER CALCS: = 4.27% (20% Max) 4,596 sq. ft./107,655 sq. ft. 145 sq. ft. 275 sq. ft. 913 sq. ft. 3,263 sq. ft. 107,655 sq. ft. (2.47 ac) LR-1A to be removed and re-built* *Note: Accessory Cabin & Sauna Structures Lot Coverage: (E) Accessory Sauna Structure: (E) Accessory Cabin Structure: (E) Garage Footprint: (E) House Footprint: Lot Area: Lot Type: (E) Impervious Area %: (E) Total Area: (E) Driveway: (E) House Wood Decking Area: (E) Accessory Structure Decks: (E) Accessory Structures: (E) House / Garage Footprint: (N) Impervious Area %: (N) Total Area: (E) Driveway: (E) House Wood Decking Area: (N) Retaining Wall (N) Concrete Steps (E) Accessory Storage Structure: (N) Accessory Screen Porch Structure: (E) House / Garage Footprint: = 13.64% (25% Max) 14,686 sq. ft./107,655 sq. ft. 6,683 sq. ft. 3,107 sq. ft. 40 sq. ft. 260 sq. ft. 145 sq. ft. 275 sq. ft. 4,176 sq. ft. P r i n t i n g D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 0 6 :4 9 P M S h e e t L o c a t i o n : 9 9 _ M A S T E R C O M B O P E N . t b l P e n t a b l e : Z : \ 0 0 _ P R O J \ P _ T \R i c h a r d s o n \ 0 _ _ C A D \ I N - P R O C E S S \ 0 _ S H E E T \ C A B I N \ A 0 . 1 _ S I T E P L A N . d g n w w w . c h a r l i e a n d c o d e s i g n . c o m ( p h ) + 6 1 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 2 4 6 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N . 5 5 4 0 1 2 1 2 3 r d . A v e . N . , S t e . 3 5 6 M A X W E L L B A Y R E S I D E N C E O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S o u t h , Charlie & Co. Design, LLC COPYRIGHT REVISION ISSUANCE DATE: REVIEW ISSUANCE DATE: 02.06.20 code requirements. heating, plumbing and electrical covenants, zoning, building, fire, responsible for verifying all 3. The General Contractor is the Owner. Structural Engineer, provided by to be specified by a licensed foundation and framing work are including but not limited to footing, 2. All structural requirements, sound project. code compliant and technically required, to properly construct a in the Construction Drawings, as configurations and details depicted and responsibility to revise General Contractor has the right properly complete the Work. The in order to coordinate and resolve configuration deficiencies engineering as needed, and to additional detailing, drawings, and responsibility including providing Contractor must take full 1. The Owner/ General SUB-CONTRACTORS ALL CONTRACTORS & IMPORTANT NOTE FOR Construction Not for PRELIM. PRICING SET 03.18.20VARIANCE SUBMITTAL (NOT A PART) (E) GAZEBO + / - 2 9 8 ' L A K E S H O R E + / - 2 1 7 ' L A K E S H O R E 2885 Little Orchard Way 2.0 acres 2.47 acres 855 Old Crystal Bay Rd S. 845 Old Crystal Bay Rd S. SILT / TREE PROTECTION FENCE ACCESS LAKE/DOCK NO PROPOSED SILT / TREE PROTECTION FENCE D/U EASEMENT (E) DRIVEWAY ACCESS EASEMENT DRIVEWAY APRON AND CONCRETE (E) CURB CUT (Not a part) 4.01 acres SILT FENCE SILT FENCE (E) ELM TREES TO REMAIN (E) TREES TO REMAIN, TYP. WORK AREA OF PROPOSED SILT FENCE SEPERATE PERMIT GARAGE UNDER (N) DETACHED SEPARATE PERMIT REBUILD UNDER STRUCTURE (N) ACCESSORY PERMIT SEPARATE (N) SFR UNDER STRUCTURE ACCESSORY IN-KIND (N) RE-BUILT SEPARATE PERMIT DRIVEWAY UNDER A0.0 COVER SHEET A1.0 A0.1 SITE PLAN A2.0 AS-BUILT SURVEY (E) FLOOR PLAN, FOUNDATION PLAN, FLOOR PLAN, ROOF PLAN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A7.0 EXTERIOR DETAILS IMAGE FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY - REFER TO PLANS & ELEVATIONS FOR PROPOSAL ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Contact: Scott Ritter Phone: +612.929.2049 Minneapolis, MN 55401 112 N. 3rd. St., Ste. 500 Topo, LLC. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER LANDSCAPE DESIGN INTERIOR DESIGN GENERAL CONTRACTOR MAXWELL BAY RESIDENCE SOILS ENGINEER A 0.0 Contact: Joe Cain Phone: +612.827.7825 Minneapolis, MN 55401 901 3rd. Street, Ste. 100 Mattson, MacDonald & Young Contact: Jeremy Wunderlich Phone: +612.343.0044 Minneapolis, MN 55401 275 Market St., Ste. 368 Hanson Nobles Wunderlich Contact: Mark Gronberg Phone: +952.473.4141 Long Lake, MN 55356 445 Willow Dr N. Gronberg & Asssociates Inc. SURVEYOR Cover Sheet Jeff Kraemer Contact: Dustin Propp +952.935.9100Phone: Edina, MN 55434 4906 Lincoln Dr. John Kraemer & Sons Contact: Kevin Zalec +952.995.2223Phone: Minneapolis, MN 55438 11001 Hampshire Ave. S. Braun Intertec Charlie Simmons Anthon EllisContact: Phone: +612.333.2246 Minneapolis, MN 55401 212 3rd. Ave. N., Ste. 356 Charlie & Co. Design, Ltd. SHEET SCHEDULE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE RE-BUILD P r i n t i n g D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 2 : 3 7 :4 9 P M S h e e t L o c a t i o n : 9 9 _ M A S T E R C O M B O P E N . t b l P e n t a b l e : Z : \ 0 0 _ P R O J \ P _ T \R i c h a r d s o n \ 0 _ _ C A D \ I N - P R O C E S S \ 0 _ S H E E T \ C A B I N \ A 0 . 0 _ C O V E R . d g n w w w . c h a r l i e a n d c o d e s i g n . c o m ( p h ) + 6 1 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 2 4 6 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N . 5 5 4 0 1 2 1 2 3 r d . A v e . N . , S t e . 3 5 6 M A X W E L L B A Y R E S I D E N C E O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S o u t h , Charlie & Co. Design, LLC COPYRIGHT REVISION ISSUANCE DATE: REVIEW ISSUANCE DATE: 02.06.20 code requirements. heating, plumbing and electrical covenants, zoning, building, fire, responsible for verifying all 3. The General Contractor is the Owner. Structural Engineer, provided by to be specified by a licensed foundation and framing work are including but not limited to footing, 2. All structural requirements, sound project. code compliant and technically required, to properly construct a in the Construction Drawings, as configurations and details depicted and responsibility to revise General Contractor has the right properly complete the Work. The in order to coordinate and resolve configuration deficiencies engineering as needed, and to additional detailing, drawings, and responsibility including providing Contractor must take full 1. The Owner/ General SUB-CONTRACTORS ALL CONTRACTORS & IMPORTANT NOTE FOR Construction Not for PRELIM. PRICING SET 03.18.20VARIANCE SUBMITTAL S E N W A 1.0 {Scale in Feet} GRAPHIC SCALE 0 2 4 1 3 8 12 FLOOR PLAN LEGEND: FLOOR PLAN NOTES: GENERAL NOTES - FLOOR PLANS 1 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: Existing Floor Plan before manufacturing. - The Cabinet Maker is to field verify all as-built measurements treated lumber. - All wood in contact w/ conc. to be foundation grade, pressure additional details or sections - Refer to structural drawings for load bearing locations, and - Framing dimensions are to face of rough framing - U.N.O. - Structural Gridlines are dimensioned to face of concrete. 