HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-13-2020 Council PacketAgenda
Council Meeting
Monday, July 13, 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.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
Consent Agenda
1. City Council Meeting Minutes of June 22, 2020
2. Council Work Session Minutes of June 22, 2020
3. Claims/Bills
4. Appoint Municipal Support Services Representative for Hire
5. Approve Disposal of Property
6. Approve Disposal of Firearms
7. Approval to Accept Donation from Schena Joswiak and Anita Litechky
8. Appointment of 2020 Seasonal Employees
9. Sewer Rehabilitation Award
10. Sewer Extension – 1000 Brown Road
11. East Long Lake Trail Project (20-029) – Awards
12. LA20-000039 – Sherry and John Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street, Variance – Resolution
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The council will not engage
in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the council may refer issues to
staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home
address at the podium before speaking.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Report
13. Sanitary Sewer Service Line Inspection Program – Ordinance
Planning Department Report (Planning Commission Representative Dennis Libby)
14.LA20-000037 – Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point Road
15.LA20-000024 – Jay Nygard 1380 Rest Point Road – Lot area, Lot width, Hardcover, and side yard
setback variances
16.LA19-000050 – Paul Vogstrom o/b/o Eric Vogstrom, 2710 Pence Lane, Variances - Amended
Resolution/Exhibit
17.Allow a Second Dock at Dock Site A
18.LA19-000084 – Julie Thometz o/b/o 1350 Baldur LLC, Baldur Park Road, Sketch Plan
Mayor/Council Report
Agenda
Council Meeting
Monday, July 13, 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
City Administrator Report
19. Consulting Engineer RFP
City Attorney Report
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
2020
07-20-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Victoria Seals)
07-27-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
07-27-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
08-10-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
08-10-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
08-11-20 Election Day, Primary Election
08-17-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Matt Johnson)
08-24-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
08-24-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
09-07-20 Official Holiday, City Offices Closed
09-08-20 Park Commission Meeting, Tuesday, 6:00 p.m.
09-14-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
09-14-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
09-21-20 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Dennis Walsh)
09-28-20 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m.
09-28-20 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 13
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, and Victoria Seals. The
following members were absent: Aaron Printup. Representing Staff were City Administrator Dustin Rief,
Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Laura Oakden, and Public Works
Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards.
Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT AGENDA
1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2020
2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 8, 2020
3. CLAIMS/BILLS
4. CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO UTILITY BILLING –
ORDINANCE 246, THIRD SERIES
5. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES
6. COVID-19 PREPAREDNESS PLAN
7. 2020 CRACK SEALING
8. SOUTHWAYS DEVELOPMENT – FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS – RESOLUTION 7106
9. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – COLIN CHARLSON
10. DISPOSAL OF FIREARMS
11. REQUEST TO HIRE FULL-TIME POLICE OFFICER
12. LA20-000028, BAYCLIFF HOMES O/B/O DAVID AND WENDY JACOBSEN-RETSCH,
2440 OLD BEACH ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION 7107
13. LA20-000031, DALE GUSTAFSON, 2927 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCES -
RESOLUTION 7108
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays
0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 13
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, Lake Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD)
representative for Orono. He stated he sent the preliminary 2020 budget to the City and got a response
from Walsh about the $50,000 item and Rief commented that a couple items did not seem to line up. He
said there is a rounding error for the City of Orono. Last year the LMCD wanted to raise the levy 2.4 %,
and he went to the City of Minnetonka Beach because he has property there. He does not know much
about the information on the top part of the budget; if the Council has issues, they will have to look into
it. He said there was no Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) prevention in 2019, but they hired a study for
$100,000 which is included in the $118,238 number. This year another study has been approved for
$50,000. In 2021 there is $75,000 designated for that. The LMCD is not doing anything with harvesting
or AIS. Lake Minnetonka Association (LMA) got $35,000 worth of grants; the LMCD did not get
anything because they do not know how to do so. He said the process might be that the preliminary
budget gets sent to the cities first for input, but the Board has never officially voted on it. As far as AIS
management, this year they are going to hire a guy to study it again for $50,000; they are not doing
treatment. He noted a few years ago he and Gabe Jabbour shut the harvesting down.
Seals noted those two gentlemen did all the work.
Mr. Anderson said if you think about shutting down the harvesting, you would assume there would be
money for chemicals. He does not know if the Board is anti-chemical, but chemical treatments work. He
has proof in his corner of the bay, which Johnson can attest to. He noted the equipment is sitting there and
should be sold. There is $125,000 for equipment replacement in the budget and $157,000 in the Save the
Lake fund.
Crosby asked what the study money is specifically for.
Mr. Anderson said he wished he could tell him; he has no idea.
Walsh indicated he thought it was padding the budget so the budget can be kept up even though they lost
the harvesting. Once the budget is brought down, it would look really bad to have to jack it back up.
Crosby stated if the chemical treatment is doing a nice job, the money should be moved there.
Seals asked if anyone knows what they found regarding the $150,000 study.
Mr. Anderson said if anyone wanted to read about 100 pages of bull, they should read the report. He
stated the chemicals work, so spend $100,000 on chemicals and put them in the lake. The LMCD did not
spend a dime.
Walsh stated that is why everyone is trying to get the Lake Improvement Districts (LIDs) going, because
it bypasses this kind of stuff.
Crosby said these are dollars that are being wasted which could be supplementing the lake.
Mr. Anderson agreed with Crosby but indicated it would not happen because it is a rounding error for the
City of Orono.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 13
Johnson asked Mr. Anderson if he was talking about the 2% increase as being a rounding error.
Mr. Anderson stated all of it is because the City has never complained and they are paying the LMCD
$50,000. He clarified and said Orono complains but doesn’t do anything about it.
Walsh noted there is nothing the City can do about it.
Mr. Anderson said it then becomes a non-factor. He stated there are some factors. For instance, at the last
meeting the Water Patrol (WP) was looking for $42,000 because they wanted to hire another Deputy full-
time. There was a discussion with the Save the Lake, who has the money for that. The Chairman of the
Save the Lake Board made a motion for $35,000. He noted that Libbs Lake was previously shut down for
$3,000. After the motion was made for $35,000, he himself amended it to the full $42,000 and had strong
support for the $42,000. Another guy made a motion for $38,000, which was simple math because the
$3,000 was already there. He stated previous to the discussion of this meeting, Mr. Jabbour and he were
going to make up the difference between what the Save the Lake gave them and the $42,000 the WP
wanted. He said it was really strange, defunding the police, and he does not get it. If the WP wants
$42,000, they should get it. The WP is out there taking care of things, and the Board wants to cut them
short and make them beg for $7,000. He made a motion for $42,000 and had a lot of support. The
Chairman allowed an amendment to the amendment for $38,000, and that is what was voted on.
Walsh asked if that motion passed.
Mr. Anderson said it passed for $38,000, an amendment to the amendment. The attorney present indicated
he does not like to do that, and the Chairman said he would not do it again. He stated he made a personal
donation of $2,500, which was more than the City of Minnetonka Beach. Mr. Jabbour and he funded
$2,000 each for their marinas, and the WP got the full $42,000. The Save the Lake fund has $157,000,
and they cannot fund the WP for a full-time Deputy, which is unbelievable. He displayed an aerial photo
where flowering rush is problematic and said the LMCD will not spend one dime to help deal with the
treatment. Mr. Jabbour took on the treatment of Big Island at his cost. He suggested to Mr. Jabbour that
they partner with the LMA, and they each donated up to $5,000 for the Orono area. He indicated the
flowering rush resides where the harvesting occurred. He said the LMA, Mr. Jabbour, and he funded the
eradication of flowering rush and that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is starting to figure
out the LMA is the entity on the lake for getting stuff done. He stated the thinking has to change, because
if there is any way to get funds to the LMA, he would like to do so.
Crosby asked if there was any flowering rush in Carman Bay.
Mr. Anderson, after locating Carman Bay on the document, stated they apparently did not. He noted the
data received from the $100,000 spent was already in existence and another $50,000 is being spent this
year and $75,000 more is being contemplated.
Seals asked how Walsh could start working with the LMA and stop working with the LMCD.
Mr. Anderson said he did not know. He stated if he could change the Council’s thinking as to who the
group is, the group should be the LMA.
Walsh stated they did not need government units, that private units will take care of it. He noted LIDs is
essentially the same way, that it is almost a public-private partnership. As far as what to do with the
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 13
LMCD, that is a ball of twine with a lot of knots in it. He told Mr. Anderson that he is doing a great job in
making sure the LMCD understands who is doing the work and who is getting stuff done.
Mr. Anderson indicated that is why he presented the information the way he did, because he sends emails
out, but it’s on-camera here and other people might take interest. If you think about it, the LMCD is non-
existent with LIDs.
Seals asked Mr. Anderson what he needed from the Council.
Mr. Anderson said he did not know but wanted to give the presentation. He is charging forward with the
help of Mr. Jabbour and the head of the LMA, Eric Evenson.
Mr. Gabriel Jabbour, 985 Tonkawa Road, said Mr. Anderson is doing an unbelievable job and he is very
lonely up there because the Board is having a hard time listening to him. He said 100% of the product
LMCD produced was done by Dick Osgood, him, and other agencies. The only thing the LMCD did is
gather it and put it in a binder. They only hear about an incremental increase of the budget, which is 2%.
They are hoarding money and have always hoarded money. He was told by a Board member that they
needed the upcoming $75,000 study to back them up as far as stopping harvesting. He noted if people
want to have cocktail parties and get patted on the back, you don’t run for election and you don’t get
appointed; you go to the clubhouse and have a good time. When you get to be behind the bench, you are
going to have to work hard and make difficult decisions. Regarding the Special Deputy, that started
almost 25 years ago, where the private sector decided they wanted an incremental increase to the service
the County provided. He noted it couldn’t be more important than this year, because the volunteers are
not there. There used to be 54 volunteers; it is down to 20, they can’t work because of the virus, and most
of them are retiring. They had six gun-holders, now there are 16, but nobody is here because of the riots
downtown. They thought if they had a car with a sunroof and power steering, they would buy that
incremental increase. They did not want the taxpayers to pay for it, so they thought they would pay for it
themselves or they’d have Save the Lake pay for it. He said your quality of life is affected by law and
order, which is no more clearer than today. That is why he was extremely against Mark; he had 54 pages
of police reports and nuisance calls and was pulling people from fires to respond to garbage complaints.
His feeling on the matter is that the LMCD neither has the expertise nor the setup in order to implement
anything. He noted when he came in to complain to the Council, by fluke both he and Mr. Anderson
attended the same meeting. Now it is 2-3 years later, there is no harvesting, and 100% of the business
model has changed. Now when they tell the Council something could be done better, they are showing the
Council it could be done better. He discussed who was helping take care of the lake such as the Mayor’s
wife, a former Planning Commissioner/Council Member, Mr. Anderson, and himself. They are not
bragging; they are saying what is wrong and what is right. As elected officials, they have to decide how
they are going to handle the agencies. He noted there is not one single project the Metro Council had that
they didn’t like, and that if someone comes in with a $2 million project, they will say it should be a $25
million project. Because he and Mr. Anderson are saying the LMCD is not doing things right, the LMCD
has spent $25,000 promoting themselves, which totals $100,000 on a $350,000 levy. It would be like the
City Council spending $100,000 out of $350,000 on parties.
Walsh stated the problem is there is no accountability.
Mr. Jabbour stated the LMCD spent two years on Facebook and their website telling people that what
they are doing is right, to find out that what they are doing is wrong. All the data they need already exists.
The DNR told the LMCD they would like to go back to the 2012 documents which he/LMA/DNR
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 13
generated. He said 100% of the agencies who participated in the process washed their hands in writing
from the results. It’s really a big mountain to climb and he is glad Mr. Evenson is doing it.
Johnson thanked Mr. Anderson and Mr. Jabbour for their work, noting that since Mr. Anderson has been
the LMCD rep, there has been a level of visibility the City has not previously had. He said he has been at
LMCD meetings and watched while the Board does not really answer Mr. Anderson’s concerns and then
go to a vote. He stated Mr. Anderson is gaining traction and at some point, the facts come to a head. He
offered the City of Orono’s help in whatever way possible. He commented that the LMCD’s reserves are
at a ridiculous amount. They force through very small increases year after year and it is not worth
people’s time to push back, but over the last many years it is a lot of extra taxpayer money going to them.
Seals suggested she and Johnson go to an LMCD meeting.
Walsh said it will put more pressure on the LMCD with more LIDs being done and he is counting on
them to get the Crystal Bay LID done.
Crosby indicated if the LMCD is unwilling to take proper action to clean up the lake and using new,
proven ways such as chemical treatment, Orono needs to look at what steps need to be taken to defund
them and move the money so it would be used properly and effectively. Currently the LMCD is wasting
money on studies, self-promotion, and salaries for non-action.
Mr. Anderson said the LMA has the chemical part figured out, and the banner has been taken away from
the LMCD because their banner was harvesting. Now all the bull is going for AIS, but there is no money
going into the lake. The public-private partnership has stuck in his craw ever since that campaign started.
This is his ‘hood, he has made a lot of money in his ‘hood, and he is putting it back in the ‘hood. He noted
the LMA is the new gorilla on the lake as far as DNR permitting, getting grants, etc. He stated that Mr.
Evenson got around $30,000 in grants and the LMCD did not get anything.
Seals stated the City Council appreciates Mr. Anderson and Mr. Jabbour fighting the good fight.
City Council Members thanked Mr. Anderson for his work.
Mr. Anderson noted he will be upset with a bunch of Orono residents because of the wakeboard boats, but
that is another discussion. He said at Pelican Rapids the flowering rush has taken over the lake, you can’t
even move, and it is much worse than milfoil. He noted Mr. Evenson is a true environmentalist.
PRESENTATION
14. ANNUAL PUBLIC HEARING FOR MS4 STORMWATER PERMIT
Mayor Walsh opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m.
Edwards noted as part of the MS4 permit, there needs to be an annual public meeting to discuss the
stormwater system. The goals of the meeting are education, to receive comments, and to meet the
requirements of the permit. He stated stormwater management rules and plans are complicated and a
myriad of overlapping regulations, guidance, and jurisdictions between federal, state, watershed, and city
governments. Up for discussion is the Municipal Separate Stormwater System permit which the City gets
from the (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency) MPCA which comes to them from the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The purpose of the permit revolves around water quality, whether it be surface
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 13
water, the groundwater, or drinking water. The basic requirements of the permit include that the City has
a stormwater pollution prevention program, prepares annual reports, adjusts ordinances as required by the
State, and creates stormwater system mapping, all of which the City does. There are six control measures
discussed in the permit: 1) education, 2) public participation and involvement, 3) illicit discharge,
detection and elimination. He noted in 2019 there was one incident with an illicit discharge of a sewer
service line which was discharging into a creek and was corrected within one day of discovery; 4)
construction site stormwater runoff, 5) post-construction stormwater, 6) the City practices good
housekeeping and maintains their own systems and infrastructure. He displayed the 2019 Compliance
Activities. He noted that last year they finished a five-year period of studying the City’s stormwater ponds
in the system, both public and private. The main goal was to figure out who owned what, where they
were, and how they functioned together. He said the City did all of its normal construction inspections,
erosion control both with the City and in partnership with the MCWD (Minnehaha Creek Watershed
District). Last year, the City Staff did 293 different tasks that were stormwater-focused; the budget for the
City for stormwater-related items was about $300,000. They do their normal grass/leaf disposal programs
at the City. Their street-sweeping program removed an estimated 58 pounds of phosphorus that would
have otherwise made its way into the water systems. They also updated all of the storm maps. As far as
2020 activities, they are on hold while waiting for the new MS4 permit requirements from the State to
make the necessary adjustments. Everyone’s permits expired in 2018 and everyone is waiting for the
MPCA to get through their process to renew the permit. Until then, the City is operating under the old
permit guidelines. This year 20% of the storm system will be inspected and conduct normal maintenance
operations and sweeping. Stormwater improvements were included in both the streets project and the
separate stormwater project, which the City Council awarded at the last meeting. There is a Request For
Proposal and bid for the East Long Lake Trail Project which has some stormwater improvements in it.
Mayor Walsh closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m.
15.ACCEPT DONATION FROM BIG ISLAND LEGACY
Walsh noted the Big Island Legacy has raised a large amount of money and its representative, Tom Kolar,
would like to talk about it and present a donation.
Tom Kolar, Treasurer and Big Island Legacy Board Member said it has been quite a journey. He noted it
is not easy getting money out of people, and if not for Mayor Walsh, the amount donated would be much
smaller. He stated the trails are now mowed and usable. It will be a nice park with the additional
improvements that are going to be made.
Walsh noted Mr. Kolar has a house on Big Island.
Mr. Kolar confirmed he did and stated, as Treasurer of the Big Island Legacy, he bequeathed to the City
of Orono the sum of $58,000.
Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to accept the donation of $58,000 from the Big Island Legacy.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT
Walsh noted the City Council consented to the Finance Director Report.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 13
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
16. LA20-000003, JOHN NEWELL, 1485 SIXTH AVE N, SKETCH PLAN
Staff presented a summary of packet information. She noted the Applicant was present.
Johnson asked what Conservation Design includes.
Barnhart stated Conservation Design includes tree inventory and wetland inventory. It goes into more
detail in terms of vistas and natural communities within the area that would not necessarily fall under
trees or wetlands. From City Staff’s standpoint, on a project like this, where it is still a rural development,
there is a lot of benefit out of the tree inventory and wetland things rather than the expense of doing the
full Conservation Design. The Conservation Design looks at vistas and ecological communities within the
area that would not necessarily fall under the tree or the wetland inventory.
Johnson commented he did not know what a vista is.
Barnhart indicated an example was a view shed.
Rief clarified that it was like when you look out of your window. He said it comes up in variances, that
when there is a house that is set back from the lake and there is a variance to put it in closer to the average
lakeshore and exclude that house.
Walsh said it goes into more detail about the area on things that would have little to no impact.
Rief stated Walsh was correct.
Johnson asked at what size the existing ordinance comes into play.
Oakden stated if the subdivision is five acres or larger, or the density is greater than one unit per two
acres.
Crosby asked if the road would become private.
Oakden said currently it is an existing shared driveway that serves three properties. They are proposing a
private road with a short cul-de-sac to serve the two new lots being created, then terminating the cul-de-
sac and leaving the existing shared driveway as an entrance off the new cul-de-sac.
Walsh stated they would be upgrading the front part of the road for the two houses, basically.
Oakden agreed that is what is being proposed with the sketch plan.
Johnson suggested, regarding the ecological study, looking at the ordinance to see if it should be modified
so if the Council does not think it is necessary for this size of development, there could be triggers in the
language that prevents people from having to come in front of the City Council.
Walsh indicated it could be brought down to the Staff level and they could be given more discretion.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 13
Barnhart stated similar language is being introduced in the new subdivision code which the Council
would see in a couple of months.
Mr. John Newell, 1485 County Road 6, said they are looking at a lot of land that they are paying a lot of
taxes on. The lot is ideally set up for subdivision into two parcels. The original owners looked at it and
were trying to get four lots on the lower level at one point and then backed out. They are dealing with four
acres per site. The lots are totally secluded so the houses will not be seen from the new road that is going
in.
Walsh and Seals stated they like less density.
Crosby noted the plan looks good.
Johnson asked Mr. Newell to speak about his opinion on the septic.