96'-9 3/4" 99'-10 1/2" 99'-10 1/2" W1 T.O.W. T.O.L. DENOTES WALL FTG. GRIDLINES ARE CRITICAL) (DIMENSIONS FROM THESE DENOTES GRIDLINE FOUNDATION PLAN KEY: DENOTES TOP OF FOOTING DENOTES TOP OF WALL DENOTES TOP OF LEDGE 4 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: 5 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: 6 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: Proposed Reflected Ceiling Plan 2 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: Proposed Floor Plan 3 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: Proposed Foundation Plan Plans Proposed Roof Plan Proposed Roof Framing Plan MANUFACTURER SERIES REMARKS LIGHT FIXTURE SCHEDULE SYMBOL FIXTURE HOUSING LAMP TRIM COLOR CHANNEL R2 3" RECESSED ADJUSTABLE U1 ELEMENT BY TECH LIGHTING E3SLF-LHWD4AI -E3SLB-HW -WHITE TARGETTI JUPITER --BLACK -RECESSED UPLIGHT 3" LED JU-R-FL-L1-27-24-BK-LV DIMMABLE X 99'-10 1/2"T.O.C.DENOTES TOP OF CURB S2 S1 " = 1'-0"3SCALE: " = 1'-0"3SCALE: Typical Wood Frame Wall Plan Dtl, Spliced Column & Beams Section Dtl, Spliced Column & Beams P r i n t i n g D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 1 3 :4 0 P M S h e e t L o c a t i o n : 9 9 _ M A S T E R C O M B O P E N . t b l P e n t a b l e : Z : \ 0 0 _ P R O J \ P _ T \R i c h a r d s o n \ 0 _ _ C A D \ I N - P R O C E S S \ 0 _ S H E E T \ C A B I N \ A 1 . 0 _ P L A N S . d g n w w w . c h a r l i e a n d c o d e s i g n . c o m ( p h ) + 6 1 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 2 4 6 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N . 5 5 4 0 1 2 1 2 3 r d . A v e . N . , S t e . 3 5 6 M A X W E L L B A Y R E S I D E N C E O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S o u t h , Charlie & Co. Design, LLC COPYRIGHT REVISION ISSUANCE DATE: REVIEW ISSUANCE DATE: 02.06.20 code requirements. heating, plumbing and electrical covenants, zoning, building, fire, responsible for verifying all 3. The General Contractor is the Owner. Structural Engineer, provided by to be specified by a licensed foundation and framing work are including but not limited to footing, 2. All structural requirements, sound project. code compliant and technically required, to properly construct a in the Construction Drawings, as configurations and details depicted and responsibility to revise General Contractor has the right properly complete the Work. The in order to coordinate and resolve configuration deficiencies engineering as needed, and to additional detailing, drawings, and responsibility including providing Contractor must take full 1. The Owner/ General SUB-CONTRACTORS ALL CONTRACTORS & IMPORTANT NOTE FOR Construction Not for PRELIM. PRICING SET 03.18.20VARIANCE SUBMITTAL 1'-4""4 3 9"4 3 19'-8"8 1 10"2 18 " 8 3 1 ' - 4 " 8 1 1 0 1 1 ' - 2 " " 8 1 1 0 " 8 3 1 ' - 4 " 8 7 1 5 ' - 6 " 8 7 1 3 ' - 7 8'-3""4 315'-2 9'-4" "8 7 32'-9 " 8 3 1 7 ' - 1 1 "4 3 23'-4"8 3 7'-0 DEMOLISHED AND REMOVED ENTIRE (E) CABIN TO BE & CHIMNEY (E) STONE FIREPLACE (E) FULL LOG SIDING, TYP. WOOD DECK (E) RAISED (E) WD STAIRS LINE OF (E) SHED ROOF ABOVE LINE OF (E) PITCHED ROOF ABOVE LINE OF (E) PITCHED ROOF ABOVE RIDGE LINE OF (E) ROOF ROOF ABOVE LINE OF (E) PITCHED FOOTPRINT STRUCTURE (N) ACCESSORY DASHED OUTLINE OF (E) CABIN F.F. 954.2 R2 R2 +9'-0" SEE 1/A7.0 FOR PATTERN STAINED & SEALED CEDAR T&G, ROLL DOWN SCREEN LINEAR SLOT FOR RECESSED INSECT FASCIA BOARDS, MITER ALL CORNERS, TYP. (2) HORIZONTAL STAINED AND SEALED CEDAR A7.0 2 TYP. MOTORIZED INSECT WALL SCREEN RECESSED POCKET FOR INSECT ROLL DOWN SCREEN LINEAR SLOT FOR RECESSED FIXED INSECT SCREEN MESH R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 R2 B B A A 1 2 1 2 A2.0 2 A2.0 1 A2.0 4 A2.0 3 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 A L I G N "8 340'-6 "4 3 2'-8"2 1 20'-8"4 1 6'-9 "4 310"4 327'-5 D N 5 R DN 5R LINE OF ROOF ABOVE, TYP. "4 3 10 "4 318'-68'-11" 5 " " 2 1 3 '- 3 " 8 1 5 '- 5 " 8 5 3 '- 4 4 " 5 " " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 4 " LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT POURED CONCRETE STEPS BY COMPACTED GRAVEL WALKWAY BY L.A. C.L.C.L. C . L . C . L . " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS.2 1WITH 1 DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE ON SIDES, CUT TOP AND BOTTOM TO FINISH 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE INSERT 42" HEAT N GLO "MONTANA" REF U/C WNE UNDERCOUNTER REF. BELOW GRANITE COUNTERTOP WITH MOTORIZED INSECT WALL SCREEN LINE OF ROLL-DOWN POWDER COATED, TYP. OF (4) EXTEND TO ROOF SHEATHING, COLUMN, 8 3HSS 4x4x FIXED INSECT SCREEN MESH A7.0 3 A7.0 3 INSECT SCREEN SWINGING DOOR CUSTOM ALUMINUM FRAMED (N) F.F. SLAB ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 (N) NEW GRADE ")8 5" (950'-38 789'-10 (N) NEW GRADE " (953'-9")4 193'-4 AND CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. BOARD FORMED CONCRETE FIREPLACE PROVIDE ALTERNATE BID FOR VERTICAL VENEER, ALL SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE ETCHED CONCRETE SLAB EDGE OF (N) TOP CAST ACID " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS. 2 1WITH 1 DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE ON SIDES, CUT TOP AND BOTTOM TO FINISH 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, RETAINING WALL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT B B A A 1 2 1 2 A2.0 2 A2.0 1 A2.0 4 A2.0 3 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 EDGE OF (N) CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE 20"x10" FROST FOOTING, TYP. 8" FOUNDATION WALL, TYP. ALL SIDES CONCRETE CURB FOR TIMBERS ABOVE HSS 4x4 COLUMN ABOVE, TYP. OF (4) " 8 586'-10 "8 590'-0 " 8 190'-6 "2 120'-10 " 8 7 3 '- 2 ")8 7T.O.C. (950'-10 ") 8 3T.O.W. (950'-5 ")8 3T.O.F. (947'-3 " COMPACTED SMOOTH GRAVEL4GRADE 4" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB ON " 8 7 2 '- 1 1 " 8 3 5 '- 6 3 '- 0 " "8 52'-6 B B A A 1 2 1 2 A2.0 2 A2.0 1 A2.0 4 A2.0 3 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 SLOPE 2%SLOPE 2% S L O P E 2 % 24 GA. PREFINISHED STEEL DRIP EDGE "8 17'-4"8 316'-6"8 17'-4 "2 1 31'-2 " 8 1 1 6 '- 2 TO MATCH COLUMNS, SEE ELEVATIONS METAL CHIMNEY SHROUD FINISHED 24 GA. PRE-FINISHED STEEL PARAPET CAP OVER RIGID, TAPERED INSULATION 60 MIL. EPDM RUBBER ROOFING MEMBRANE A7.0 2 TYP. B B A A 1 2 1 2 A2.0 2 A2.0 1 A2.0 4 A2.0 3 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 