Mr. Newell said his understanding is there is no septic (sewer and water) on County Road 6 and the
closest septic is the subdivision to the west. He has no idea what the low-pressure system is about, but it
is about six football fields from that location. It is all extremely wooded. He does not know how the
system works but does not see it easily being done.
Walsh noted it would probably be expensive.
Mr. Newell said he does not have a clue.
Walsh said it would be expensive if it would have to go six football fields as far as trenching and putting
pipe in.
Crosby stated the lots would all be septic lots.
Walsh said it is a sketch plan showing two septic fields.
Mr. Newell said they have had it perc’d and the four areas shown all perc.
Walsh noted the Applicant is looking for direction and seeing if the sketch plan looks good. He stated he
does not see anything that looks bad or there are any issues. He asked if it was a two-acre minimum area.
Mr. Newell indicated that it was.
Johnson noted it is also not a MUSA (Municipal Utility Service Area) issue.
Barnhart clarified that it is in the MUSA but Staff reads the language as if it is available, and six football
fields away is not necessarily available. The Applicant could connect if he wanted to; it would not be
required.
Johnson asked if Staff was comfortable with the septic system on the plan.
Oakden and Barnhart indicated they were.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 13
The City Council Members stated it looks like a good plan.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Johnson said Edwards spent more time with Golden Valley and South St. Paul with respect to the time-of-
sale inspection. He noted he was the only one who opposed it. He is still adamantly against that vehicle
but is 100% for dealing with the problem. They have tightened up some loose ends. One unintended
consequence of the process is a new term, “illicit discharge,” which is Public Works’ way of saying you
have a sewer line that is completely disconnected and the sewer is going in the ground. He learned that
Edwards will be responsible for conveying to Orono’s citizens that the purpose of the ordinance is the
intrusion-of-water issue. It is not to find damaged or broken existing sewer lines. However, it will be an
unintended consequence, because when they start looking at the videos, they are going to find dips,
breaks, and tree roots.
Seals asked how the City was going to address some of those things. She said during a certain time period
when people were building houses, the sump pump, etc., was actually routed into the sewer.
Johnson noted the intended consequence is to identify some of the stuff that is not supposed to be
happening.
Seals indicated there are probably more of those situations than what the City knows about.
Johnson said one thing that will happen is the City is going to attempt to do this and will not be able to get
their cameras down because there are going to be so many roots, etc. They will have to tell homeowners
that they need to get a Roto-Rooter type of company to clean the line and then reschedule for them to
come back. He noted in the real estate business, time is often of the essence. As time goes on, people will
get used to it. He is trying to provide input for the first roll-out, where people are not going to know. He
said he asked Edwards what happens when a title company closes it because they do not know about the
new ordinance, as it was not communicated to everyone. He stated there is a lot to learn and that other
cities told him it is harder to roll out than they ever thought. The theory is good and the cities think it is
the right thing to do and it has saved taxpayer money. The City and Rief’s responsibility is the
communication component, which includes the realtors, residents, and title companies. It is not an easy
process and he heard that there is not a lot of cooperation from the Minnesota Board of Realtors, because
it does not support the time-of-sale inspections. He noted there were a lot of pitfalls coming.
Seals asked if there was any way to avoid any of the pitfalls.
Walsh commented that this is getting in the way of somebody’s business, and there will be problems
when closings are impacted. There may be no silver bullet, but the City should get the best system
possible and move it forward until everyone gets used to it.
Johnson stated one of his concerns about what they are rolling out is the consequence of non-compliance:
the surcharge on a bill. If it gets scoped out and there is a $10,000 problem, an owner can choose to pay
the surcharge. Also, the City is giving 90 days for compliance. If there is illicit discharge, which is a
sewer line that is broken, the City cannot give people 90 days to fix an illicit surcharge. He was told it
would fall into another area of the code. He indicated that it needs to state in the ordinance that it’s a
reference point, because the City would red-tag that house and they cannot run water in any capacity
through that house until it is fixed. The City, in doing the inspection, has to advertise what the timeline
will be for the City to do them, because people will start to rely on that process. Orono’s certificate is
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 13
good for ten years, but if there is a dip in it, the City will not say there is a correction there. The City is
only looking for the intrusion of water. For other cities, it is kind of a sewer inspection, too. On the
consumer/realtor side it will be confusing, because most of it identifies any issues.
Seals asked if Johnson was hinting that the City should have it identify any issues.
Johnson indicated he was not hinting that, because then the City is also saying there is no problem, and if
the new buyer has a problem the next year, could they come back and say the City said there were no
problems, and so who is at fault. He is saying it is a communication component that Rief and his team
will be responsible for.
Walsh noted he does not think there is any silver bullet. He said every city is different, as he was at one of
his buildings for six hours in Golden Valley, and he knows their drill.
Johnson stated on the commercial side it is atypical and that it may be the City’s opportunity to squeeze it
to a commercial business when they are changing hands.
Walsh said he had four in the same building, they have to do all of them, and it takes time.
Johnson stated he also talked to Edwards about thinking of a way for the City to have an incentive-based
program for people to do this proactively. He noted Edwards is uncomfortable with the idea that the
government says, “We’re coming into your house because we need to fix this problem.”
Rief commented that he is also uncomfortable with the idea.
Johnson suggested there may be an incentive-based program that gets people to want to do the inspection
so they know they are good for the next ten years.
Walsh noted however it is rolled out, there will be tweaks along the way to constantly better the City’s
ordinances.
Johnson said he is very suspicious of what the City has budgeted for the actual expense and the number
given is a best-case scenario. Edwards does not know how this is going to go, but he has been doing these
in different cities for residential real estate transactions, and the inspection will uncover a lot of problems.
He commented that as long as things go down, no one thinks about sewer lines and assumes there aren’t
any problems. If there are tree roots going through the pipes or there are buckles, it’s very expensive. It
can also be weather-dependent at times. There will be an enormous amount of hiccups, it gets
complicated, and he would like to see more of a proactive approach holistically. For instance, a map could
be created saying, “This is the biggest problem area in the City” which would come from Met Council
data.
Rief stated he and Edwards have discussed the issue thoroughly and have looked at it lift station by lift
station. There is a flat rate of $276 a quarter; now it has changed to monthly. You look at your sewer
charge, but there could be a lift station section and those people will be given an incentive by the City
saying, “We know this problem is coming from your neighborhood. Do this inspection so we know it’s
not you, or you are going to get a charge of X amount because you are in the area.” He asked Johnson if
that is what he was thinking.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 13
Johnson indicated that is what he was thinking. He noted that would be a chipping-away approach. He is
shocked it is such a big issue. He said it will not get cheaper and the Met Council gets to write their own
bill.
Walsh stated he has not seen the Met Council reduce their bills.
Johnson said the City’s constituents do not realize the cost.
Crosby stated it has to be about the communication. The City needs to identify what needs to be done and
keep pushing it.
Johnson said the City did very well at taking extra money for the cost of water out of the general fund.
That meant that people that were on wells were subsidizing the cost for people that were getting City
water. By segregating, they are telling their constituents, “This is your expense and you have to be
responsible for it.” He stated that people have control over water usage and it’s usually only when the
water bill gets really high that they care about it. If somebody is subsidizing it, it shortens the reaction
time. This does not affect anyone with a septic system, because they are not contributing to the problem.
It is only people that are on City sewer. He suggested Staff/Council continue to think about other ways for
incentives to save money on their bill.
Walsh said it is the City’s responsibility to make sure it gets done, and there has to be a forced approach
because otherwise it will never get done.
Rief noted one thing that has been done in the past is sump pump inspections house-by-house, which is
part of the process whenever the City goes in for whatever reason.
Johnson stated that can be done as a function of this inspection, which is why he is saying it might take
more time to uncover where people are putting their discharges for their sump pumps, because they could
be running them underground and into the curb, and so forth.
Crosby wished everyone a post-Happy Father’s Day. He gave a shout out to the Police and First
Responders, thanking them during these very trying times. He said their hard work does not go unnoticed.
Seals stated the LMCD upsets her because, for instance, she doesn’t understand how an entity can spend
$150,000 on a study.
Crosby suggested the entire City Council should show up for a meeting.
Johnson said the LMCD does not care. The question really becomes, how does Orono get other cities to
care.
Crosby said if they watch, the funding is going into testing and public relations, and that is taxpayer
dollars.
Walsh stated that is why he thinks, as they get more and more LIDs, it is going to erode the need for the
organization.
Seals said she would have no problem shifting the City’s funds to the LMA, because they are
accomplishing something. She said she took her boat out on Stubbs Bay, and there were so many weeds
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 13
that it was ridiculous. She wondered if the LMCD was even looking at the lake. There does not need to be
another study; everyone knows there are a lot of weeds. There is also a lot of data to say how to get rid of
them, much like the carp study.
Crosby stated it would be okay for the LMCD to be effective. He does not disagree that the LMA has
been more effective, but if the LMCD turned themselves around and went with a similar line of thinking
as the LMA, they could be effective.
Seals said that is her big question, how does that get fixed, because it is a waste of people’s money.
Johnson stated that seven cities need to point in the same direction and instruct their representative and
get the by-laws changed.
Crosby said he finds it interesting that other cities are okay with consistently paying for studies.
Walsh noted it was because they do not care, because they are paying so little and do not want to be part
of a controversy.
Rief said it is a blip on Minnetonka’s budget; they write a $65-68,000 check from their $50 million
budget.
Seals stated it is not about the amount. It is wasteful; the LMCD should be using the money wisely. She
suggested again going to an LMCD meeting.
Johnson said they are not doing live meetings yet and are still remote.
Seals commented that the restaurants have people sitting outside, which is good. The local kids are getting
excited because Governor Walz is slowly loosening the restraints for kids’ sports. She read an article out
of the UK which stated kids are more likely to get hit by lightning than get coronavirus. Kids are still
doing tournaments; they are going out-of-state. She noted she loves and supports the Police.
Crosby encouraged everyone to support the restaurants because they are still hurting with limited seating.
Walsh noted it was a great Father’s Day. They got out in the boat the first time this year. He said it is still
crazy to see all the stuff going on in Downtown Minneapolis. The City Council will be off for three
weeks; there will only be two more meetings before the election season opens up. He encouraged
everyone to be safe and enjoy the lake, because the 4th of July is coming up. He stated 95% of all
incidents happen the four days before and after the 4th of July. He also asked for people to not discharge
anything out into the lake.
CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT
Rief noted road construction is still in full swing. He took a lot of notes related to Mr. Anderson’s
comments and there will be a meeting to discuss a few of the items. He said it is hard to justify supporting
continued studies with no action. He will be asking what the equipment replacement funds and the Save
the Lake funds are going to be used for. People are asking for assistance; they should put a program in
place that can do that. City Staff worked with Gary at The Narrows to get their expanded patio on the
back side and worked with him and the County to get the front side approved as well. He said they have
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, June 22, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 13
worked a lot on the mandated COVID-19 preparedness policy, training staff, and have had interviews for
the position open at the front desk. He noted elections are coming up.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None.
Walsh noted the City did a Proclamation honoring June 23 as International Widows Day. He stated there
are currently 14 million widows in the United States, 250 million widows globally, and 585,000 minor
children who are directly affected by the loss of a father. There was a Minneapolis West chapter
established in 2013 that serves to empower women in widowhood within the Orono area which helps to
provide them with tools to lean into life, build resilience, and make positive differences in their own lives
with others in the community. He read as follows: “Therefore, I, Dennis Walsh, Mayor of Orono, do
hereby proclaim June 23 as International Widows Day, a United Nations Day of Observance, and I
encourage all citizens to join me in recognizing and supporting the Minneapolis West Chapter of Modern
Widows Club in raising awareness for the need for advocacy, mentoring, and leadership for women in
widowhood.”
ADJOURNMENT
Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 7:16 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 4, Nays 0.
ATTEST:
_____________________________________ _______________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
Orono City Council
Work Session Minutes
Monday, June 22, 2020
Council Chambers
5:00 p.m.
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, Finance Director Ron Olson, and City Clerk Anna Carlson.
1.Budget Discussion
Finance Director Ron Olson provided an update to the Council on the draft 2021 Budget
Information. Olson stated the expenditure information that has been provided has been
prepared by each department and reviewed with the City Administrator. The Council
discussed and gave guidance about the numbers provided. Olson will bring back the
draft 2021 Budget at a future work session to discuss any other possible changes.
Adjourned: 5:27 p.m. CITY OF ORONO:
__________________________________
Dennis Walsh, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
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
114157 to 114301, totaling $833,016.34.
3.Noteworthy Payments.
Vendor Amount Description of Payment
#114194 4 Seasons Roofing $7,400.00 Payment for roof repair work done at the Public Works
building.
#114214 City of Long Lake $108,478.50 Payment for 3rd quarter fire service.
#114264 MP Asphalt Maintenance $22,100.00 Payment for crack sealing at Willow Drive, Old Crystal
Bay Rd W and Watertown Rd.
#114274 Omann Contracting Co $190,430.43 First payment for 2020 street improvement project.
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: July 13, 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: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CENTURY LINK 07/06/2020 114087 060420 601-49400-321 WATER PLANT PHONE/INTERNET 4/24-5/23/20 Water 106.02-
CENTURY LINK 07/06/2020 114087 1493189475 614-49840-329 INTERNET 5/20-5/7/20 Cable Franchise 1,056.44-
Total 114087:1,162.46-
POST BOARD 06/23/2020 114157 Wiebusch 101-42110-441 WIEBUSCH-2020 Police Department 90.00
Total 114157:90.00
Anderst, Gary 06/26/2020 114158 062420 101-22205 REFUND LA20-000033 3382 SHORELINE DR 700.00
Anderst, Gary 06/26/2020 114158 062420 101-34420 REFUND LA20-000033 3382 SHORELINE DR 275.00
Total 114158:975.00
B. JOHN LINDAHL, JR.06/26/2020 114159 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00272 2465 NORTH SH 2,500.00
Total 114159:2,500.00
Carlson, Gerald & Diane 06/26/2020 114160 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00053 2496 OLD BEACH 700.00
Total 114160:700.00
CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL LLC 06/26/2020 114161 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS18-000045 2845 LILLIAN 1,000.00
CHAMBERLAIN CAPITAL LLC 06/26/2020 114161 062520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND RPS18-000045 2845 LILLIAN 30.00-
Total 114161:970.00
DVS RENEWAL 06/26/2020 114162 061920 101-42110-441 SQUAD #263 Police Department 42.25
Total 114162:42.25
Mitlyng, Benjamin 06/26/2020 114163 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00230 870 WINDJAMME 2,500.00
Total 114163:2,500.00
Orono Orchard LLC 06/26/2020 114164 062520 101-41900-489 ESCROW REFUND - STONEWOOD Central Services 5,000.00
Orono Orchard LLC 06/26/2020 114164 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - STONEWOOD 2,500.00
Orono Orchard LLC 06/26/2020 114164 062520 101-39615 CREDIT FEE 225.00-
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114164:7,275.00
Steinhafel, Gregg & Denise 06/26/2020 114165 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000032 2265 NORTH SH 700.00
Steinhafel, Gregg & Denise 06/26/2020 114165 062520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000032 2265 NORTH SH 21.00-
Total 114165:679.00
TWIN CITY STRIPING 06/26/2020 114166 052120 101-43000-408 STRIPING - OCB, MCCULLEY, WILLOW S Public Works Department 2,916.97
Total 114166:2,916.97
Vogstrom, Eric 06/26/2020 114167 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000050 2710 PENCE LN 700.00
Vogstrom, Eric 06/26/2020 114167 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA20-000016 2710 PENCE LN 700.00
Vogstrom, Eric 06/26/2020 114167 062520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND LA20-000016 2710 PENCE LN 21.00-
Total 114167:1,379.00
West Bay Homes Corp 06/26/2020 114168 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS19-000084 1080 HERITAG 1,000.00
Total 114168:1,000.00
Wischmeier, Shawn & Kelly 06/26/2020 114169 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-00525 540 BIG ISLAND 10,000.00
Wischmeier, Shawn & Kelly 06/26/2020 114169 062520 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND GLA18-000006 540 BIG ISLAN 1,000.00
Wischmeier, Shawn & Kelly 06/26/2020 114169 062520 101-39615 ESCROW REFUND GLA18-000006 540 BIG ISLAN 30.00-
Total 114169:10,970.00
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 07/01/2020 114170 07012020 603-49500-322 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLS 206.01
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 07/01/2020 114170 07012020 601-49400-322 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLS Water 68.67
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 07/01/2020 114170 07012020 602-49450-322 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLS Sewer 206.01
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 07/01/2020 114170 07012020 651-49910-322 2ND QTR UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 206.01
Total 114170:686.70
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 07/02/2020 114179 2417360 101-45210-091 BEER Golf Course 156.15
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 07/02/2020 114179 2418734 101-45210-091 BEER Golf Course 161.25
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 07/02/2020 114179 2422578 101-45210-091 BEER Golf Course 331.25
CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 07/02/2020 114179 2424504 101-45210-091 BEER Golf Course 118.20
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114179:766.85
Dayton, Judson 07/02/2020 114180 070120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 18-3995 825 OLD CRYSTAL B 5,000.00
Total 114180:5,000.00
Halvorson, George 07/02/2020 114181 070120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - 18--3997 1300 BRACKETTS 1,000.00
Total 114181:1,000.00
Januik, Robert 07/02/2020 114182 070120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-01556 2610 MAPLERID 1,000.00
Total 114182:1,000.00
Maetzold Homes Inc 07/02/2020 114183 070120 101-22205 RPS20-000047 2740 SHADYWOOD 1,000.00
Total 114183:1,000.00
Minnesota DVS 07/02/2020 114184 062620 101-42110-550 2000 GMC YUKON Police Department 10.00
Total 114184:10.00
NORTON HOMES 07/02/2020 114185 070120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS18-000083 4330 LAKEVI 1,000.00
Total 114185:1,000.00
Schottler, Kimberly 07/02/2020 114186 070120 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS19-000063 2740 SHADY 1,000.00
Total 114186:1,000.00
CENTURY LINK 07/06/2020 114192 060420 601-49400-321 WATER PLANT PHONE/INTERNET 4/24-5/23/20 Water 106.02
Total 114192:106.02
CENTURY LINK 07/06/2020 114193 1493189475 614-49840-329 INTERNET 5/20-5/7/20 Cable Franchise 1,056.44
Total 114193:1,056.44
4 Seasons Roofing 07/13/2020 114194 1064 101-41900-404 ROOF REPAIR @ PW'S Central Services 7,400.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114194:7,400.00
A 1 RENTAL 07/13/2020 114195 148833 101-45200-415 SOD KICKER RENTAL Parks 22.00
Total 114195:22.00
ADVANCED FIRST AID INC 07/13/2020 114196 0620-287 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 1,399.00
Total 114196:1,399.00
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 07/13/2020 114197 417798634 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 06/20/20-7/20/20 121.76
Total 114197:121.76
ALLSTREAM 07/13/2020 114198 16910092 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 06/23-07/22/20 Police Department 306.95
ALLSTREAM 07/13/2020 114198 16910092 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 06/23-07/22/20 Central Services 429.51
ALLSTREAM 07/13/2020 114198 16910092 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 06/23-07/22/20 Water 71.62
ALLSTREAM 07/13/2020 114198 16910092 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 06/23-07/22/20 Sewer 163.71
ALLSTREAM 07/13/2020 114198 16910092 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 06/23-07/22/20 Golf Course 51.16
Total 114198:1,022.95
ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURN 07/13/2020 114199 63304 101-42110-570 OFFICE FURNITURE Police Department 4,443.91
Total 114199:4,443.91
APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUT 07/13/2020 114200 20193 101-41900-319 ADMINISTRATIVE FEE 07/20 Central Services 566.50
Total 114200:566.50
ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS L 07/13/2020 114201 54MNI90317 101-41300-489 SCANS FOR DATA REQUEST Administration 179.00
Total 114201:179.00
Aspen Mills 07/13/2020 114202 258621 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 210.60
Total 114202:210.60
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767114 101-45200-415 BEDERWOOD PARK Parks 164.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767115 101-45200-415 SUMMIT BEACH Parks 164.00
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767116 101-45200-415 HACKBERRY PARK Parks 133.00
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767117 101-45210-415 ORONO GOLF COURSE Golf Course 133.00
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767118 101-45200-415 CRYSTAL BAY PLAYGROUND Parks 66.50
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767119 101-45200-415 NAVARRE PLAYGROUND Parks 164.00
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767120 101-45200-415 FRENCH CREEK PRESERVE Parks 66.50
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767121 101-45200-415 LURTON PARK Parks 66.50
BIFFS INC 07/13/2020 114203 W767122 101-45220-415 BRUSH SITE Brush Site 66.50
Total 114203:1,024.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0251365 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 1,380.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0251365 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 230.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0251365 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE Engineering 747.50
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252953 435-48972-304 2019 STREET IMPROVEMENTS 19-001 1,968.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252954 101-43280-304 LA19-000022 WILLOW BAY SANCTUARY Special Services 314.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252955 101-43280-304 LA18-000036 2635 KELLY PARKWAY Special Services 376.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252956 101-43280-304 LA18-000072 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE Special Services 186.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252957 101-43280-304 LA18-000072 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE Special Services 531.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252959 651-16500 2020 DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS 20-022 1,553.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252960 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 460.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252961 602-16500 2020 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 20-014 3,414.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252962 435-48973-304 2020 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 20-001 2020 Street Improvements 29,410.25
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252963 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS 21-001 413.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.07/13/2020 114204 0252964 225-45200-304 BEDERWOOD PARK IMPROVEMENT 19-032 396.00
Total 114204:41,378.75
BRANDON MAURER 07/13/2020 114205 062520 101-43000-226 REIMB FOR BOOTS Public Works Department 200.00
Total 114205:200.00
Bratt Tree Company 07/13/2020 114206 3922 101-45200-404 CASCO TREE REMOVAL Parks 400.00
Total 114206:400.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 010720 101-41300-489 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION-CONDOLENCES Administration 88.56
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 011320-2 101-45210-240 GOLF COURSE COFFEE MAKER Golf Course 49.68
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 011520 101-39640 BCA NIBRS TRAINING - J. WERDER 25.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 012320 101-42400-437 TRAINING FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL - R. PEITSO Building & Zoning 510.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 020320 101-41300-433 MCFOA MEMBERSHIP - A. HENTGES Administration 46.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 021820-1 101-42400-439 PC MEETING WORKSHOP Building & Zoning 71.03
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 022620-1 101-41110-439 WS MEAL Mayor & Council 50.52
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 030420-1 710-49970-221 POLYCOM - ADMIN CONFERENCE REFUND 322.52-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 031020 101-41110-439 WS MEAL Mayor & Council 64.30
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 031020-1 101-41110-439 CC MEETING COOKIES Mayor & Council 8.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 031220-1 603-49500-221 COMMUNITY EDUCATION SUPPLIES 7.52
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 031220-2 603-49500-221 COMMUNITY EDUCATION SUPPLIES 26.15
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 031520 101-41410-221 FACE SHIELDS COVID 19 Elections 335.24
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 032320-4 101-42110-352 ID CARDS Police Department 195.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 032420-2 101-42110-437 TRAINING - S. SCHULTZ Police Department 5.97
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 040120 101-42110-352 PERMIT TO PURCHASE CARDS Police Department 112.50
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 041420-2 701-49800-240 FLASHLIGHT FOR EQUIPMENT REPAIRS 67.59
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 041620-2 101-41300-437 MCFOA CERTIFICATION Administration 145.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 041620-3 101-41300-437 CLERKS TRAINING REFUND Administration 145.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 041820 101-45210-352 PRINTING Golf Course 34.40
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 042020 101-19999 2020 STREETS 20-001 2,800.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 042020-1 101-42400-208 CODE BOOKS FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL Building & Zoning 407.52
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 042220-1 101-41900-321 COVID-19 TRACFONE MINUTES Central Services 3.17
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 042320-1 101-41300-489 CELL PHONE EXPENSE COVID 19 Administration 22.74
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 050120 710-49970-416 SCANPRO SOFTWARE-MICROFICHE 249.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 050620-3 101-45200-416 BIG ISLAND CAMERA Parks 19.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 050620-4 101-42110-402 SEATBELT EXTENDERS Police Department 70.92
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 051220-1 101-42400-240 FLASHLIGHTS FOR BUILDING OFFICIAL Building & Zoning 39.77
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 052220 101-43000-437 TREE TRAINING Public Works Department 960.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 052620-1 101-41110-439 COUNCIL MEETING COVID BOTTLED WATER Mayor & Council 8.37
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 052620-2 101-41300-489 CELL PHONE COVID Administration 22.74
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 053020-1 101-41110-437 OFFICERS LUNCH (10)Mayor & Council 205.67
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060420 101-43000-489 19-046 BRACKETTS POINT M&O ROW PERMIT Public Works Department 660.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060620 101-45200-416 BIG ISLAND CAMERA Parks 19.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060620-1 101-45200-416 BIG ISLAND CAMERA Parks 19.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060820 101-41900-221 SPEAKER CABLE Central Services 30.03
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060820-1 710-49970-416 DROP BOX RENEWAL 119.88
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060820-2 101-41110-439 COUNCIL MTG COVID-BOTTLED WATER Mayor & Council 3.98
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060820-3 101-42400-437 TRAINING FOR ADMIN - A. HENTGES Building & Zoning 46.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060920 101-45210-221 REMOTE CARD READER Golf Course 41.93
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 060920-1 101-41300-433 MCFOA MEMBERSHIP - N. DICKHAUSEN Administration 46.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061020-1 101-41300-437 2020 MCFOA CONFERENCE REFUND Administration 295.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061220 101-42110-402 CARWASH SQUAD #261 Police Department 15.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061220-1 101-42110-402 CAR WASH SUPPLIES Police Department 30.34
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061620 101-42110-221 LIGHT FOR BIKE PATROL Police Department 75.26
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061620-1 701-49800-212 BOAT FUEL 17.23
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061720-2 101-42110-321 SCREEN PROTECTOR Police Department 58.99
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061720-3 701-49800-212 BOAT FUEL 11.63
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061720-4 701-49800-221 BOAT OARS 51.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061720-5 101-41300-433 ICMA MEMBERSHIP - D. RIEF Administration 1,034.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061720-6 101-45210-201 CREDIT CARD READER Golf Course 81.85
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061820 101-42110-437 BCA TRAINING REFUND - A. LANGE Police Department 375.00-
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061820-1 101-41410-489 ELECTION SUPPLIES-COVID Elections 17.20
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 061920 101-41300-489 THERMOMETERS COVID Administration 329.95
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 062220 701-49800-212 BOAT FUEL 12.90
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 062320 101-42110-439 BUSINESS LUNCH Police Department 28.73
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 062520 101-41300-433 MCFOA MEMBERSHIP - A. CARLSON Administration 46.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 070720 101-45210-091 GOLF COURSE RESALE Golf Course 136.95
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 110419-3 101-42400-433 SURVEY MONKEY Building & Zoning 408.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 111919-2 101-42110-352 CHRISTMAS CARDS Police Department 251.03
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2020 114207 121719 101-42400-439 PC MEETING SNACKS Building & Zoning 11.32
Total 114207:1,550.96
CARGILL SALT 07/13/2020 114208 2905488912 601-49400-216 SALT FOR NAV WTR PLANT Water 5,195.35
Total 114208:5,195.35
CECE S SIGNS 07/13/2020 114209 8412 101-43000-224 SIGNS Public Works Department 60.00
Total 114209:60.00
CEMSTONE 07/13/2020 114210 C2180559 101-45200-223 BEDERWOOD SHED PAD Parks 718.04
Total 114210:718.04
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062320 602-49450-381 1222 BRACKETTS PT RD GAS 6/20/20-5/19/20 Sewer 21.24
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062920 601-49400-381 GAS SERVICE 05/21/20-06/22/20 Water 423.57
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062920 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICE 05/21/20-06/22/20 Sewer 342.19
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062920 101-41900-381 GAS SERVICE 05/21/20-06/22/20 Central Services 93.09
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062920 101-42110-381 GAS SERVICE 05/21/20-06/22/20 Police Department 36.65
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 062920 101-45210-381 GAS SERVICE 05/21/20-06/22/20 Golf Course 25.52
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 07/13/2020 114211 3000093743 602-49450-406 GAS SERVICE TO LS#1 Sewer 4,116.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114211:5,058.26
Century Link 07/13/2020 114212 061920 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET Golf Course 140.24
Total 114212:140.24
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4053172787 101-45210-319 GOLF MAT SERVICE Golf Course 8.92
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4053794662 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 3.50
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4053794662 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 59.54
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4053794662 101-43000-404 MAT SERVICE - PW Public Works Department 14.40
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4054448338 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 3.50
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4054448338 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 59.54
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4055027464 101-43000-221 SHOP TOWELS Public Works Department 3.50
CINTAS CORPORATION 07/13/2020 114213 4055027464 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 59.54
Total 114213:212.44
CITY OF LONG LAKE 07/13/2020 114214 00201492 101-42260-318 3RD QTR 2020 FIRE SERVICE Fire Protection Services 108,478.50
Total 114214:108,478.50
CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 07/13/2020 114215 070220 602-49450-387 SEWER SERVICE - 2ND QTR 2020 Sewer 164.00
Total 114215:164.00
City of Orono Utilities 07/13/2020 114216 2ND QTR 20 101-41900-382 2ND QTR 2020 UB - CH Central Services 578.56
City of Orono Utilities 07/13/2020 114216 2ND QTR 20 101-42110-382 2ND QTR 2020 UB - PD Police Department 578.57
City of Orono Utilities 07/13/2020 114216 2ND QTR 20 101-41900-382 2ND QUARTER 2020 POST OFFICE Central Services 234.41
City of Orono Utilities 07/13/2020 114216 2ND QTR 20 101-41900-382 2ND QTR 2020 UB-PW Central Services 348.89
City of Orono Utilities 07/13/2020 114216 2ND QTR 20 601-49400-382 2ND QUARTER 2020 - WATER PLANT Water 400.73
Total 114216:2,141.16
CITY OF WAYZATA 07/13/2020 114217 070820 602-49450-387 2ND QUARTER 2020 SEWER Sewer 16,406.90
CITY OF WAYZATA 07/13/2020 114217 070820 601-49400-387 2ND QUARTER 2020 WATER Water 8,762.65
Total 114217:25,169.55
CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/13/2020 114218 CVC19526 710-49970-416 SOFTWARE SUPPORT - 7/1/19-12/31/20 6,523.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114218:6,523.00
COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 07/13/2020 114219 200630 101-43000-224 ASPHALT Public Works Department 194.95
Total 114219:194.95
CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 07/13/2020 114220 0015756 101-41900-223 WINDOW CLEANER Central Services 167.00
Total 114220:167.00
CORE & MAIN 07/13/2020 114221 M398079 651-49910-227 FLARED END SECTION Storm Water 285.64
Total 114221:285.64
DELTA DENTAL 07/13/2020 114222 RIS0002923 101-21709 0037220072 JULY 2020 DENTAL 3,204.13
Total 114222:3,204.13
DIAMOND MOWERS INC. 07/13/2020 114223 0174697-IN 701-49800-240 UNIT 450 REPAIR TOOLS 198.63
Total 114223:198.63
DOG WASTE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114224 348569 101-45200-223 DOG WASTE ROLL BAGS-LURTON Parks 434.48
Total 114224:434.48
DPC INDUSTRIES 07/13/2020 114225 827000897-2 601-49400-216 CHEMICALS Water 1,788.58
Total 114225:1,788.58
EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 07/13/2020 114226 0123617-IN 101-43000-224 STREET SIGN BRACKETS Public Works Department 276.55
Total 114226:276.55
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/13/2020 114227 780653 101-41300-340 MSSR JOB AD Administration 90.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/13/2020 114227 782773 101-41300-340 MSSR JOB AD Administration 240.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/13/2020 114227 783677 101-41300-340 ORDINANCE 246 Administration 59.60
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/13/2020 114227 783678 101-42400-340 JULY PH NOTICE Building & Zoning 38.74
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/13/2020 114227 783828 101-41300-340 MSSR JOB AD Administration 90.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114227:518.34
Emerald Locksmith LLC 07/13/2020 114228 040120 601-49400-404 REPAIR LOCKS Water 749.00
Total 114228:749.00
Emergency Medical Products Inc 07/13/2020 114229 2147900 101-42110-221 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 175.00
Emergency Medical Products Inc 07/13/2020 114229 2152516 101-42110-240 COVID-SUPPLIES Police Department 28.36
Total 114229:203.36
FASTENAL 07/13/2020 114230 MNPLY1234 101-43000-224 WASHERS - PLASTIC FOR STREET SIGNS Public Works Department 79.35
FASTENAL 07/13/2020 114230 MNPLY1235 601-49400-227 MARKING PAINT Water 79.80
Total 114230:159.15
FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 07/13/2020 114231 0455406-1 601-49400-227 HORNS Water 726.11
Total 114231:726.11
FLEXIBLE PIPE TOOL CO 07/13/2020 114232 25098 701-49800-221 REPAIR UNIT #714 309.45
Total 114232:309.45
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-459975 101-45210-212 MOWER OIL Golf Course 7.17
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-460003 101-45210-212 MOWER OIL Golf Course 4.78
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-461919 701-49800-221 TRUCK OIL FILTER 7.01
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-461920 701-49800-221 TRUCK OIL FILTER 7.01
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-462518 701-49800-221 MOWER SPARK PLUG 5.70
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-478788 701-49800-221 OIL AND AIR FILTERS - UNIT 430 134.90
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-478805 701-49800-403 BATTERY FOR EASEMENT MACHINE 106.76
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-478974 701-49800-222 OIL FILTERS 91.02
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/13/2020 114233 3270-479055 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE - 431 Police Department 291.34
Total 114233:655.69
GOPHER ACE 07/13/2020 114234 001988/1 651-49910-227 STORM SEWER REPAIR Storm Water 5.38
GOPHER ACE 07/13/2020 114234 1959/1 701-49800-222 BALL VALVE 19.99
GOPHER ACE 07/13/2020 114234 2155/1 101-45220-223 BRUSH SITE BOX FAN Brush Site 19.99
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
GOPHER ACE 07/13/2020 114234 2207/1 701-49800-221 REPAIR EASEMENT MACHINE 8.20
Total 114234:53.56
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 07/13/2020 114235 0060651 602-49450-489 LOCATES Sewer 331.42
GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 07/13/2020 114235 0060651 601-49400-489 LOCATES Water 331.43
Total 114235:662.85
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA 07/13/2020 114236 3609210195 101-45210-092 POP Golf Course 853.88
GREAT LAKES COCA-COLA 07/13/2020 114236 3609210473 101-45210-092 BEVERAGES FOR CONCESSIONS RESALE-GC Golf Course 610.65
Total 114236:1,464.53
GROUP HEALTH INC 07/13/2020 114237 W817460 101-42110-135 EAP HEALTH FOR 6/2020 Police Department 12.00
Total 114237:12.00
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97251875 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 6/2020 53,852.50
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97251875 101-15998 COBRA HEALTH INS 6/2020 3,398.50
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97251875 101-42110-135 HEALTH INS 6/2020 - POLICE CONT Police Department 739.50
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97251875 101-15998 CREDIT DT 3/20 - 5/20 2,218.50-
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97815949 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 7/2020 53,852.50
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97815949 101-42110-135 HEALTH INS 7/2020 - POLICE CONT Police Department 739.50
HEALTH PARTNERS 07/13/2020 114238 97815949 101-15998 COBRA HEALTH INS 7/2020 3,398.50
Total 114238:113,762.50
Hennepin County Property Tax 07/13/2020 114239 0620-38 602-49450-489 SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS Sewer 770.00
Total 114239:770.00
IMA GROUP MANAGEMENT CO 07/13/2020 114240 3125606 101-42110-319 PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING - T. WIEBUSCH Police Department 650.00
Total 114240:650.00
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 07/13/2020 114241 3060339 101-45210-091 BEER Golf Course 294.20
JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 07/13/2020 114241 3062012 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE-GC Golf Course 174.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114241:468.20
JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE I 07/13/2020 114242 62402 101-42110-404 BUILDING MAINTENANCE Police Department 130.00
Total 114242:130.00
JR'S ADVANCED RECYCLERS 07/13/2020 114243 101176 603-49500-442 SPRING CLEAN UP 838.00
Total 114243:838.00
KOETTING, BETH 07/13/2020 114244 062220 999-10015 UTILITY REFUND 150.00
Total 114244:150.00
KRIHA ELECTRIC 07/13/2020 114245 3013 602-49450-406 ELECTRICAL FOR LS19 & 30 Sewer 1,200.00
Total 114245:1,200.00
KYLE KIRSCHNER 07/13/2020 114246 070320 101-42110-317 ANIMAL CARE Police Department 253.63
Total 114246:253.63
LAKESCAPE LLC 07/13/2020 114247 529 101-45200-404 BEACH WEED CONTROL Parks 674.68
Total 114247:674.68
LANO EQUIPMENT 07/13/2020 114248 03-758572 101-45200-415 BOBCAT TRACKED RENTAL Parks 300.00
Total 114248:300.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 07/13/2020 114249 070620 703-49960-361 COMP MUNICIPAL LIABILITY INS 84,606.00
Total 114249:84,606.00
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 48929 710-49970-401 NETWORK SUPPORT 4/19-6/8 687.50
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 48959 101-42110-310 POLICE RECORDS 7/20 Police Department 7,305.00
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 48959 710-49970-329 INTERNET 7/20 509.00
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 48959 710-49970-311 HOSTED SERVERS 7/20 1,093.00
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 48959 710-49970-329 BACKUPS 7/20 804.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 49025 710-49970-221 ENTRUST TOKEN - VARGAS 15.00
LOGIS 07/13/2020 114250 49025 710-49970-416 CISCO WEB SECURITY RENEWAL 1,725.00
Total 114250:12,138.50
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/13/2020 114251 21829612 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 704.13
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/13/2020 114251 21829613 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 1,196.00
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/13/2020 114251 21829633 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 1,390.90
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/13/2020 114251 21851298 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 3,395.08
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/13/2020 114251 21851980 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 594.00
Total 114251:7,280.11
MARGARET UNG 07/13/2020 114252 062020 101-41900-321 COVID-19 PHONE MINUTES Central Services 17.31
Total 114252:17.31
MARKUSEN, LOCKIE B 07/13/2020 114253 070720 999-10015 REFUND OVERPAYMENT 1135 HERITAGE LN AC 169.14
Total 114253:169.14
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 07/13/2020 114254 0001112082 602-49450-383 WASTEWATER CHARGES 08/2020 Sewer 51,616.28
Total 114254:51,616.28
Metro Sales Inc 07/13/2020 114255 INV1611350 710-49970-401 B&Z COPIERS 3/19/20-6/18/20 100.22
Metro Sales Inc 07/13/2020 114255 INV1611351 710-49970-401 COPIERS 3/19/20-6/18/20 642.28
Total 114255:742.50
METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 07/13/2020 114256 2458 101-42400-310 MAY INSPECTIONS Building & Zoning 8,400.50
Total 114256:8,400.50
MHSRC/Range 07/13/2020 114257 629430-7761 101-42110-437 TRAINING Police Department 435.00
Total 114257:435.00
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 07/13/2020 114258 00061717 701-49800-222 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN 29.70
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114258:29.70
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/13/2020 114259 P89563 701-49800-212 CHAINSAW BAR AND FUEL MIX OIL 19.65
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/13/2020 114259 P92610 701-49800-221 TRACTOR BELT 133.09
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/13/2020 114259 P94477 701-49800-221 REPAIR BACKPACK BLOWER 4.20
Total 114259:156.94
Minnesota Secretary of State - No 07/13/2020 114260 062620 101-41300-433 ADMIN NOTARY A. JOHNSON Administration 120.00
Total 114260:120.00
Minnesota Topsoil 07/13/2020 114261 2020002 651-49910-406 YARD WASTE HAULOUT Storm Water 4,663.00
Total 114261:4,663.00
MN DEPT OF HEALTH 07/13/2020 114262 4126-2020 601-49400-441 WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OPERATOR CLASS C L Water 23.00
Total 114262:23.00
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167132 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES Police Department 129.90-
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167133 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT Police Department 25.98-
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167187 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 4.78
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167229 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 58.99
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167549 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 33.13
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 167644 101-42110-221 CLEANING SUPPLIES/COVID Police Department 10.47
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 168284 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS CIVIL UNREST Police Department 3.98
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 168401 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 18.47
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 168725 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 9.99
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 168938 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS Police Department 13.79
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 168961 101-42110-322 POSTAGE Police Department 53.46
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 169171 101-42110-322 SHIPPING - EQUIP REPAIR Police Department 33.58
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 169186 101-42110-201 WATER FOR PATROL HOT WEEKEND Police Department 11.18
MOUND TRUE VALUE 07/13/2020 114263 169210 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES Police Department 3.00
Total 114263:98.94
MP Asphalt Maintenance 07/13/2020 114264 0056 101-43000-408 CRACK SEALING -WILLOW, OCB W, WATERTOW Public Works Department 22,100.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114264:22,100.00
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/13/2020 114265 1260268-00 701-49800-221 GREENSMASTER REPAIR 150.84
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/13/2020 114265 1260269-00 701-49800-221 GREENSMASTER REPAIR 296.64
MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/13/2020 114265 1264256-00 101-45210-223 GOLF IRRIGATION SPRINKLER Golf Course 138.38
Total 114265:585.86
MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATI 07/13/2020 114266 00345110 101-41900-352 CODE OF ORDINANCE UPDATES Central Services 2,192.00
Total 114266:2,192.00
MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 07/13/2020 114267 0554657CP 101-43000-226 PPE JACKET Public Works Department 67.03
Total 114267:67.03
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325245 601-49400-221 BULBS Water 16.98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325315 601-49400-221 BULBS Water 16.98-
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325384 601-49400-227 WATER LINE REPAIR IN PLANT Water 5.49
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325424 101-45210-201 GOLF OFFICE SUPPLIES Golf Course 41.38
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325427 101-41900-223 LIGHT POLE PARTS Central Services 5.49
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325459 101-45200-223 BEDERWOOD VENTS Parks 4.29
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325473 101-42110-221 PARTS Police Department 1.55
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325594 602-49450-227 BATTERIES FOR LIFTSTATIONS Sewer 9.98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325635 101-45200-223 CASCO ACCESS SIGN REPAIR Parks 2.09
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325722 101-45200-223 SUPPLIES FOR SWIM BUOYS Parks 7.36
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325724 101-45200-223 SUPPLIES - SWIM BUOYS - SANDY BEACH Parks 27.47
NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/13/2020 114268 325725 101-45200-223 NUTS/BOLTS - SWIM BUOYS - SANDY BEACH Parks 1.23
Total 114268:106.33
NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS. 07/13/2020 114269 6732000720 101-21710 PERA LIFE 06/2020 352.00
Total 114269:352.00
Newegg Business Inc 07/13/2020 114270 1302813752 710-49970-221 LAPTOP FOR PD - T. SONNEK 554.99
Newegg Business Inc 07/13/2020 114270 1302815798 710-49970-221 COMPUTERS - A. HENTGES & A. JOHNSON 759.98
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114270:1,314.97
NORTHERN SPECIALITIES INC 07/13/2020 114271 00088868 101-45200-404 DOCK FENCE/GATE Parks 1,860.00
Total 114271:1,860.00
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 1007634010 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 35.74
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 1007651360 101-41410-221 ALCOHOL PADS Elections 69.90
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 1007651380 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 133.57
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 1008089380 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 33.14
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5083126730 101-41900-201 COVID 19 - DISINFECTANT WIPES Central Services 69.96
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5083154220 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 32.83
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5083154220 101-41410-221 ALCOHOL PADS Elections 27.96
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5088491000 101-41900-221 DESK ORGANIZER Central Services 39.99
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5088491000 101-41900-201 TAPE Central Services 12.56
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5088492800 710-49970-221 MOUSE PAD, WRIST 16.99
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5088492880 710-49970-221 KEYBOARD , WRIST 18.99
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5088492900 101-41900-221 WALL CLOCK Central Services 5.59
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 51171488600 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 63.50
OFFICE DEPOT 07/13/2020 114272 5140109610 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 75.22
Total 114272:635.94
OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 07/13/2020 114273 656244 651-49910-227 BOSMANS CHAIR Storm Water 178.50
OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 07/13/2020 114273 656244 602-49450-226 BOSMANS CHAIR Sewer 178.50
Total 114273:357.00
OMANN CONTRACTING COMPA 07/13/2020 114274 2020 STREE 435-20600 20-001 2020 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 10,022.66-
OMANN CONTRACTING COMPA 07/13/2020 114274 2020 STREE 435-48973-590 20-001 2020 STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2020 Street Improvements 200,453.09
Total 114274:190,430.43
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 07/13/2020 114275 23982 101-45200-404 FRENCH CREEK PARK VEGETATION MGMT Parks 400.00
Total 114275:400.00
PRIDE CONSTRUCTION & EXCA 07/13/2020 114276 060720 602-49450-443 SEWER MAIN FIX Sewer 6,800.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 17
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 114276:6,800.00
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 07/13/2020 114277 061920 603-49500-442 2020-SPRING CITY CLEAN UP DAY 5,886.60
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 07/13/2020 114277 JUNE 2020 101-45220-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 6/2020 Brush Site 36.27
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 07/13/2020 114277 JUNE 2020 101-41900-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 6/2020 Central Services 506.59
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 07/13/2020 114277 JUNE 2020 101-45200-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 6/2020 Parks 472.54
RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 07/13/2020 114277 JUNE 2020 101-45210-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 6/2020 Golf Course 83.59
Total 114277:6,985.59
ROB HOWELLS 07/13/2020 114278 062220 614-49840-319 2ND QTR 2019 VIDEO STREAMING Cable Franchise 490.00
Total 114278:490.00
Roles, Joshua 07/13/2020 114279 153712 101-42110-436 TOW REIMBURSEMENT - 20-4085 Police Department 303.81
Total 114279:303.81
Sieberg, Christopher 07/13/2020 114280 153713 101-42110-436 TOW REIMBURSEMENT - 20-4845 Police Department 303.81
Total 114280:303.81
SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 07/13/2020 114281 07062011534 701-49800-240 BRAKE REPAIR TOOL 295.00
Total 114281:295.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5961653SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 51.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5972638SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 309.60
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5985936SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 159.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5990410SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 100.95
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5993355SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 82.00
SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 07/13/2020 114282 5998890SO 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 124.20
Total 114282:826.75
St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 07/13/2020 114283 07012020 101-42110-226 COVID UNIFORMS Police Department 544.84
Total 114283:544.84
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 18
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 07/13/2020 114284 0011130 101-43000-404 DOOR LOCK REPAIR Public Works Department 94.00
Total 114284:94.00
STREETER & ASSOCIATES 07/13/2020 114285 070220 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND 2017-01661 1390 FOX STREE 2,500.00
Total 114285:2,500.00
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/13/2020 114286 0620LIFE 101-21710 LIFE INS-JUNE/2020 1,177.35
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/13/2020 114286 0620STD 101-21714 STD-JUN/2020 888.05
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/13/2020 114286 0720LIFE 101-21710 LIFE INS-JULY/2020 1,177.35
SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 07/13/2020 114286 0720STD 101-21714 STD-JUL/2020 888.05
Total 114286:4,130.80
TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 07/13/2020 114287 062220 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-06/2020 Law/Legal Services 2,825.25
Total 114287:2,825.25
THE GILLESPIE CENTER 07/13/2020 114288 062520 101-41800-490 2020 ANNUAL GRANT Human Services 9,500.00
Total 114288:9,500.00
THE HARTFORD 07/13/2020 114289 0620LTD 101-21713 LTD 06/2020 1,802.21
THE HARTFORD 07/13/2020 114289 0720LTD 101-21713 LTD 07/2020 1,802.21
Total 114289:3,604.42
THE HOME DEPOT 07/13/2020 114290 8341153 101-45200-223 BEDERWOOD SHED VENTS Parks 19.56
Total 114290:19.56
THOMSON WEST 07/13/2020 114291 842559232 101-42110-311 DATA PROCESSING Police Department 255.00
Total 114291:255.00
TIM SONNEK 07/13/2020 114292 INV1826717 101-42110-311 COMMUNICATION EXPENSE Police Department 16.11
Total 114292:16.11
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 19
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/13/2020 114293 M25699 101-42400-319 PC MINUTES Building & Zoning 148.00
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/13/2020 114293 M25699 101-45200-319 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES Parks 179.25
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/13/2020 114293 M25732 101-41110-439 CC MEETING MINUTES Mayor & Council 395.00
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/13/2020 114293 M25732 101-41110-439 CC MEETING MINUTES Mayor & Council 246.00
TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/13/2020 114293 M25732 101-42400-319 PC MINUTES Building & Zoning 357.75
Total 114293:1,326.00
TITAN MACHINERY 07/13/2020 114294 14211012 GP 701-49800-221 AIR FILTERS 197.23
Total 114294:197.23
TONY WHITE 07/13/2020 114295 070220 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 48.00
Total 114295:48.00
U.S. AutoForce 07/13/2020 114296 1964476 101-42110-402 TIRES Police Department 101.98
U.S. AutoForce 07/13/2020 114296 1964491 101-42110-402 TIRES Police Department 2,491.36
Total 114296:2,593.34
US Bank Equipment Finance 07/13/2020 114297 417840402 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76
Total 114297:596.76
WILLIAMS TOWING 07/13/2020 114298 153621 231-45650-436 TOWING FEES CASE #OR20004422 155.00
WILLIAMS TOWING 07/13/2020 114298 153690 231-45650-436 TOWING FEES CASE #200004524 155.00
Total 114298:310.00
XCEL ENERGY 07/13/2020 114299 688658821 225-45200-530 19-032 BEDERWOOD PARK ELECTICLA SERVIC 5,987.19
Total 114299:5,987.19
Yamaha Golf & Utility 07/13/2020 114300 01-235483 101-45210-240 GOLF CART KEYS Golf Course 20.65
Yamaha Golf & Utility 07/13/2020 114300 01-236468 101-45210-415 GOLF CART RENTAL Golf Course 1,100.00
Total 114300:1,120.65
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.07/13/2020 114301 708938 101-45210-415 GOLF CART LEASE Golf Course 1,647.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 20
Check Issue Dates: 6/23/2020 - 7/13/2020 Jul 09, 2020 01:54PM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
YAMAHA MOTOR CORP.07/13/2020 114301 709030 101-45210-415 GOLF UTILITY CART RENTAL Golf Course 295.00
Total 114301:1,942.00
Grand Totals: 833,016.34
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to appoint Alicia Johnson to the position of Municipal
Services Support Representative (MSSR) with a starting date of 07/13/20.
2. Background. The selection process for the MSSR position has been completed. A total of 37
applications were received. After an initial review of the applications, three applicants were selected to
be interviewed. These interviews were conducted by the City Clerk and Community Development
Director.
The top candidate for the position is Alicia Johnson. Alicia has knowledge of Orono’s current processes
and has be assisting in various administrative capacities since December 2019. Alicia has experience
working with Orono’s property records, scanning systems, Citizenserve, Elections and the city website.
Alicia has a strong work ethic and will be an excellent addition to our staff.
3. Cost. Alicia Johnson will be hired as the MSSR at the Start Step of Grade 5, with a salary of $46,410.95
on the Compensation Plan for Local 12 Employees. This is a full time position and is eligible for full city
benefits including enrollment in the Coordinated Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association
(PERA).
4. Funding. Funding for this position is included in the 2020 Administration and Planning & Zoning
budget.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the hiring of Alicia Johnson for the MSSR at the Start
Step of Grade 5, with a salary of $46,410.95.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve the appointment of Alicia Johnson to the position of Municipal Services Support
Representative (MSSR) at the Start Step of Grade 5, with a salary of $46,410.95, with the effective date
of July 13, 2020.
Item No.: 4 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Approval to Municipal Services Support Representative
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 for the disposal of unclaimed property.
Background. The Orono Police Department has unclaimed property that has been turned in or recovered
by the police department. The unclaimed property was found, abandoned or recovered 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
20-003506 2- Floor Jacks
4- Tires and rims 22”
4- Tires and rims 20”
1- Cordless Drill
1- Tow Strap
1- Tool box containing misc. tools
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.
Item No.: 5 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Approval to Dispose of unclaimed property
Presenter: Correy Farniok
Police Chief
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: 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 weeks the police department has received several guns (3) that were
dropped off by their owners and requested to be destroyed. These 3 guns will be properly disposed of by
the police department and public works.
2.Project Scope. Disposal of firearms.
20-004839 H. Schmidt revolver .22 caliber SN#100117
Lee Enfield sporterized .303 caliber SN#B------
Unknown brand BB gun No SN#
3.Staff Recommendation. I recommend the disposal of a firearms.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to dispose of 3 firearms.
Item No.: 6 Date: July 13, 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 to accept a donation from Schena Joswiak and Anita
Litecky
2.Background. The Police Department has received a $100 gift cards to Domino’s Pizza from Schena
Joswiak and 20 - $10 gifts cards to Caribou Coffee from Anita Litecky. The donations are in appreciation
to the Orono Police Department.
3.Project Scope. Accept the $100 Dominos gift card and the 20 $10 Caribou gift cards and distribute to
officers to use for a pizza for lunch and the gift cards will be distributed to the officers.
4.Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to accept the $100 Dominos gift card and the 20 -
$10 Caribou gift cards.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion for approval and to accept the $100 Dominos gift card and the 20- $10 Caribou gift cards
Item No.: 7 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Approval to Accept Donation from Schena Joswiak and Anita
Litechky
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 $17-$20 for the Custodian / Groundskeeper. The Clubhouse Manager and Custodian /
Groundskeeper will be part time employees. All other employees will be seasonal and fall under the 6
month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA membership.
3.Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates.
Name Position Wage
($/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
Approved 4-27-
2020
Mitchell Hall Parks and Golf Maintenance $16.00 Returnee
John Schmidt Brush Site Attendant $12.00 Resigned
Jacob Goman Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire
Approved 5-11-
2020 Tori Smith Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 New hire
Approved 6-8-2020 Barry Sullivan Custodian / Groundskeeper $17.00 New hire
Requesting
Approval
Gregory Conlon Brush Site Attendant $12.00 New hire
4.Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above.
Item No.: 8 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Appointment of 2020 Seasonal Employees
Presenter: Jason Goehring
Parks and Golf Course Supervisor
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By:Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Project.
2.Background. Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) provides sanitary sewer
treatment for the majority of communities (including Orono) in metropolitan area. Since 2005, MCES has
identified Orono as one of the communities who contribute excessive Inflow and Infiltration (I & I). The
City has been executing a sanitary sewer rehabilitation project annually to reduce I&I. Each year the City
works to identify inflow and infiltration points within the sanitary sewer system thought our annual
inspection program. These sites then inform our rehabilitation efforts for the year. In 2020 the City
received a excessive flow work plan assignment from MCES based on excessing flows in 2019 for
$363,540. I&I mitigation projects in 2020-24 may be used to accomplish the assignment.
3.Scope. The project includes the lining of 5,427 feet of Sewer Main and rehabilitation (sealing) of 32
sanitary sewer manholes. (Exhibit A)
4.Cost. The city received Bids from 3 contractors (Exhibit B). The low bid was for $ 275,718.18 from
Insituform Technologies. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of
NTE $25,000 for construction oversight and $10,000 for additional design work for the manhole portion
of the project. (Exhibit C)
Who Work Cost Status
Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Engineering $ 19,200.00 Not to exceed, Previously approved
Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Engineering $ 10,000.00 Not to exceed, Additional Design work
Insituform Technologies Construction $ 275,718.18 Pending award
Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $ 25,000.00 Not to exceed
Total $ 329,918.18
5.Funding. The project is funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The CIP and Annual Public works
plan have $290,000 allocated for this year’s project. The projected 2020 yearend balance is $1,287,310
6.Staff Recommendation. I recommend council award the project. While the overall cost of the
project exceeds the original planning estimates the work needs to be done and will be used to comply with
our exceedance work assignment.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to award the 2020 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project to Insituform Technologies for
$275,718.18 and to authorize Bolton and Menk to perform design and construction oversight for a fee not
to exceed $ 35,000.
Exhibits
A.Project Map
B.Bid Summary
C.Bolton and Menk Proposal.
Item No.: 9 Date: July13, 2020
Item Description: Sewer Rehabilitation Award
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Exhibit A.
Exhibit B. Bid Tab
2020 Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation
Contractor Total Bid Amount
Pember Companies
Minger Construction
Widmer Construction
H:\ORNO\2020 New Projects\Fee Estimate 2020 Sewer Improvements Construction Services.docx
July 8, 2020
City of Orono
Attn: Adam Edwards
PO Box 66
Orono, MN 55323
RE: 2020 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project - Construction Phase Services
Dear Adam:
As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction phase of the
2020 Sanitary Sewer Improvements Project.
Scope of Services
Public Coordination/Communications
Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified
staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the public with timely and accurate
information.
Construction Observation
Construction observation will be provided. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the
following:
• Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction -related meetings
• Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor
• Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the
plans and specifications
• Maintenance of construction documentation
• Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction -related
concerns and issues
Construction Administration
Construction administration duties will include the following:
• Administering a pre-construction meeting
• Administering project meetings
• Preparation of pay estimates
• Contractor communications
• Liaison with City Staff and Council
Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the
City of Orono’s contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and in GIS.
2019 Sanitary Sewer Improvement Project
October 8, 2019
Page 2
H:\ORNO\2020 New Projects\Fee Estimate 2020 Sewer Improvements Construction Services.d ocx
Manhole Investigation Scope Change
During the design phase of this project manhole investigation and condition assessment was requested as
part of the CIPP work. To complete the condition assessment of these manholes and develop construction
plans, our staff located each manhole, took photos of the exterior and interior conditions, and analyzed
those photos using a standardized format with rehabilitation recommendations. Not all the manholes that
were investigated as part of this project are currently behind rehabbed due to project budget con straints,
and that portion of the construction plans will be held for use on a subsequent project, adding efficiency
on that future work.