9 1 / 2 " T J I 9 1 / 2 " T J I HSS 10x2 BEAM HSS 10x2 BEAM " LVL RIM4 3" X 14 19 2x INFILL FRAMING " LVL RIM4 3" x 14 19 " LVL RIM4 3" 14 19 HSS 10x2 BEAM A7.0 2 TYP. A1.0 S1 A1.0 S1 A1.0 S1 A1.0 S2 A1.0 S2 " LVL RIM4 3" x 14 19 HSS 10x2 BEAMS SPLICED TO ACCEPT HSS 4x4 COLUMNS, " 8 1 2 '- 0 " 2 1 1 '- 1 "4 35 "4 3 5 "8 1 2'-2 " 2 1 1 '- 1 " 8 1 2 '- 0 "8 1 2'-2 2x INFILL FRAMING, TYP. 2x INFILL FRAMING, TYP. B B A A 1 2 1 2 A2.0 2 A2.0 1 A2.0 4 A2.0 3 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 "8 328'-4 " 4 1 1 2 '- 1 0 HSS 10x2 BEAM HSS 4x4 COLUMN SPLICED C . L . O F C O L U M N C . L . O F B E A M "2 11 "2 14 "2 14 1 0 " HSS 4x4 COLUMN SPLICED HSS 10x2 BEAM C . L . O F C O L U M N C . L . O F B E A M "2 11 (N) F.F. SLAB ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 70" A 2.0 3 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: 4 Proposed West Exterior Elevation 1 " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: Proposed South Exterior Elevation " = 1'-0"4 1SCALE: 2 Elevations Exterior Proposed North Exterior Elevation Proposed East Exterior Elevation P r i n t i n g D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 2 0 :4 1 P M S h e e t L o c a t i o n : 9 9 _ M A S T E R C O M B O P E N . t b l P e n t a b l e : Z : \ 0 0 _ P R O J \ P _ T \R i c h a r d s o n \ 0 _ _ C A D \ I N - P R O C E S S \ 0 _ S H E E T \ C A B I N \ A 2 . 0 _ E L E V A T I O N S . d g n w w w . c h a r l i e a n d c o d e s i g n . c o m ( p h ) + 6 1 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 2 4 6 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N . 5 5 4 0 1 2 1 2 3 r d . A v e . N . , S t e . 3 5 6 M A X W E L L B A Y R E S I D E N C E O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S o u t h , Charlie & Co. Design, LLC COPYRIGHT REVISION ISSUANCE DATE: REVIEW ISSUANCE DATE: 02.06.20 code requirements. heating, plumbing and electrical covenants, zoning, building, fire, responsible for verifying all 3. The General Contractor is the Owner. Structural Engineer, provided by to be specified by a licensed foundation and framing work are including but not limited to footing, 2. All structural requirements, sound project. code compliant and technically required, to properly construct a in the Construction Drawings, as configurations and details depicted and responsibility to revise General Contractor has the right properly complete the Work. The in order to coordinate and resolve configuration deficiencies engineering as needed, and to additional detailing, drawings, and responsibility including providing Contractor must take full 1. The Owner/ General SUB-CONTRACTORS ALL CONTRACTORS & IMPORTANT NOTE FOR Construction Not for PRELIM. PRICING SET 03.18.20VARIANCE SUBMITTAL " COLUMN, PAINTED8 3HSS 4"x4"x TO MATCH COLUMNS METAL CHIMNEY SHROUD FINISHED " 2 1 1 5 '- 5 5 '- 0 " " 2 1 1 0 '- 5 " 2 1 1 '- 5 9 '- 0 " MITER ALL CORNERS, TYP. HORIZONTAL CEDAR FASCIA BOARDS, " 4 1 7 '- 9 " 4 3 1 '- 2 ")8 3" (959'-98 599'-4 B.O. FIN. CEILING ")8 7" (961'-28 1100'-10 T.O. PARAPET " (964'-8") 4 1104'-3 T.O. CHIMNEY STONE ")8 7" (966'-28 1105'-10 T.O. CHIMNEY CAP ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 T.O. SLAB " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS.2 1WITH 