Fee Estimate
Based on the scope of Construction Services described above, we propose a not-to -exceed fee of $25,000
to be billed on an hourly basis.
Based on the scope of Manhole Investigation scope change described above, we pro pose a not-to -exceed
fee of $10,000 to be billed on an hourly basis for that added work.
Our total proposed fee for the remaining phases of this project is $35,000.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
David P. Martini, P.E.
Principal Engineer
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to get Council approval to extending a sewer main to
service 1000 Brown Road and waive of sewer connection fees.
2. Background. The property owner at 1000 Brown Road has requested sewer service be extended to
service the property. The property’s does not have adequate septic sites. The property is in the
Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). The nearest city sewer main is a gravity main on the south
end of Willow Drive.
3. Sewer Connection Fee. Per the City Fee Schedule the sewer connection fee is $5,380.00. The
estimated cost for the sewer main extension is $20,600.00. In light of the cost to extend the main
exceeding the connection fee cost the homeowner requests the City waive the connection fee.
4. Funding. All cost associated with the construction of the sewer and service line will be paid by the
resident. Upon completion and acceptance by the City, ongoing maintenance of the sewer main portion
of the project will be the City’s responsibility.
6. Way Forward. If the council approves of the project the follow steps would follow:
• The resident will acquire the necessary permits Permit process (MPCA, MCES, MCWD,
Hennepin County)
• The City will complete the design review
• The resident will construct the sewer main and service line.
• The City will inspect and then accept the sewer main.
7. Staff Recommendation. After consideration of the proposed project, it is my recommendation to
approve the sewer extension and to waive the connection fees.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to approve the sewer extensions and to waive the connection fees.
Exhibits
A. Location map showing sewer extension.
Item No.: 10 Date: July 13th, 2020
Item Description: Sewer Extension – 1000 Brown Road
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is for Council to award the East Long Lake Trail Project.
2. Background. At the May 29th, 2018 meeting, the City Council directed staff and the Parks
Commission to develop a plan for the conversion of northern section East Long Lake Road to a trail. .
The commission, city staff and our consultant have held several meeting and developed a concept plan for
the trail. The Council approved the plan on November 26th, 2018. In March of 2019 the city applied for
and in July of 2019 was awarded a Grant from the MnDNR for $150,000 for the project. The grant
contract prerequisites were met and the contract prepared by the DNR in June 2020. The original design
for the project included raising the trail through the low area at the north end. That area of the roadway
floods annually. During the preliminary permitting process we learned that this was going to require
significant modeling, design and mitigation expenses in order to be approved. Therefore we change the
plan to include a boardwalk though that area. Based on preliminary cost estimates we assumed some risk
during flood events and shortened the boardwalk to get the project within budget.
3. Project Scope. The scope of work includes removal of the existing asphalt, stabilizing the lakeshore
where required, construction of a 10ft wide multipurpose trail, boardwalk, overlook point, and
interpretive signage.
4. Cost. The City received 7 bids. The low bid was from Blackstone Contractors for $268,688.44.
The bid from Blackstone is well below the engineers estimate. Therefore we recommend adding back as
much boardwalk into the project as we can with in the budget via a change order.
Item Cost Comments
Design and Engineering $ 52,050.00 NTE- Previously approved
Construction $ 268,688.44 To be approved
Change Order (additional Boardwalk) $ 28,100.00
Construction Management $ 62,150.00 NTE- To be approved. Includes boardwalk design
change fee.
TOTAL $ 410,988.44
5. Funding. The MnDNR grant will fund $150,000 of the project cost. The remaining $260,520 would
paid from the Parks Enterprise and Stormwater funds.
Funding Source Amount Projected/ Budgeted
MnDNR Grant $ 150,000
Park Enterprise Fund $ 134,000
Stormwater Fund $ 127,000
TOTAL $ 411,000
6. Project Timeline.
When What
July 13th, 2020 Award
July-October 2020 Construction
7. Staff Recommendation. I recommend award to Blackstone and authorization to execute a change
order to increase the length of the boardwalk.
Item No.: 11 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: East Long Lake Trail Project (20-029) – Award
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to:
1. Award the East Long Lake Trail Project to Blackstone contracting for $268,688.44.
2. To authorize staff to negotiate a change order not to exceed $28,100 for additional boardwalk
length.
3. Accept the construction management fee Proposal from Bolton and Menk not to exceed $
62,150.00.
4. Approve the MnDOT Grant Contract C001-19-3B.
Exhibits
A. Project Layout
B. Bid Tab.
C. MnDNR Grant Contract
D. BMI Proposal
Exhibit A. Project Layout
Exhibit B. Bid Tab.
Contractor Bid Amount
Blackstone Contractors $ 268,688.44
GL Contracting $ 443,708.40
Meyer Contracting $ 424,618.63
Pember Companies $ 396,218.63
Rosti Construction $ 595,300.00
S.M.Hentges & Sons $ 444,991.00
Veit and Company $ 443,815.00
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
STATE OF MINNESOTA
GRANT CONTRACT
C001-19-3B
This grant contract is between the State of Minnesota, acting through its Commissioner of Natural Resources
("STATE") and City of Orono ("Grantee"), 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356.
Recitals
1. Under Minn. Stat. 84.026, the commissioner of natural resources is authorized to enter into contractual
agreements with any public or private entity for the provision of statutorily prescribed natural resources
services by the department.
2. Under Minn. Laws 2019, 1st Special Session, Chapter 4, Article 2, Section 2, Subd. 9b, the State has
allocated funds for grants for local parks, trail connections, and natural and scenic areas under Minn. Stat.
85.019.
Under Minn. Laws 2019, 1st Special Session, Chapter 4, Article 1, Section 3, Subd. 5, the State has
allocated funds for grants for local parks and outdoor recreation areas under Minn. Stat. 85.019.
3. The Grantee has made application to the State for a portion of the allocation for the purpose of conducting
the project entitled East Long Lake Trail, to convert of a section of East Long Lake Road to a multimodal
trail including the removal of the existing roadway pavement, construction of a 10ft paved trail, drainage
improvements, plantings, and addition of elements such as benches and fishing spots..
4. The Grantee represents that it is duly qualified and agrees to perform all services described in this grant
contract to the satisfaction of the State. Pursuant to Minn.Stat.16B.98, Subd.1, the Grantee agrees to
minimize administrative costs as a condition of this grant.
Grant Contract
1 Term of Grant Contract
1.1 Effective date:
July 1, 2019, Notwithstanding Minnesota Statutes, section 16A.41, the Commissioner may make
payments for otherwise eligible grant-program expenditures that are made on or after the effective date
of the appropriation. No payments will be made to the Grantee until this grant contract is fully executed.
Expiration date:
June 30, 2021, or until all obligations have been satisfactorily fulfilled, whichever occurs first.
1.2 Survival of Terms.
The following clauses survive the expiration or cancellation of this grant contract: 8. Liability; 9. State
Audits; 10. Government Data Practices and Intellectual Property Rights; 12. Publicity and Endorsement;
13. Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue, 15. Data Disclosure, 20. Resource Management and
Protection and 24. Land Retention and Deed Restriction.
2 Grantee’s Duties
The Grantee, who is not a state employee, will:
Comply with required grants management policies and procedures set forth through Minn. Stat.16B.97
Subd. 4 (a) (1) and comply with Attachment A, Project Scope and Budget, which is incorporated and
made a part of this contract.
The Grantee agrees to complete the project in accordance with the approved budget to the extent
practicable and within the project period specified in the grant contract. Any material change in the
scope of the project, budget or completion date shall require prior written approval by the State.
3 Time
The Grantee must comply with all the time requirements described in this grant contract. In the
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
performance of this grant contract, time is of the essence.
4 Consideration and Payment
4.1 Consideration.
The State will pay for all services performed by the Grantee under this grant contract as follows:
(a) Compensation
The Grantee will be paid for all services performed pursuant to this grant contract not to exceed
$150,000.
(b) Matching Requirement
Grantee certifies that the following matching requirement for the Grant will be met by Grantee. The total
project cost is $410,520. The Grantee agrees to provide a non-state cash match of a least $260,520.
(c) Total Obligation
The total obligation of the State for all compensation and reimbursements to the Grantee under this grant
contract will not exceed $150,000. Funds made available pursuant to this contract shall be used only for
expenses incurred in performing and accomplishing the purposes and activities specified herein.
Notwithstanding all other provisions of this contract, it is understood that any reduction or termination
of funds allocated to the State may result in a like reduction to the Grantee.
4.2 Payment
The State shall disburse funds to the Grantee pursuant to this contract on a reimbursement basis,
based upon a payment request and required expenditure documentation submitted by the Grantee
and reviewed and approved by the State. The Grantee shall be limited to no more than four payment
requests during the period covered by this contract.
4.3 Contracting and Bidding Requirements
Per Minn. Stat. 471.345, grantees that are municipalities as defined in Subd. 1 must follow the Uniform
Municipal Contracting law.
For projects that include construction work of $25,000 or more, prevailing wage rules apply per Minn.
Stat. 177.41 through 177.44. These rules require that the wages of laborers and workers should be
comparable to wages paid for similar work in the community as a whole.
5 Conditions of Payment
All services provided by the Grantee under this grant contract must be performed to the State’s satisfaction,
as determined at the sole discretion of the State’s Authorized Representative and in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. The Grantee will not receive
payment for work found by the State to be unsatisfactory or performed in violation of federal, state, or local
laws.
6 Authorized Representative
The State's Authorized Representative is Daniel Golner, Grant Coordinator, Division of Parks and
Trails, Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, Box 39, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-
4052, Daniel.Golner@state.mn.us, 251-259-5599, or his/her successor, and has the responsibility to
monitor the Grantee’s performance and the authority to accept the services provided under this grant
contract. If the services are satisfactory, the State's Authorized Representative will certify acceptance on
each invoice submitted for payment.
The Grantee’s Authorized Representative is Adam T. Edwards, P.E., Director of Public Works / City
Engineer, City of Orono, 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN, 55356, aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us, 952-
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
249-4661, or his/her successor. If the Grantee’s Authorized Representative changes at any time during this
grant contract, the Grantee must immediately notify the State.
The Grantee’s Authorized Fiscal Agent is Ron Olson, Director of Finance, City of Orono, 2750 Kelley
Parkway, Orono, MN, 55356, rolson@ci.orono.mn.us, 952-249-4611, or his/her successor. If the
Grantee’s Authorized Fiscal Agent changes at any time during this grant contract, the Grantee must
immediately notify the State.
7 Assignment Amendments, Waiver, and Grant Contract Complete
7.1 Assignment
The Grantee shall neither assign nor transfer any rights or obligations under this grant contract without
the prior written consent of the State, approved by the same parties who executed and approved this
grant contract, or their successors in office.
7.2 Amendments
Any amendments to this grant contract must be in writing and will not be effective until it has been
executed and approved by the same parties who executed and approved the original grant contract, or
their successors in office.
7.3 Waiver
If the State fails to enforce any provision of this grant contract, that failure does not waive the provision
or the State’s right to enforce it.
7.4 Grant Contract Complete
This grant contract contains all negotiations and agreements between the State and the Grantee. No other
understanding regarding this grant contract, whether written or oral, may be used to bind either party.
8 Liability
The Grantee must indemnify, save, and hold the State, its agents, and employees harmless from any claims
or causes of action, including attorney’s fees incurred by the State, arising from the performance of this
grant contract by the Grantee or the Grantee’s agents or employees. This clause will not be construed to bar
any legal remedies the Grantee may have for the State's failure to fulfill its obligations under this grant
contract.
9 State Audits
Under Minn. Stat. 16B.98, Subd.8, the Grantee’s books, records, documents, and accounting procedures and
practices of the Grantee or other party relevant to this grant contract or transaction are subject to
examination by the State and/or the State Auditor or Legislative Auditor, as appropriate, for a minimum of
six years from the end of this grant contract, receipt and approval of all final reports, or the required period
of time to satisfy all state and program retention requirements, whichever is later.
10 Government Date Practices and Intellectual Property Rights
10.1 Government Data Practices
The Grantee and State must comply with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minn. Stat. Ch.
13, as it applies to all data provided by the State under this grant contract, and as it applies to all data
created, collected, received, stored, used, maintained, or disseminated by the Grantee under this grant
contract. The civil remedies of Minn. Stat. 13.08 apply to the release of the data referred to in this clause
by either the Grantee or the State. If the Grantee receives a request to release the data referred to in this
Clause, the Grantee must immediately notify the State. The State will give the Grantee instructions
concerning the release of the data to the requesting party before the data is released. The Grantee’s
response to the request shall comply with applicable law
10.2 Intellectual Property Rights
(A) Intellectual Property Rights. The State owns all rights, title, and interest in all of the
intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
service marks in the Works and Documents created and paid for under this contract. Works
means all inventions, improvements, discoveries (whether or not patentable), databases,
computer programs, reports, notes, studies, photographs, negatives, designs, drawings,
specifications, materials, tapes, and disks conceived, reduced to practice, created or
originated by the Grantee, its employees, agents, and subcontractors, either individually or
jointly with others in the performance of this contract. Works includes “Documents.”
Documents are the originals of any databases, computer programs, reports, notes, studies,
photographs, negatives, designs, drawings, specifications, materials, tapes, disks, or other materials, whether in tangible or electronic forms, prepared by the Grantee, its employees,
agents, or subcontractors, in the performance of this contract. The Documents will be the
exclusive property of the State and all such Documents must be immediately returned to the
State by the Grantee upon completion or cancellation of this contract. To the extent possible,
those Works eligible for copyright protection under the United States Copyright Act will be
deemed to be “works made for hire.” The Grantee assigns all right, title, and interest it may
have in the Works and the Documents to the State. The Grantee must, at the request of the
State, execute all papers and perform all other acts necessary to transfer or record the State’s
ownership interest in the Works and Documents.
(B) Obligations
1. Notification. Whenever any invention, improvement, or discovery (whether or not
patentable) is made or conceived for the first time or actually or constructively reduced to practice
by the Grantee, including its employees and subcontractors, in the performance of this contract, the
Grantee will immediately give the State’s Authorized Representative written notice thereof, and
must promptly furnish the Authorized Representative with complete information and/or disclosure
thereon.
2. Representation. The Grantee must perform all acts, and take all steps necessary to ensure
that all intellectual property rights in the Works and Documents are the sole property of the State,
and that neither Grantee nor its employees, agents, or subcontractors retain any interest in and to
the Works and Documents. The Grantee represents and warrants that the Works and Documents
do not and will not infringe upon any intellectual property rights of other persons or entities.
Notwithstanding Clause 8, the Grantee will indemnify; defend, to the extent permitted by the Attorney General; and hold harmless the State, at the Grantee’s expense, from any action or claim
brought against the State to the extent that it is based on a claim that all or part of the Works or
Documents infringe upon the intellectual property rights of others. The Grantee will be
responsible for payment of any and all such claims, demands, obligations, liabilities, costs, and
damages, including but not limited to, attorney fees. If such a claim or action arises, or in the
Grantee’s or the State’s opinion is likely to arise, the Grantee must, at the State’s discretion, either
procure for the State the right or license to use the intellectual property rights at issue or replace or
modify the allegedly infringing Works or Documents as necessary and appropriate to obviate the
infringement claim. This remedy of the State will be in addition to and not exclusive of other
remedies provided by law.
11 Workers Compensation
The Grantee certifies that it is in compliance with Minn. Stat. 176.181, Subd. 2, pertaining to workers’
compensation insurance coverage. The Grantee’s employees and agents will not be considered State
employees. Any claims that may arise under the Minnesota Workers’ Compensation Act on behalf of these
employees and any claims made by any third party, as a consequence of any act or omission on the part of
these employees, are in no way the State’s obligation or responsibility.
12 Publicity and Endorsement
12.1 Signage
Any site funded by this grant contract shall display a sign at a prominent location at the entrance to the
site and in a form approved by the State that acknowledges funding through this grant.
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
12.2 Publicity
Any publicity regarding the subject matter of this grant contract must identify the State as the sponsoring
agency and must not be released without prior written approval from the State’s Authorized
Representative. For purposes of this provision, publicity includes notices, informational pamphlets,
press releases, research, reports, signs, and similar public notices prepared by or for the Grantee
individually or jointly with others, or any subcontractors, with respect to the program, publications, or
services provided resulting from this grant contract. All projects primarily funded by state grant
appropriation must publicly credit the State of Minnesota, including on the grantee’s website when
practicable.
12.3 Endorsement
The Grantee must not claim that the State endorses its products or services.
13 Governing Law, Jurisdiction, and Venue
Minnesota law, without regard to its choice-of-law provisions, governs this grant contract. Venue for all
legal proceedings out of this grant contract, or its breach, must be in the appropriate state or federal court
with competent jurisdiction in Ramsey County, Minnesota.
14 Termination
14.1 Termination by the State
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract with or without cause, upon 30 days’ written
notice to the Grantee. Upon termination, the Grantee will be entitled to payment, determined on a pro
rata basis, for services satisfactorily performed.
14.2 Termination for Cause
The State may immediately terminate this grant contract if the State finds that there has been a failure to
comply with the provisions of this grant contract, that reasonable progress has not been made or that the
purposes for which the funds were granted have not been or will not be fulfilled. The State may take
action to protect the interests of the State, including the refusal to disburse additional funds and
requiring the return of all or part of the funds already disbursed.
15 Data Disclosure
Under Minn. Stat. 270C.65, Subd. 3, and other applicable law, the Grantee consents to disclosure of its
social security number, federal employer tax identification number, and/or Minnesota tax identification
number, already provided to the State, to federal and state tax agencies and state personnel involved in the
payment of state obligations. These identification numbers may be used in the enforcement of federal and
state tax laws which could result in action requiring the Grantee to file state tax returns and pay delinquent
state tax liabilities, if any.
16 Affirmative Action and Non-Discrimination
(a) The grantee agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
race, color, creed, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, status in regard to public assistance,
membership or activity in a local commission, disability, sexual orientation, or age in regard to any
position for which the employee or applicant for employment is qualified (Minn. Stat. 363A.02). The
grantee agrees to take affirmative steps to employ, advance in employment, upgrade, train, and recruit
minority persons, women, and persons with disabilities.
(b) The grantee must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of
physical or mental disability in regard to any position for which the employee or applicant for
employment is qualified. The grantee agrees to take affirmative action to employ, advance in
employment, and otherwise treat qualified disabled persons without discrimination based upon their
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
physical or mental disability in all employment practices such as the following: employment, upgrading,
demotion or transfer, recruitment, advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of
compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship, (Minnesota Rules, part 5000.3500).
(c) The grantee agrees to comply with the rules and relevant orders of the Minnesota Department of Human
Rights issued pursuant to the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
17 Americans with Disabilities Act and Final Guidelines for Outdoor Developed Areas
The Grantee shall construct, operate, and maintain all facilities and programs in compliance with all
state and federal accessibility laws, regulations, and guidelines including the Final Guidelines for
Outdoor Developed Areas. Information on compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act is
available at U.S. Access Board.