1 DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE ON SIDES, CUT TOP AND BOTTOM TO FINISH 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. FORMED CONCRETE FIREPLACE AND ALTERNATE BID FOR VERTICAL BOARD ALL SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. PROVIDE 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE VENEER, AND CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. BOARD FORMED CONCRETE FIREPLACE PROVIDE ALTERNATE BID FOR VERTICAL VENEER, ALL SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE EXISTING CABIN BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWN DASHED FIXED INSECT SCREEN MESH BEYOND FIXED INSECT SCREEN MESH FINISHED TO MATCH COLUMNS METAL CHIMNEY SHROUD " 2 1 1 5 '- 5 5 '- 0 " " 2 1 1 0 '- 5 " 2 1 1 '- 5 9 '- 0 " " 4 1 7 '- 9 " 4 3 1 '- 2 24 GA. PREFINISHED STEEL DRIP EDGE " COLUMN, PAINTED8 3HSS 4"x4"x CAP BEYOND 24 GA. PRE-FINISHED STEEL PARAPET " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS.2 1DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE ON SIDES, WITH 1 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, CUT TOP AND BOTTOM TO FINISH EXISTING CABIN BUILDING ENVELOPE SHOWN DASHED ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 T.O. SLAB ")8 3" (959'-98 599'-4 B.O. FIN. CEILING ")8 7" (961'-28 1100'-10 T.O. PARAPET " (964'-8") 4 1104'-3 T.O. CHIMNEY STONE ")8 7" (966'-28 1105'-10 T.O. CHIMNEY CAP AND CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. BOARD FORMED CONCRETE FIREPLACE PROVIDE ALTERNATE BID FOR VERTICAL VENEER, ALL SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE " TALL CONCRETE CURB W/ FLASHING BENEATH TIMBERS, TYP.2 11 FINISHED TO MATCH COLUMNS METAL CHIMNEY SHROUD FIXED INSECT SCREEN MESH " 2 1 1 5 '- 5 " 2 1 1 0 '- 5 5 '- 0 " " 2 1 1 '- 5 9 '- 0 " " 4 3 1 '- 2 " 4 1 7 '- 9 " COLUMN, PAINTED8 3HSS 4"x4"x BOARDS, MITER ALL CORNERS, TYP. HORIZONTAL CEDAR FASCIA ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 T.O. SLAB ")8 3" (959'-98 599'-4 B.O. FIN. CEILING ")8 7" (961'-28 1100'-10 T.O. PARAPET " (964'-8") 4 1104'-3 T.O. CHIMNEY STONE ")8 7" (966'-28 1105'-10 T.O. CHIMNEY CAP AND CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. BOARD FORMED CONCRETE FIREPLACE PROVIDE ALTERNATE BID FOR VERTICAL VENEER, ALL SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS.2 1ON SIDES, WITH 1 BOTTOM TO FINISH DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, CUT TOP AND TV BY OWNER WOOD BURNING FIREPLACE 42" HEAT N GLO "MONTANA" TO MATCH COLUMNS METAL CHIMNEY SHROUD FINISHED " COLUMN, PAINTED8 3HSS 4"x4"x " 2 1 1 5 '- 5 " 2 1 1 0 '- 5 5 '- 0 " " 2 1 1 '- 5 9 '- 0 " " 4 1 7 '- 9 " 4 3 1 '- 2 "8 590'-4 T.O. SLAB "8 599'-4 B.O. FIN. CEILING "8 1100'-10 T.O. PARAPET "4 1104'-3 T.O. CHIMNEY STONE " 8 1105'-10 T.O. CHIMNEY CAP ")8 3" (959'-98 599'-4 B.O. FIN. CEILING ")8 7" (961'-28 1100'-10 T.O. PARAPET " (964'-8") 4 1104'-3 T.O. CHIMNEY STONE ")8 7" (966'-28 1105'-10 T.O. CHIMNEY CAP ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 T.O. SLAB BOARDS, MITER ALL CORNERS, TYP. HORIZONTAL STAINED CEDAR T&G FASCIA FIREPLACE AND CHIMNEY SURROUND, ALL SIDES. FOR VERTICAL BOARD FORMED CONCRETE SIDES, BY ORIJIN STONE. PROVIDE ALTERNATE BID 4"x33" SPLIT FACED FRIESIAN STONE VENEER, ALL " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS.2 1ON SIDES, WITH 1 BOTTOM TO FINISH DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, CUT TOP AND MESH BEYOND FIXED INSECT SCREEN 2 6 2 6 A7.0 Details Exterior SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 1 SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 2 Cedar Tongue & Groove Layout PatternParapet Detail SCALE: 3" = 1'-0" 3 Section Through Concrete Curb @ Reclaimed Timbers P r i n t i n g D a t e : 3 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 0 3 : 2 1 :0 8 P M S h e e t L o c a t i o n : 9 9 _ M A S T E R C O M B O P E N . t b l P e n t a b l e : Z : \ 0 0 _ P R O J \ P _ T \R i c h a r d s o n \ 0 _ _ C A D \ I N - P R O C E S S \ 0 _ S H E E T \ C A B I N \ A 7 . 0 _ E X T E R I O R D E T A I L S . d g n w w w . c h a r l i e a n d c o d e s i g n . c o m ( p h ) + 6 1 2 . 3 3 3 . 2 2 4 6 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N . 5 5 4 0 1 2 1 2 3 r d . A v e . N . , S t e . 3 5 6 M A X W E L L B A Y R E S I D E N C E O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 5 6 8 5 5 O l d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S o u t h , Charlie & Co. Design, LLC COPYRIGHT REVISION ISSUANCE DATE: REVIEW ISSUANCE DATE: 02.06.20 code requirements. heating, plumbing and electrical covenants, zoning, building, fire, responsible for verifying all 3. The General Contractor is the Owner. Structural Engineer, provided by to be specified by a licensed foundation and framing work are including but not limited to footing, 2. All structural requirements, sound project. code compliant and technically required, to properly construct a in the Construction Drawings, as configurations and details depicted and responsibility to revise General Contractor has the right properly complete the Work. The in order to coordinate and resolve configuration deficiencies engineering as needed, and to additional detailing, drawings, and responsibility including providing Contractor must take full 1. The Owner/ General SUB-CONTRACTORS ALL CONTRACTORS & IMPORTANT NOTE FOR Construction Not for PRELIM. PRICING SET 03.18.20VARIANCE SUBMITTAL CHANGE IN VERTICAL PLANE MITERED CORNER AT V E R T I C A L P L A N E - C H A N G E I N C O R N E R O F W A L L S T A R T P A T T E R N A T PLAN VIEW OF WALL UNTIL CHANGE IN VERTICAL PLANE REPEAT PATTERN AS NEEDED ACROSS LENGTH BOARD 'A'BOARD 'B' " REVEAL, TYP.8 10 STARTING BOARD BOARD 'A'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B' START HERE EXTENTS OF PATTERN BOARD 'B'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'A'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B'BOARD 'B' > 2" ELEVATION VIEW PLAN VIEW GREATER THAN 2" WIDE** STARTING BOARD WIDTH TO ENSURE END BOARD IS IN LESS THAN A 2" WIDE END BOARD, RIP DOWN 2". IF A FULL WIDTH STARTING BOARD RESULTS **END BOARD SHOULD HAVE WIDTH GREATER THAN STEEL PARAPET CAP 24 GA. PREFINISHED FRAMING OVER TOP OF PARAPET LAP ROOFING MEMBRANE " 2 1 1 '- 5 6 " " 2 1 1 1 TAPERED INSULATION SELF-ADHERED FLASHING TAPE SELF-ADHERED FLASHING TAPE RAIN SCREEN PER SPEC SLOPE 2% " LVL RIM4 3"x14 19 " TGI2 1" x 92 11 ")8 7" (961'-28 1100'-10 T.O. CABIN PARAPET FINISH ")8 7" (960'-88 1100'-4 T.O. ROOF SHEATHING ")8 3" (959'-98 599'-4 B.O. GARAGE CEILING FINISH WRAP TYVEK