18 Reporting
The Grantee shall submit a progress report, in a form prescribed by the State, by January 1 of each year
during the term of this grant contract. A final report must be submitted with the request for final
reimbursement. Forms will be provided by the State.
19 Inspections
The State’s authorized representatives shall be allowed, at any time, to conduct periodic site visits and
inspections to ensure work progress in accordance with this grant contract, including a final inspection
upon project completion. Following closure of the project, the State’s authorized representatives shall be
allowed to conduct post-completion inspections of the site to ensure that the site is being properly
operated and maintained and that no conversion of use has occurred.
20 Resource Management and Protection
The Grantee shall protect, manage and maintain, or cause to maintain, the property acquired and/or
developed pursuant to this grant contract. Properties shall be kept reasonably safe for public use, if
applicable. All state and federal accessibility laws, regulations and standards shall be adhered to.
Vegetation management and similar safeguards and supervision shall be provided to the extent feasible.
Buildings, roads, trails and other structures and improvements, if any, shall be kept in reasonable repair
throughout their estimated lifetime to prevent undue deterioration.
The Grantee shall keep the facility open to the general public at reasonable hours and at times of the
year consistent with the purpose and type of use of the property and appropriate management and
protection of natural resources.
21 Invasive Species Prevention
Grantees and subcontractors must follow Minnesota DNR’s Operational Order 113, which requires
preventing or limiting the introduction, establishment and spread of invasive species during activities on
public waters and DNR-administered lands. This applies to all activities performed on all lands under
this grant agreement and is not limited to lands under DNR control or public waters. Operational Order
113 is incorporated into this contract by reference. Duties are listed in Op Order 113 under Sections II
and III (p. 5-8). The grantee shall prevent invasive species from entering into or spreading within a
project site by cleaning equipment and clothing prior to arriving at the project site.
If the equipment or clothing arrives at the project site with soil, aggregate material, mulch, vegetation
(including seeds) or animals, it shall be cleaned by Grantee furnished tool or equipment (brush/broom,
compressed air or pressure washer) at the staging area. The Grantee or subcontractor shall dispose of
material cleaned from equipment and clothing at a location determined by the Grantee or their
representative. If the material cannot be disposed of onsite, secure material prior to transport (sealed
container, covered truck, or wrap with tarp) and legally dispose of offsite.
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
22 Conflict of Interest
It is the policy of the State to work to deliberately avoid actual, potential and perceived conflict of
interests related to grant making at both the individual and organizational levels.
A conflict of interest (actual, potential, or perceived) occurs when a person has actual or apparent duty
or loyalty to more than one organization and the competing duties or loyalties may result in actions
which are adverse to one or both parties. A conflict of interest exists even if no unethical, improper, or
illegal act results from it.
The Grantee, by signing this contract with the State, certifies it has read and understands the Office of
Grants Management Conflict of Interest Policy 08-01, will maintain an adequate Conflict of Interest
Policy and, throughout the term of the contract, monitor and report any actual, potential, or perceived
conflicts of interest to the State’s Authorized Representative.
23 Minnesota Historical Sites Act and Minnesota Field Archaeology Act
For projects involving land acquisition and/or construction, the State Historic Preservation Office must
review the project to determine if the site is a potential location for historical or archeological findings.
If the State Historic Preservation Office determines that a survey is required, the survey would need to
be completed prior to any site disturbance for development projects and prior to the final reimbursement
of the grant funds for acquisition projects.
24 Land Retention and Deed Restriction
24.1 Land Retention
All land developed by this contract must be retained and operated for outdoor recreation for a period of
twenty years beginning on the contract expiration date. All land acquired by this contract must be
retained and operated for outdoor recreation in perpetuity and a condition of this requirement must be
recorded with the deed using language provided in the grant contract.
No other use can be made of these lands without prior written approval of the State. The State will
consider requests to convert these lands to other uses only if all practical alternatives have been
evaluated and rejected on a sound basis and replacement lands of equal or greater fair market value and
reasonably equivalent usefulness are acquired and dedicated to public outdoor recreation use.
24.2 Deed Restriction
The Grantee shall have the following condition recorded with the deed to all lands acquired by this
contract and submit an attested copy of the deed and the condition to the State:
In order to comply with the Department of Natural Resources Trail Project Contract C001-19-3B, the
City of Orono does hereby impose the following restrictions on the property:
1. The property shall be permanently managed and maintained for public outdoor recreation use.
2. The Grantee shall not at any time convert any portion of the land to uses other than public outdoor
recreation use without the prior written approval of the State acting through its commissioner of
natural resources.
25 Conservation Corps Minnesota
The Grantee must give consideration to contracting with Conservation Corps Minnesota for contract
restoration and enhancement services.
26 Pollinator Best Management Practices
Habitat restorations and enhancements conducted on DNR lands and prairie restorations on state lands
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
or on any lands using state funds are subject to pollinator best management practices and habitat
restoration guidelines pursuant to Minn. Stat. 84.973. Practices and guidelines ensure an appropriate
diversity of native species to provide habitat for pollinators through the growing season. Current specific
practices and guidelines to be followed for contract and grant work can be found here: Link to
December 2014 version.
27 Purchasing Recycled and Recyclable Materials
The Grantee must use this funding in compliance with Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.0725, regarding
purchasing recycled, repairable, and durable materials and Minnesota Statutes, section 16C.073,
regarding purchasing and using paper stock and printing.
28 Energy Conservation and Sustainable Building Guidelines
The Grantee must ensure that the project complies with the applicable energy conservation and
sustainable building guidelines and standards contained in law, including Minnesota Statutes, sections
16B.325, 216C.19, and 216C.20, and rules adopted under those sections. The recipient may use the
energy planning, advocacy, and State Energy Office units of the Department of Commerce to obtain
information and technical assistance on energy conservation and alternative-energy development
relating to planning and constructing the capital improvement project.
29 Single Audit
All state and local governments, colleges and universities, and non-profit organizations that expend
$750,000 or more of Federal awards in a fiscal year must have a single audit according to the new
OMB Uniform Guidance: Cost Principles, Audit, and Administrative Awards Requirements for Federal
Awards. This is $750,000 total Federal awards received from all sources. If an audit is completed,
forward a copy of the report to both the State's Authorized Representative and the State Auditor.
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
1. STATE ENCUMBRANCE VERIFICATION
Individual certifies that funds have been encumbered as
required by Minn. Stat. '' 16A.15 and 16C.05
Signed:
Date:
SWIFT Contract/PO No(s).
2. GRANTEE
The Grantee certifies that the appropriate person(s) have executed the grant
contract on behalf of the Grantee as required by applicable articles, bylaws,
resolutions, or ordinances.
By:
Title:
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
3. STATE AGENCY
By:
(with delegated authority)
Title:
Date:
Distribution:
Agency
Grantee
State’s Authorized Representative
178375/PO# 3000172042
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT SCOPE AND BUDGET
Recipient: City of Orono
Grant/Project #: C001-19-3B
Grant Amount: $150,000
Match: $260,520
Total Project Cost: $410,520
Project Scope: To convert of a section of East Long Lake Road to a multimodal trail including the removal of
the existing roadway pavement, construction of a 10ft paved trail, drainage improvements, plantings, and
addition of elements such as benches and fishing spots.
Notes: No ground disturbance or construction can occur until submission of required project, environmental and
Grant for Legislatively-named Municipality FY19: Updated November 2018
SHPO documents and written approval is issued by the DNR authorized representative.
The Financial Management Manual, payment request form and billing data sheet are available on our website at
http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/grants/recreation/index.html. Click on the trail program in which you are
participating and look under the “For the Grantee”, click on Project Administration, see Grant Expenditures and
Requests for Reimbursement for the manual and forms.
H:\ORNO\C13120001\1_Corres\C_To Others\East Long Lake Road Construction Services 7-8-20.docx
July 8, 2020
City of Orono
Attn: Adam Edwards
PO Box 66
Orono, MN 55323
RE: East Long Lake Road Trail
Dear Adam:
As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction services
associated with the East Long Lake Road Trail project.
Scope of Services
Public Coordination/Communications
Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified
staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and
accurate information via newsletters and website updates as desired by the City.
Construction Staking and Observation
Construction staking will be provided along with part time construction observation. Duties of the
Construction Observer will include the following:
• Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction-related meetings
• Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor
• Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the
plans and specifications
• Review of all materials testing
• Maintenance of construction documentation
• Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction-related
concerns and issues
Construction Administration
Construction administration duties will include the following:
• Administering a pre-construction meeting and weekly construction meetings
• Review of shop drawings
• Preparation of pay estimates
• Contractor Communications
• Liaison with City Staff and Council
Record drawings detailing the completed improvements as recorded by the construction observer and the
City of Orono’s contractor will be completed and furnished to the City in hard copy and electronic format.
Record plans will also be linked to the City mapping system and the City’s GIS system will be updated.
East Long Lake Road Trail
Page 2
H:\ORNO\C13120001\1_Corres\C_To Others\East Long Lake Road Construction Services 7-8-20.docx
Fee Estimate
In addition to the fees for the construction phase of the project, additional design services were required
due to the change in scope for the permitting and design of the board walk in the floodplain. The fees
associated with this change total $25,850. Based on the scope of services described above, and the
additional permitting and design work, we propose a not-to-exceed of $62,150 to be billed on an hourly
basis. A separate proposal for materials testing services will be submitted to the City for Review.
Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information.
Sincerely,
Bolton & Menk, Inc.
David P. Martini, P.E.
Principal Engineer
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By DJR
1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to allow for an addition to the home over
an existing driveway.
2. Background. The applicants are proposing to build a garage addition. The property is currently
over in hardcover (33.84%). The applicant has designed the addition for most of the garage to be located
over existing driveway. The applicant is also proposing to remove the existing driveway turn-around
lowering the overall hardcover to (29.62%). A hardcover variance is required due to the change in nature
of the hardcover from driveway to building and for a small new portion of hardcover on the property.
3. 15.99 Deadline. Data application was considered as complete on May 22, 2020. The 60-Day review
period expires on July 21, 2020.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and
held a public hearing on June 15th. Commissioners commented on the effort the applicant made to place
the proposed addition over the existing driveway and the decrease in overall hardcover for the site. The
commission voted unanimously in favor of the application.
5. Public Comment. The applicant has provided signed neighbor acknowledgement. No other
comments have been received.
6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends approval.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Adopt or amend the included resolution.
Exhibits
A. DRAFT Resolution
B. Proposed survey and plans
C. DRAFT PC Minutes
D. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations/ Hardcover
E. Narrative/Existing Pictures
F. Property Owners List and Map
Item No.: 12 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000039 – Sherry and John Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street,
Variance, Resolution
Presenter: Laura Oakden
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Consent Agenda
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1700
FILE NO. LA20-000039
WHEREAS, on May 22, 2020, Sherry and John Gorman (“Applicants”), applied for a
variance from the City Code for the property addressed 3585 Frederick Street and legally described as:
Lot 5, Block 1, Tillson’s Villa Carman, Hennepin County (hereinafter the “Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to
Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to allow hardcover to exceed 25% to 29.62%; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, after published and mailed notice in accordance with
Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the City Council held a public hearing, at which time all persons
desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and
WHEREAS, on June 15, 2020, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
variance; and
WHEREAS, on July 13, 2020, the City Council reviewed the application and the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings
of fact concerning the Property:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File # LA20-00039. The analysis contained within staff
memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned
meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by
reference.
2. The Property is located in the LR-1C Zoning District.
3. The Property contains 0.48 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 19 feet (OHWL) and 63 feet
(at 75’).
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
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 variances:
a. Hardcover to exceed 25%
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the
health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and
air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding
area.
ANALYSIS:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed
variance is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The goal of the
ordinance is to manage hardcover and the proposal brings the property closer to the allowed
regulations.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed project to remodel an
existing home on a substandard lot and bring the lot closer to conformance with city
regulations is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the official controls; The request to permit an addition to the home on a substandard
lot meeting all setback requirements and lowering the existing hardcover totals
appears to be reasonable as the property’s reduced size and existing improvements.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the existing
home and substandard lot are unique and not created by the property owner. and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is
requested in order to permit an addition to the home designed to fit the character of
the neighborhood according to the submitted information.
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.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono
City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This
condition is not applicable, as single family home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a
two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or
immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard width and area as well as the
existing home create difficulties and are peculiar.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is
located. The applicant is working to keep the existing home which currently exceeds city
hardcover requirements. The existing conditions are unique to this property and the
proposed project would bring the overall hardcover for the property closer to conforming to
the City regulations.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial
property right of the applicant. Granting the hardcover variance is necessary for the
preservation of the property.
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 variances
in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is
necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance does not merely serve as a
convenience to the applicant. The variances are necessary as the property has practical
difficulties affecting development.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to
Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 to allow hardcover to 29.62%, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 05/19/20 and building plans submitted by
the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A.
3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further
Planning Commission and City Council review.
4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are
permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year
of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (July 13, 2021).
5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result
in the termination of any authority granted herein.
ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this ______ day of ________________, 20__.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
±
±
±
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
WAYZATA, MN 55391
401 EAST LAKE STREET
FAX: 952.473.8222
Phone: 952.473.8777
This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein;
however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail.
Page 8 of 9
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by:Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER
In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of
Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing
hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the
75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width
Total
(Square Feet)
(Example)(Garage)(24’ x 30’)(720 S.F.)
A S.F.
B S.F.
C S.F.
D S.F.
E S.F.
F S.F.
G S.F.
H S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Existing Hardcover S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F.
(3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ]%
(Proposed Hardcover next page)
3585 Frederick Street, Orono, Minnesota
Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc.
May 20, 2020
RESIDENCE & ATTACHED GARAGE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY
IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
2,131
3,621
PAVERS AROUND POOL & SIDE OF HOUSE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)852
PAVERS IN FRONT OF HOUSE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)157
SIDE STEPS IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)15
SWIMMING POOL IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
391
HOT TUB
IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY) 61
BACK YARD STEPS 11.1 x 3.6 40
7,268
7,168
21,183
33.84
PAVERS 100
100
This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained
herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail.
Page 9 of 9
City of Orono
Hardcover Calculation Worksheet
Property Address:
Prepared by:Date:
Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5
Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER
In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to
Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are
intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as
necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify
any features by letter which are split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage
separately for each portion.
Key to
Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width
Total
(Square Feet)
(Example)(Garage)(24’ x 30’)(720 S.F.)
A S.F.
B S.F.
C S.F.
D S.F.
E S.F.
F S.F.
G S.F.
H S.F.
I S.F.
J S.F.
K S.F.
L S.F.
M S.F.
N S.F.
O S.F.
P S.F.
Q S.F.
R S.F.
S S.F.
T S.F.
U S.F.
V S.F.
W S.F.
X S.F.
Y S.F.
Z S.F.
(1) Total Proposed Hardcover S.F.
Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684):
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
S.F.
(2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F.
(3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F.
(4) Total Lot Area S.F.
Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] %
3585 Frederick Street, Orono, Minnesota
Egan, Field & Nowak, Inc.May 20, 2020
RESIDENCE & ATTACHED GARAGE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
2,131
BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAY IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
2,038
PAVERS AROUND POOL & SIDE OF HOUSE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
852
PAVERS IN FRONT OF HOUSE
IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)157
SIDE STEPS IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)15
391IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
SWIMMING POOL
HOT TUB IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
61
BACK YARD STEPS
11.1 x 3.6
40
PROPOSED GARAGE IRREGULAR (SEE SURVEY)
690
6,375
100
6,275
21,183
29.62
PAVERS 100
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
LA20-000039 JOHN & SHERRY GORMAN, 3585 FREDERICK STREET, VARIANCE, 6:34
P.M. - 6:50 P.M.
Sherry Gorman, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Ms. Sherry Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street, said she and her husband bought the house 11 years ago.
When they were looking for a house on the lake, they were not looking for a pool, although this house did
have a pool, which has its own significant hardcover requirements. They loved that the house sits on a
hill, the view is amazing, it is on the far end of Carman Bay, and has a southern exposure. They saw the
size of the house being relatively small to be able to still fit their needs as they moved into retirement. She
stated there are several things that make the lot unique, one of which is the lot itself is a triangle. They
own 23 feet at the lake and 130 feet by the street. Their house is built up on the hillside which requires
retaining walls, sidewalks, and walkways. The driveway is very long and loops around in a circle. A
couple of things that make the house unique is that it was built in 1966, when most families were one-car
families. It is currently a two-car garage. It also has limitations in terms of the ceiling height in the garage.
The back half is only six feet and nine inches and the front half is only nine feet, so it does not allow for a
lot of storage. Their practical difficulty is the lack of storage. They have a need to store patio furniture,
ladders, and paddleboards. They currently rent a storage unit at Metro Storage in Spring Park for $200 a
month/$2,400 a year. It is not the dollar amount that is prohibitive. However, each year they have to rent a
truck, go to and from the storage unit 3-4 times. They load up the cart, pull the cart to the truck, load up
the truck, drive home, unload the truck, and carry it to the back yard. The bottom line is, they are getting
kind of old. She referenced the plan for the three-car garage and said they would basically lay it on top of
the current driveway and would give back the rest of the leg of the driveway so they can reduce their
hardcover, which was over when they purchased the house. She referenced a close-up view of the six-nine
area of the garage and said they are looking for that area to be the area for the new storage unit. They
would wall off the area with the six-nine ceiling, put their patio furniture there, and add a backdoor access
to be able to carry things to and from the backyard. The three-car garage would sit on top of what the
current driveway is today. She discussed the elevation drawing. She said on the neighbor’s side they tried
to make it appealing to them by adding rock all the way around to make it look consistent with the front
of the house and then add unique windows, etc., in the back so it did not look like they were adding a wall
that would be facing them. Their neighbors have indicated they are very pleased with what they see. She
stated they would do some things with landscaping as well. She referenced the existing hardcover
calculations displayed and the loop driveway. She indicated they are at 34.3% existing today and the
proposed hardcover is putting the three-car garage on the driveway and taking off the leg, which is a little
over 1,000 square feet of hardcover, taking them down to 29.62%. She noted the current hardcover is
34.4% and proposed hardcover is 29.4%, a reduction of 5%. Orono has the ruling of 25%, and they are
still over what they are supposed to be and are asking for a variance of 4.4%. They are hoping the
Commissioners can view it from the standpoint that they are decreasing their hardcover and also
increasing the property value of the house by adding the three-car garage. They think they are improving
the street appeal of the house. For their neighbors, it will help because then they will not have to put
anything extra outside on the lawn or driveway. She thanked the Commissioners for their consideration.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. John Daly, Revision, LLC, 153 East Lake Street, Wayzata, said he has been working with the
Gormans on the design and layout of the structure. He stated if the Commissioners had any questions
regarding the construction or design, he would be happy to answer them. He pointed out that the house
being original to 1960 and the Gormans being interested in keeping the home, the existing garage width is
just under 22 feet. It does not work very well to get two vehicles into the garage. When they were
designing the plans of what should be done, they were trying to capture some of the existing garage space
for the new garage space but realizing they needed some of the width to be able to store their everyday
vehicles. From a design standpoint, a sideload was a way of reducing hardcover. It was also consistent
with other homes on the street; the four properties to the east all have sideload garages. They reduced
hardcover but allowed for off-street parking. He noted Gormans are on a curve of Frederick Street. He
said the first time he pulled up to the property, he wasn’t quite sure if he could even park in the street.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Ressler stated some things to note is they are meeting other setback requirements, they are reducing their
hardcover by 900 square feet, and they are not going lakeward. Their rear setback is 99 feet where it is
required to be 30; that definitely identifies the long driveway which is demonstrative of the pie-shaped
lot.
Kirchner said some additional things he appreciates in the application is that the Applicants are reducing
their hardcover. Not only are they reducing it, but the proposed addition is over an already-existing
hardcover, and they are taking it a step further and removing additional hardcover beyond that, about
4 ½%. He thinks they are getting as close to compliance as possible without the City saying part of their
house would have to be taken down. He does not know how else the City would get them in compliance.
Bollis stated he agreed that it is a thoughtful plan, perfectly placed hardcover put over existing hardcover,
and remove what is not necessary to get it as conforming as possible. He also likes that they went a step
above and considered the neighbors and the back side of the garage and made sure it doesn’t look like the
back side of a garage. He is in favor of the variance.
Erickson noted there are two factors that he thinks speak very positively for the variance: first, they are
making a significant step in the right direction in reducing what was previously existing; second, the
Applicants have unique factors that speak strongly for the variance, which is the triangular lot.
Libby said he tends to agree with the other Commissioners, in particular Erickson’s observation of the
quickly narrowing triangular lot to the lakeside. Unless there is something that would be egregious to its
eventual decision by the Council, he is also in favor of approving the variance.
Gettman stated he is in favor of the proposal for all of the reasons stated.
Ressler said with Orono being so heavy with lakeshore property, pie-shaped lots are almost textbook
situations for a lot of the applications. He thinks this is not as unique per some of the other applications;
they have approved them under similar circumstances. As noted, they always like to see the improvement
of conditions which has been demonstrated in the application. He supports the application.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA20-000039 John & Sherry Gorman, 3585
Frederick Street, Variance. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6 (Libby, Erickson, Bollis, Kirchner, Gettman,
Ressler), Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 05/22/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/22/2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: 07/21/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Laura Oakden
Planner
Date: June 15, 2020
Subject: LA20-000039, Sherry and John Gorman, 3585 Frederick Street, Variance,
Public Hearing
Background
The applicants are proposing to build an addition to home for garage and storage space. The
property is currently over in hardcover (33.84%). The applicant has designed the addition for
most of the garage to be located over existing driveway. The applicant is also proposing to
remove the current turn-around lowering the overall hardcover to (29.62%). The applicant is
required a hardcover variance due to the change in nature of the hardcover from driveway to
building and for a small new portion of hardcover on the property.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the existing home and the
substandard area and width 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
is working with the existing home on a substandard lot. The applicant is has works to place the
addition over the existing hardcover and is proposing to remove excess driveway bringing the
overall hardcover closer to conformance for the property.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks: All Setbacks are met
DISTRICT LR-1C Required Existing Home Proposed Addition
Front 75 125’ No Change
Rear 30 99’ 68’
Side (N) 7.5 10.7’ (No Change 19’
Side (S) 7.5 9.9’ No Change
Average Lakeshore Met
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance to allow for an addition
to the home over an existing driveway.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval.
FILE # LA20-000039
June 15, 2020
Page 2 of 4
Section 78- 350 Lot Area/Width:
DISTRICT LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21.780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 21,183 s.f. (0.48 acre) 49’ @ 75’ / 19’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
21,183 s.f. (0.48 acre) Allowed: 4,236.6 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,821 s.f. (13.3 %)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 21,183 s.f. 5,295.75 s.f.
(25 %)
7,268 s.f.
(34.31 %)
23 s.f.
w/in
75’
6,375 s.f.
(29.62 %)
23 s.f.
w/in 75’
Applicable Regulations:
Variance (78-1700) Hardcover shall not exceed 25% of the gross lot area.
The current parcel is over the allowed limit. The applicant is proposing an addition over an
existing driveway. A small portion of the addition will create a new footprint of hardcover for
the property. The proposed project will also remove excess driveway lowering the overall
hardcover level and bring the site closer to conformance with the city requirements.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed variance is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
FILE # LA20-000039
June 15, 2020
Page 3 of 4
goal of the ordinance is to reduce improvements and bring the property closer to the
allowed regulations.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed project to
remodel an existing home on a substandard lot and bring the lot closer to conformance
with city regulations is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; The request to permit an addition to the home
on a substandard lot meeting all setback requirements and lowering the
existing hardcover totals appears to be reasonable as the property’s reduced
size and existing improvements.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
the existing home and substandard lot are unique and not created by the
property owner. and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is
requested in order to permit an addition to the home designed to fit the
character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic
considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination.
5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as
defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter
78. This condition is not applicable.
6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under
Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is
located. This condition is not applicable, as single family home is an allowed use in the
LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard width and area
as well as the existing home create difficulties and are peculiar.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The applicant is working to keep the existing home which currently
exceeds city hardcover requirements. The existing conditions are unique to this
property and the proposed project would bring the overall hardcover for the property
closer to conforming to the City regulations.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the hardcover variance s necessary
for the preservation of the property.
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 variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the zoning
chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance does not merely serve as
FILE # LA20-000039
June 15, 2020
Page 4 of 4
a convenience to the applicant. The variances are necessary as the property has
practical difficulties affecting development.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
To date, no public comments have been received
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Planning Staff recommends approval of the requested hardcover variance
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations/ Hardcover
Exhibit E. Narrative/Existing Pictures
Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to adopt the proposed sanitary sewer service line inspection
program and associated 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. At the April 27th Council meeting the council reviewed the draft ordinance and program
providing guidance to staff on revisions.
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). 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 90 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
Item No.: 12 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Sanitary Sewer Service Line Inspection Program – Ordinance
Presenter: Adam T. Edwards
Public Works Director/City Engineer
Agenda
Section:
Public Work/
Engineering
3 hours per inspection x $ 50/hr). A push camera cost $8000. Training costs $800 per person.
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. Concept
Discussion.
October 26th At the Council work session staff presented the
concept and received initial guidance.
b. Research,
coordinate and
staffing
October 27th –
April 27th. • Discussions with other cities and agencies
• Draft Ordinance and legal review
• Draft Communication plan
• Draft process.
c. Draft
Ordinance.
April 27th At the Council meeting the council reviewed the
draft ordinance and program providing guidance to
staff on revisions.
d. Final Staffing Thru May 20th,
2020
• Staff updates ordinance per council direction
• Final staff coordination with sister agencies
e. Program
Approval
July 13th, 2020 • Council adopts Ordinance changes.
f. Communication June 22nd
–
December 31st,
2020
• Notification to realtors and title companies of POS
requirements
• Update to Website
• Newsletter article
• Notification message on utility bills
g. Equipment
procurement
• Procure push camera system
• Procure PPE and cleaning supplies
h. Staff Training
and preparation
• Ensure minimum of 2 staff are NASSCO PACP
certified
• Finalize procedures and forms
• Add Inspection to Citizen Serve and Cartegraph
web applications
• Train admin staff
i. Program Active January 1st, 2021 • First Inspection
7. Revisions history.
a. Changes based on
April 27th Council
meeting
• Removed “advertise for sale” from ordinance
• Changed 60 days to 90 days in ordinance
• Removed building remodel as a condition for televising inspection
• Added additional detail to communications plan and included leads
b. Changes based on
June 8th Council meeting
• Clarified inspection language in section 14-190.
c. Changes based on
discussion with Council
member Johnson
• Added I&I definition
• Removed exceptions section 14-190,b,3 / incorporating purchase for
demolition into escrow section (14-190,d,2,ii)
• Removed requirement for display of certificate of compliance
• Replaced “real estate agents” with “owner’s representative
throughout
8. Communication Plan. The table below summarizes the communication plan for the program.
Exhibit C details the messages associated with the program. The City Administer will exercise overall
control and coordination of the communications plan.
Target
Audience
(Who)
Objectives
(Why)
Deliverable
(What)
Medium
(Where/How)
When/Frequency
(When)
Lead
Residents Inform residents
of the change to
the ordinance
and the new
requirements.
Notification of
new
requirements
Newspaper Week following
ordinance adoption for
one news cycle.
Publishing
by City
Clerk;
Content
by Public
Works
Director
Newsletter Summer Edition
Website Upon Ordinance
adoption and then as
any changes are made.
List Serve
Residents Instruction on
how to comply
with the
program
requirements
Program
Instructions
(Draft at
Exhibit C)
Website Upon approval of the
Ordinance change.
Updated as needed.
Realtors
and Title
Companies
Ensure local
realtors and title
companies know
of requirement
Notification of
new
requirements
Notice to
local area
associations
9. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the city adopt a sewer service line inspection program
including a Point of Sale Component to assist the city in addressing our I&I issue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Move to adopt the ordinance changes at exhibit B. establishing a sewer service line point of sale
inspection program.
Exhibits.
A. Inflow and Infiltration Background
B. Ordinance
C. Draft Communications
D. Draft Inspection Form
References.
A. Inflow and Infiltration, LMC model Ordinance, Nov 10th, 2018
B. City of Golden Valley Ordinance, Sections 28-49 and 50
C. City of West Saint Paul Ordinance, Section17-08
D. City of West Saint Paul I&I Fact Sheets
E. MCES website, Reduce Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) https://metrocouncil.org/Wastewater-
Water/Planning/Wastewater/Inflow-and-Infiltration.aspx
F. City of Howard Lake Ordinance 10.07
G. City of Ely Point of Sale Sanitary Sewer 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:
I&I: Inflow and Infiltration
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 and provided 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
within 60 days of written notification of the inspection requirement. Once a sewer service
2
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) 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 90 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 90 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.
3
(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
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) Required. No person shall sell, give or transact a change in title or property ownership of
real property with one or more buildings or structures that is served by municipal sanitary
sewer, without first obtaining a certificate of inflow and infiltration (I&I) compliance from
the City
(b) Inspection. The applicant for a certificate of I&I compliance is responsible for
providing and inspection of the property after making application and payment of fees.
The inspection shall be made by the City to determine whether the property is in
accordance with city sanitary sewer regulations as provided in section 14-189.
(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) In lieu of authorizing a city inspection of the property, the inspection requirement
may 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.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 90 days
of the date of notice of noncompliance, or as determined by the public works director.
(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;
4
(i) An agreement by the new owner or new owner's representative has been executed
with the City, whereby the new owner or new owner's representative agrees to
complete corrections to the property necessary to bring it within compliance of the City
sanitary sewer service regulations within 180 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. This escrow requirement may be waived if
the property contains a principle structure that will be demolished and the
agreement referenced in paragraph (i) above includes an acknowledgment by the
new owner that the demolition and reconstruction will result in the requirement for
a new sanitary sewer service line.
(iii) The owner (or transferor) or owner’s representative 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.
(e) 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 on January 1st 2021.
.
ADOPTED this 8th day of June, 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
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 90 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: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
1.Purpose. This application is regarding variances to develop the property.
2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on May 20, 2020, and was
considered to be complete on May 26th. The 60-Day review period expires on July 25th.
3.Background/ Summary. The applicants are requesting variances to construct a new home on a
property with substandard area and width. Additionally requested is a hardcover variance to
permit 27% hardcover where 25% is permitted. Structural coverage is proposed at 19.7%. They
have submitted a revised narrative attached as Exhibit B.
4.Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On June 15th, the Planning Commission held a
public hearing. The Planning Commission discussed that the square footage of the requested
hardcover overage was equivalent to a 3rd garage stall, as well as the parking challenges and
safety concerns relating to the approximately 20 foot-wide roadway. Following the public
hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variances.
5.Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D.
6.Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval.
Item No.: 14 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000037 – Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point
Road Variances
Presenter: Melanie Curtis
Planner
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: DJR
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Direct staff to draft a motion to draft a resolution reflecting Council’s action.
Exhibits
A. Proposed Plans
B. Applicant Letter
C. Draft PC Minutes
D. Public Comment
E. PC Staff Report
References
PC Exhibits 06/15/2020
A. Application
B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
E. Hardcover Calculations (Staff Edit)
F. Aerial & Street View Photos
G. Property Owners List
H. Plat Map
T
P
o
w
e
r
P
o
l
e
M
m
a
i
l
b
o
x
S
e
r
v
9
5
0
.
7
C
a
t
c
h
B
a
s
i
n
r
i
m
=
9
5
0
.
7
0
9
5
1
.
7
G
F
9
5
2
.
0
9
5
1
.
7
9
5
1
.
1
9
5
1
.
0
9
5
0
.
4
9
4
9
.
2
9
4
8
.
2
9
4
8
.
3
9
4
8
.
3
9
4
5
.
0
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
2
.
1
9
4
1
.
1
9
4
1
.
1
9
4
2
.
0
9
3
5
.
4
9
3
4
.
7
9
3
5
.
3
9
3
5
.
3
9
3
5
.
4
9
3
5
.
0
9
4
7
.
9
9
4
8
.
0
9
4
6
.
9
9
4
7
.
0
9
4
9
.
8
9
5
0
.
1
2
4
"
9
5
0
.
0
9
5
0
.
9
9
5
0
.
3
9
5
0
.
7
9
5
0
.
3
9
4
9
.
0
D
r
a
i
n
9
4
8
.
3
9
4
8
.
5
9
4
8
.
1
G
F
9
5
3
.
1
9
5
2
.
9
9
5
2
.
7
9
5
1
.
3
9
5
0
.
4
9
4
9
.
4
9
4
9
.
2
9
4
8
.
1
9
4
6
.
7
W
O
9
4
2
.
2
9
3
0
.
8
9
3
0
.
8
9
3
1
.
5
9
3
0
.
3
93
0
.
6
930.2
1
8
"
9
3
3
.
4
9
3
3
.
5
9
3
5
.
4
9
4
2
.
6
9
4
4
.
5
9
4
4
.
1
9
4
4
.
4
W
O
9
4
4
.
6
9
3
3
.
3
9
3
3
.
3
9
3
2
.
1
9
3
1
.
6
1
4
"
9
3
3
.
2
S
2
8
°
1
6
'
4
3
"
W
6
0
.
2
7
12.
0
D e
c
k
P o
r
c
h
930
94
0
950
9
3
2
9
3
4
936
938
9
4
2
9
4
4
94
6
9
4
8
Ca
s
c
o
P
o
i
n
t
R
o
a
d
4
4
.
3
4
4
.
7
9
0
±
3
9
±
3
0
±
S
u
r
v
e
y
-
l
i
n
e
3
0
9.
9
S
6
7
°
0
4
'
1
0
"
E
1
5
3
.
9
7
S
6
7
°
0
4
'
1
0
"
E
1
6
0
.
3
0
N 2
2
°
1
5
'
4
9
"
E
6
0
.
0
0
9.
8
60.
0
P o
r
c
h
2
2
'
0
"
6'1
0
"
6
'
2
"
10'
2
"
3
3
'
6
"
20'
6
"
1
0
'
2
"
16'
8
"
2
4
'
2
"
3'0"
8
'
2
"
3'8"
2
2
'
6
"
28'
0
"
S
t
o
o
p
1
0
'
2
"
0'6
"
5
'
6
"
0'8"
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
7.5
wit
h
d
e
c
k
7.5
9
'
6
"
abo
v
e
3
0
.
5
9
1
'
+
-
S
t
e
p
s
94
3
.
0
95
2
.
0
N
o
.
2
6
3
5
N
o
.
2
6
4
9
D o c kLake Minnet
o
n
k
a
P
e
r
g
o
l
a
O
v
e
r
h
e
a
d
W
i
r
e
s
929.4 OrdinaryHigh Water Line
T
i
m
b
e
r
B
o
r
d
e
r
R i
p
-
R
a
p
B
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
I
.
P
.
F
o
u
n
d
0
.
3
0
'
N
o
r
t
h
o
f
c
o
r
n
e
r
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
2
4
"
c
a
n
t
.
s
t
e
p
s
(
d
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
f
i
r
s
t
f
l
o
o
r
p
l
a
n
)
T
W
9
4
7
B
W
9
4
3
.
0
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
w
a
l
l
9
5
0
9
4
8
9
4
6
9
4
4
9
4
4
9
4
8
9
5
0
9
4
6
P
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
P
a
v
e
r
W
a
l
k
w
a
y
P
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
R
o
a
d
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
Edg
e
o
f
B
i
t
u
m
i
n
o
u
s
F
:
\
s
u
r
v
e
y
\
s
p
r
i
n
g
p
a
r
k
-
h
e
n
n
e
p
i
n
\
1
3
9
\
0
1
S
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
g
-
8
8
9
7
5
\
0
1
C
A
D
\
0
1
S
o
u
r
c
e
\
0
1
S
u
r
v
e
y
B
a
s
e
.
d
w
g
B
a
s
i
s
f
o
r
b
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
i
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
Surveyor
s
C
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
000.0 x000.0 Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation onlyDenotes Existing ElevationDenotes Proposed ElevationDenotes Surface Drainage Denotes Iron Monument Denotes Found Iron MonumentDenotes Proposed Contours Denotes Existing ContoursBenchmark:Nail in Northerly face of power polenear the most easterly lot cornerElevation = 951.82 feet (NGVD 1929)Drawn BySignedGregory R. Prasch, Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Scale: 1" = 20'F.B.No.Project No.I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under mydirect supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under thelaws of the State of Minnesota.rev Address:Legal Description7601 73rd Avenue NorthMinneapolis, Minnesota 55428 (763) 560-3093DemarcInc.com889751112-332645 Casco Point RoadOrono, MNSurveyed this 21st day of May 2020. TI
M
H
A
N
S
O
N
Lot 139, SPRING PARKHennepin County, MinnesotaPropert
y
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
20, Tow
n
s
h
i
p
1
1
7
,
R
a
n
g
e
2
3
,
Hennepi
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
M
i
n
n
e
s
o
t
a
Lot Area to OHW = 11,485 sq ftNOTE: The only easements shown are from plats ofrecord or information provided by client.Property Zoned LR-1C(One Family Lakeshore Reside
n
t
i
a
l
-
1
/
2
A
c
r
e
)
SetbacksFront - 30Side - 7.5OHWL - Average of adjacent lo
t
s
Proposed Sit
e
P
l
a
n
S
u
r
v
e
y
F
o
r
:
Proposed Top of FoundationProposed Garage FloorProposed Basement FloorType of Building 952.3952.0943.6Fullbasement Walkout
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
H
a
r
d
c
o
v
e
r
L
o
t
A
r
e
a
1
1
,
4
8
8
s
q
f
t
R
e
a
r
P
o
r
c
h
/
D
e
c
k
1
7
2
s
q
f
t
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
2
,
0
4
8
s
q
f
t
F
r
o
n
t
P
o
r
c
h
4
9
s
q
f
t
R
e
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
W
a
l
l
s
1
8
s
q
f
t
D
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
8
0
9
s
q
f
t
T
o
t
a
l
3
,
0
9
6
s
q
f
t
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
2
6
.
9
5
%
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
H
a
r
d
c
o
v
e
r
=
2
,
2
6
9
/
1
1
,
4
8
8
=
1
9
.
7
5
%
Proposed First Floor954.415-22-20 lake setback5-26-20 pervious paver walk and setback line
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:27 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
REVIEW PLAN
This plan is at a review stage and is NOT a permit set. Please review
the plan in its entirety and let DFP know if you have any changes prior
to us proceeding. The plan will be placed on hold until we receive
confirmation from you to proceed, meaning no additional work will be
done on the plan until we receive your approval to move forward.