COMMERCIAL D E Q E Q "4 10 BOARDS STAINED CEDAR T&G CEDAR FASCIA BOARDS HORIZONTAL STAINED MEMBRANE, SEE SPEC. 60 MIL EPDM ROOFING "2 117""2 11 " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS2 1WITH 1 DIMENSIONS, ORIGINAL FACE ON SIDES, CUT TOP AND BOTTOM TO FINISH 10"x14" SQUARE RECLAIMED TIMBERS, " CHINK BETWEEN TIMBERS2 11 10" FIINISH SLAB 4 " " 2 1 1 " 2 1 5 ")8 3" (950'-98 590'-4 T.O. FINISH SLAB ")8 7" (950'-108 190'-6 T.O. CURB ")8 3" (950'-58 590'-0 T.O. WALL 4 " " 2 1 1 CONCRETE CURB FLASHING 4"2"4" " RAKE @ CHINKING8 10 RUN DATE: 03/19/2020 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST)PAGE: 1 38 04-117-23 34 0015 JUDSON M DAYTON ETAL TRSTEES 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 JUDSON M DAYTON 121 8TH ST S #860 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 09-117-23 21 0007 JAY R SWENSON 2850 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 JAY R SWENSON 2850 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0008 W R LANGTON & M K LANGTON 2870 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 WILLIAM R LANGTON MICHELLE K LANGTON 2870 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0009 OCBR 1 LLC 2885 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 OCBR 1 LLC ATTN RITA SCHEPERS 4567 AMERICAN BLVD W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 09-117-23 21 0010 MARY L HOLMES 2865 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 MARY L HOLMES 2865 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0011 S S BERGERSON & A BERGERSON 2845 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 SHAWN S BERGERSON 2845 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0012 TONKAHOME HOLDINGS LLC 2825 LITTLE ORCHARD WAY ORONO MN 55391 DAVID W SCHWARTZ 115 PASTURES LA NEW CANAAN CT 06840 38 09-117-23 21 0013 LITTLE ORCHARD HMNRS ASSN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 DAVID W SCHWARTZ 115 PASTURES LANE NEW CANAAN CT 06840-4342 38 09-117-23 21 0015 OCBR 1 LLC 855 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S ORONO MN 55391 OCBR 1 LLC 4567 AMERICAN BLVD W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 09-117-23 21 0016 OCBR 2 LLC 845 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S ORONO MN 55391 OCBR 2 LLC 4567 AMERICAN BLVD W BLOOMINGTON MN 55437 38 09-117-23 21 0017 KOOLWUNDA LLC 799 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S ORONO MN 55391 KOOLWUNDA LLC 640 LOCUST HILLS DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 21 0018 JUDSON M DAYTON ETAL TRSTEES 825 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD S ORONO MN 55391 JUDSON M DAYTON 121 8TH ST S #860 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Henn e p in County L o ca te & Notify Map 855 O ld C rys ta l Ba y Rd S 0 100 20050 Feet Da te : 3/1 9/2020 Buffer Siz e:500Map C om me nts: Th is d ata (i) is furn ish ed 'AS IS' with no representation as tocompleteness o r a ccuracy; (ii) is fu rn ished with no warranty of anykind; an d (iii) is n ot suitable for le ga l, eng ineering or surveyingpurposes. Hennepin County sha ll not b e liable for any damage, injuryor loss resu lting from this data. Fo r mo re inf ormation , co nta ct Hennepin County GIS Office300 6th S tree t South , Minn ea polis, MN 5 5487 / g is.info@hennepin.us