05/14/2020 3:30:30 PM
Dear City of Orono Council:
Tim Hanson and myself, Carrie Noble, along with my two daughters Ella, 15 and Anna, 12 are
going to be joining as one family and building a home at 2645 Casco Point Road, Orono, MN. Tim
Hanson has been a resident of Orono, MN for 11 years and I have lived in Chanhassen for 11 years. We
are building our dream home on Lake Minnetonka in what we consider one of the best locations on the
lake. Tim, Ella, Anna, and myself love spending time in the outdoors and on the lake paddle boarding,
playing water games, watersports, spending time together in the sun with friends and family. The
sunsets are our favorite, and we feel extremely lucky to have found a west facing lot in Orono. We also
have had a chance to meet quite a few neighbors in the past few months since purchasing the
lot. Everyone discusses how wonderful each other is and how close the neighborhood is. We have been
utilizing the Dakota trail as well running, rollerblading, biking and walking.
We are asking the city to consider our hard cover variance of an additional 2 percent, which will
allow us to park our vehicles in the driveway. (Currently our proposal is hardcover structural is at 19.7%
with a 20% max and hardcover 7% with a 5% max). We will soon have another driver in the family with
another vehicle and this will allow us to park in our driveway and not on the street all the time, which
could be very dangerous. Casco Point road is a very narrow road and it is the only way for residents to
come and go to their homes. We are uncertain if there was an issue in the past, but currently there is a
sign in the road about 1/4 mile after you turn down Casco Point road that states "Share the road with
Pedestrians" and another little sign that says "slow children at play" (see picture included). Parking in
the road will create blind spots blocking views of other drivers and pedestrians walking, biking, running,
etc... There are two young children 10 and 8 directly on the south side of our property and several times
now I have seen them riding their bikes around in the street and driveway. Having cars in the road,
blocks views and will be dangerous for pedestrians. In addition, the Dakota Trail is close to Casco Point,
which many of the residents enjoy. They will need to travel down Casco Point road past our property to
get to the path. When driving down Casco Point road and another vehicle is coming from the other way,
if there is a car parked in the street, one will need to go to the side and stop while the other passes
because there is not room for both to be going at the same time.
We have made a good faith effort by:
1. Proposing our house back behind the 75' line, from the lake. We are proposing the house to be 6'
back from the 75' setback line. This also creates better views for our neighbors.
2. Proposing to install pervious pavers in the entire walkway to entry, (which is 140 and we only get
the credit for 100). This will help with runoff and drainage within the property.
3. Staying under the maximum structural percentage of 20%. We are proposing our house to be 19.7%
structural hardcover.
4. Proposing being conscious when designing our landscaping we put in hearty trees, shrubs, and plants
that have root systems that will absorb more water creating less runoff into the lake and street. Our
builder has also proposed an option of a watershed reduction filtration system through a landscaping
method he has used in the past. We are open to considering this as well if it is appropriate for our
property.
Thank you very much for your time and consideration,
Tim Hanson and Carrie Noble
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. LA20-000037 TIM HANSON, 2645 CASCO POINT ROAD, VARIANCE,
6:08 P.M. - 6:34 P.M.
Tim Hanson, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
Mr. Tim Hanson and Ms. Carrie Noble, 2645 Casco Point Road, thanked the Planning Commission for
consideration of the variance request. Mr. Hanson said it has been a long-time dream and goal to live on
the lake. He has been a member of the Orono community for 11 years; he lives by the Crystal Bay Post
Office. He stated Ms. Nobles has two young daughters and they are joining families. He said a few things
they have done to hopefully alleviate things is, they are six feet back from the setback to the lake. They
did that so they can give the neighbors the views they are looking for and to be considerate of the
neighbors. They are going to work with a drainage company to make drainage similar to their neighbor’s.
They have also adjusted the house so it does not fill the whole structural surface that they could put in. He
noted the street is pretty busy with a lot of pedestrians walking, and with the possibility of jockeying cars
around in the driveway and having a car in the street, that may create blind views for other cars coming
down the street. He distributed a picture to the Commissioners of Ms. Nobles mowing the lawn of the lot
and noted that is a fairly recent Sheriff sign or City of Orono sign which was placed as you take a left into
Casco Point Road and drive about 1 ½ blocks; it is on the right side where the park starts and one block
before their house. He does not know if there have been safety issues in the past or why the sign had to be
put up, but that they’ve thought about whether the proposed driveway is a need. They could narrow it
down, but with girls that are about to have a license, that would be jockeying cars around in the driveway.
They already had the architect make a skinny three-car garage so they can drive directly out of the
driveway. They have also moved the house back from the lot line six feet. He called attention to the
walkway up to the front entrance and said they are installing 140 square feet of pervious pavers and will
get 100 square feet of credit. He stated there is no curb at the previous driveway apron/street at the lot
line. Even with the three-car straight driveway down, there will still be no curb for about 3-4 feet to the
right. They are proposing to fix that curb all the way up to the driveway. As far as landscaping design,
they are going to look for the types of plants and bushes that are going to be more deep-rooted bushes and
have a wider root system to help with the drainage.
Erickson asked what the width of the proposed driveway is.
Mr. Hanson said it is the width of the garage, which is 28 feet.
Ressler asked if the garage would be 28 feet wide and 30.5 deep.
Mr. Hanson stated he was correct. He noted that the apron at the bottom of the driveway extends out
farther because that is the way it is currently. They are proposing to fix the area so that the curb goes right
up to the driveway.
Ms. Noble said if you park on the street on Casco Point Road, it is pretty much a one-lane, and people
have to stop to let other cars go by. The kids next door are 8 and 10 and constantly riding their bikes
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
around, and it gets pretty dangerous with the blind spots. With the bike path being close, walkers and
runners are also in the community. The variance would allow them to keep cars in the driveway.
Ressler stated, when looking at the application, it appears that it fits in with the spirit of the neighborhood
and it does not seem like they are overbuilding. The Staff seems to be in support of everything. The
hardcover is where the deliberation begins.
Bollis asked if there is a limit for the credit they can get with the pervious hardcover.
Curtis said the hardcover code allows Staff to take 100 square feet of pervious pavement off of their
calculation if they build it that way. The Applicant is proposing additional pervious pavers to offset their
overages.
Ressler asked if the calculations from the survey take into consideration the 100 square feet of credit.
Curtis stated the Staff report provided hardcover calculations; she corrected them. They are proposing
3,136 square feet of hardcover, including the credit.
Ressler noted it would be 3,096 if the full 140 would be credited.
Curtis said initially they were taking off the entire walkway; the surveyor misinterpreted the credit.
Ressler asked if the City’s guidelines call for a maximum of 2,872 of hardcover.
Curtis stated that number was accurate.
Libby noted it was nice that Staff expressed the overage in a percentage, but he was trying to figure it out
in square feet. He said it would appear that 264 square feet is roughly the equivalent of the difference of
the allowable hard surface and what the homeowner would like to go with. He felt that was the equivalent
of a one-car garage. The handicap is the idea of building a three-car garage, and the Applicant is creating
their own circumstances by adding another single-car garage. He said he loves large garages as he collects
old cars; the more garage stalls, the better. The difficulty that is arising is from building a third garage
stall; the practical difficulty is invented by the desire to have the three-car garage. The 264 is roughly the
square footage difference between the allowable and what the Applicant would like to be able to build on.
Curtis confirmed Libby’s comments.
Ressler said the Applicant stated one of the practical difficulties for use is the two teenage drivers. The
Commission’s deliberation also is that if there are two vehicles parked, they would probably not get two
cars parked in front of each other in 30 feet without hanging over the road. You would not be able to get
around them side-by-side, either.
Libby commented that he did not mean to be insensitive about that issue. He is a grandfather with three
daughters, eight granddaughters, and many of them have transitioned through the life cycle of learning
how to drive and getting a driver’s license and a car. He said it can be touchy as they learn to drive,
whether it is a boy or girl. He is talking about factual metrics of the practical difficulty which is created
by adding another garage stall.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Erickson, referencing the Applicant’s photograph, said it shows the width of the street appears to be quite
narrow. He asked if Staff knew the pavement width at that location.
Curtis said she did not know the width at the particular location. She stated there are varying widths of
pavement on Casco Point Road; she could provide the answer, but not today.
Erickson stated that from the photo it appears narrow, and he is willing to believe the Applicant’s
statement that it is very narrow and limited for thru-traffic. With that in mind, it affects his opinion as far
as the variance for the driveway, because what they are doing by having an adequate driveway provides
an opportunity for off-street parking. On-street parking does not appear to be a very good option in the
location. He is leaning towards supporting all of the variances, including the hardcover. The 2% over the
recommended limit is a relatively small price to pay for the public benefit of off-street parking.
Bollis said he tends to echo Erickson’s opinion in this case and is in favor of approval given the safety
aspect of it. The Applicants have gone above and beyond to mitigate the hardcover as much as they can
with the pavers and the consideration of moving the house back from the lake and the lot lines, etc. He
thinks it is a pretty reasonable request.
Kirchner stated he agrees with Bollis as far as the appreciation the Applicants have made in regards to
reducing some of the hardcover with the paver pathway and pulling the house back six feet from the line.
He struggles because of the Applicant’s own admission that it is a matter of convenience; he does not
know that it falls into the City’s practical difficulties then. He noted at the last meeting a family was
denied the convenience of a third stall based on hardcover; the Commission recommended denial. The
Commission seems to be stuck on the hardcover being for the driveway or for the third stall; he thinks it
is important to consider that the hardcover is all-inclusive. The variance is not for the driveway; the
variance is not for the third stall; the variance is for the project in general and all aspects of the project. He
does not know if hardcover can be reduced elsewhere throughout the project. Based on his thoughts, he
does not believe he would support the hardcover variance but would support the lot width and lot area
variance.
Gettman commented that the hardcover is the real question, and whether or not having the third stall is
overcoming the practical difficulty of having a narrow road in front of their house. He is still struggling
with it and will listen more to everybody to decide how to vote.
Ressler stated structure is really difficult to overlook versus hardcover, which is a little easier to
understand. He recalled there were Applicants on North Shore Drive where the Commission was looking
at denying the garage stall but they were able to give hardcover for parking, allowing the ability to park
versus adding a stall. He thinks part of the practical difficulty is on the onus of the public; it becomes a
public practical difficulty if the parking spills over into the street, with the element of Casco Point Road
probably not being in a position to expand anytime soon. He is in support of the application for that
reason, inclusive of the hardcover. Regardless of the outcome, the Commission has made some good
notes for the City Council to consider.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, June 15, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Mr. Heath Burris, 15535 52nd Place North, Plymouth, said he is the builder and has built a few homes on
this lake and other lakes in the metro area. In other cities around Lake Minnetonka, they have come up
with a joint engineered plan with the watershed, like Minnehaha Watershed District, to help offset the
additional hardcover. He said he would like the Commission to take into consideration, in trying to offset
the additional 2%, they have come up with joint engineering plans to make a french drain/french garden,
where they are taking a certain percentage of rainwater off of the roof and putting it into a french
drain/garden, which offsets some of the additional stormwater because they are going over the 25% total
hardcover.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m.
Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000037 Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point Road,
Variance, and noted he would approve all of the variances. Roll Call Vote: Ayes 6 (Libby, Erickson,
Bollis, Kirchner, Gettman, Ressler), Nays 0.
From:Dustin Kindl
To:Melanie Curtis
Subject:Tim Hanson/Carrie OKeefe - 2645 Casco Pt Rd
Date:Thursday, June 25, 2020 10:44:48 AM
Melanie,
My name is Dustin Kindl and we talked a couple of weeks ago regarding Tim and Carrie's
project. Our home address is 2649 Casco Point Road.
We are writing to express our support of Tim and Carrie's variance request because we realize
the additional hardcover their requesting is a positive effort to help with road safety within the
neighborhood, which is important to us given that we have two active young children.
We are aware this variance is 2% greater than the max of 5% and we support this. They will
soon have an additional driver with their daughter turning 16. This results in another vehicle
and with this variance it will allow them to park in their driveway and not on the street all the
time which could be very dangerous and cause blind spots to the kids and pedestrians using
the road.
We believe Tim and Carrie have made a good faith effort for the city and neighbors by
keeping their house behind the 75’ line by 6’, installing permeable pavers for their walkway,
and staying under the proposed structural hardcover of 20%.
Please feel free to reach out with questions.
Dustin Kindl
612-414-2889
Date Application Received: 05/20/2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: 05/26/2020
60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 07/25/2020
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 15 June 2020
Subject: #LA120-000037, Tim Hanson, 2645 Casco Point Road
Variances / Public Hearing
Background
The applicant is requesting variances in order to construct a new home on a property with
substandard area and width. Additionally requested is a hardcover variance to permit 27%
hardcover where 25% is permitted.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has stated that the variance is necessary to allow
the driveway configuration ‘straight out from the garage’. 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:
The City has adopted ordinances over the past few years to address inadequacies in the small,
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot width, lot area, and hardcover variances
in order to redevelop the property.
Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should determine if the hardcover variance
is supported by practical difficulty and make a recommendation. Staff recommends approval
of the lot area and lot width variances.
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 2 of 5
and/or narrow existing properties, and disproportionate distribution of lot area within the 75-
foot setback for hardcover on Tier 1 lots. The applicant has designed a house that fits within the
required (adjusted) setbacks, and has moved the home back 6-feet further from the lake than
the average lakeshore setback requires to limit the driveway but still exceeds the hardcover.
In this neighborhood, Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the size and shape of the lot
affecting the property which justify the variances allowing development and redevelopment.
While the applicant has not fully demonstrated standards necessary to support the hardcover
variance they have made site plan decisions to limit or offset their impact. The plans could be
modified to conform in hardcover. For example, the driveway could be tapered to 8 feet in
width as it nears the road to limit the hardcover. The ability to pull straight into the garage off
of the road is a convenience, rather than a hardship.
The proposed home development on this property is at a scale which is consistent with the
neighborhood.
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Section 78-350 - Setbacks:
LR-1C Required Proposed
Rear/Street 30’ 30.5’
East Side* 7.5’ 7.5’
West Side* 7.5’ 7.5’
Lakeshore 75’ 97’
Average Lakeshore The average lakeshore setback will be met.
* 78-350(b)(1) Side yard setback. For lots that are non-conforming as to their width, the interior
side yard setback for the principal building… shall be the lessor of ten feet or equal to ten percent
of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than 7.5 feet.
Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’
Actual 11,488 s.f. (0.26 acre) 60’ @ 75’ / 60’ @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
11,488 s.f. (0.26 acre) Allowed: 2,297 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,269 s.f. (19.7%)
Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in
Zone Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 11,488 s.f. 2,872 s.f.
(25%)
3,136 s.f.
(27%) 0 w/in 75’
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 3 of 5
Applicable Regulations:
Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Section 78-350)
Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet
the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard
properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped
without variances if specific standards are met; such as:
1. All setback requirements can be met;
2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can
be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and
3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage
restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed
25 percent of the entire lot area.
4. All other zoning district standards can be met.
The applicant’s request for a hardcover variance results in the property’s inability to conform to
all of the standards above. Therefore, lot area and lot width variances are also required in order
to redevelop the property. The ability to develop the property consistent with other existing
developed properties in the neighborhood would be limited if the area and width variances are
not granted.
Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700)
The applicant is proposing 27% total site hardcover (3,136 square feet) where 25% is permitted;
264 square feet greater than the limit. The driveway width at the road is a pre-existing
condition. The proposed hardcover level is the result of the 26-foot wide (3 stall) garage door,
and the applicant’s use of the existing driveway width. The applicant
has proposed reduction in the curb cut to reduce the hardcover
although within the road ROW.
The house has been moved away from the lake in an attempt to limit
the additional hardcover. Keeping the same garage door width, and
meeting the City’s driveway dimensional minimums, the driveway
could be reduced by ±50 square feet by tapering as it joins with the
property line/roadway (see Staff sketch). This would still result in a
hardcover variance for ±26.8% and appears to be functional.
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
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 4 of 5
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard
lot have difficulties in its small size and depth, and proximity to the lake to permit
redevelopment. The house is set back approximately 6 feet further from the lake than
is required by the average lakeshore setback, protecting views of the lake for adjacent
properties and limiting driveway hardcover.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The number and type of
variances proposed to develop this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; the request to permit construction of the
home on the substandard lot is reasonable.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The substandard size is an existing condition and there is no available land with
which to make the property conforming. There should be consideration for
variance approvals from the lot width and area requirements. The house has
been moved away from the lake in an attempt to limit the additional hardcover;
and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances
are requested in order to permit construction of a home, which is reasonable.
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 home is an allowed use in the
LR-1C District.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size creates
difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. The
proposed hardcover level is not out of character.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property’s substandard size creates difficulties which also apply
to many of the properties in the same neighborhood.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. Granting lot area and lot width variances
are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. The
FILE # LA20-000037
15 June 2020
Page 5 of 5
hardcover variance is requested to support the proposed home on the property which
is in a conforming location.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the
variances for hardcover, lot width and lot area in this unique situation is not contrary
to the intent of the zoning chapter.
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variances for lot area, lot
width are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The
proposed hardcover is a convenience.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Public Comments
No public comments have been submitted to date.
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
The Planning Commission should determine if the hardcover variance is supported by practical
difficulty and make a recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the lot area and lot width
variances.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations
Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations (Staff Edit)
Exhibit F. Aerial & Street View Photos
Exhibit G. Property Owners List
Exhibit H. Plat Map
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. To consider lot area, lot width, hardcover, and setback variances to facilitate a
boundary line adjustment. Direct staff to prepare a resolution or request additional PC review.
2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The applicant has extended the review period to August 15,
2020.
3. Background. The applicant owns both 1380 and 1386 Rest Point Road, and has submitted a
request to adjust the property line between the two parcels, shifting the line to the east, effectively
reducing the lot area and width for 1380 Rest Point road. Decreasing the lot area increases (by
percentage) the level of hardcover, already non-conforming. Lastly, shifting the property line to
the east reduces the setback for the existing boat house, from 6 feet to one foot. Boundary Line
adjustments are an administrative process, unless an existing non-conforming condition is
increased, per section 82-200 (a) (4).
Revised drawing. On July 6th, based on Planning Commission comments, the applicant provided
a revised proposal sketch (Exhibit C). This new proposal shows the property line jogging away
from the boathouse, providing a setback of 2 feet on the west side of the boat house.
The applicant’s additional information also suggests a reduction in the hardcover due to removal
of a portion of the driveway and the removal of the fence, resulting in 4,549 square feet of
hardcover on 1380 Rest Point Road. Staffs analysis of the hardcover is based on the hardcover
worksheet provided by the applicant and prepared by a surveyor, also resulting in 4,549 sq ft of
hardcover for 1380. This worksheet reflects actual hardcover observed on the property and
shown on the survey (Exhibit D). The applicant appears to be arguing that the hardcover that used
to be on the property should count as a reduction in hardcover for this project.
4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On May 18, 2020, the Planning Commission held
the public hearing electronically. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7
to 0 on a motion to deny the requested variance. PC minutes are attached as Exhibit B.
Much of the Commission comments revolved around two issues, the hardcover, and the setback
for the boat house. To summarize the issues:
Boat House. Shifting the lot line to the east reduces the side yard setback for the boat house
from 6 feet to 1 foot. Commissioners were uncomfortable with this distance, essentially
requiring property owner of 1380 to trespass onto 1386.
Net Hardcover. The applicant is not proposing any additional hardcover on either property.
However, decreasing the lot area for 1380 Rest Point Road hardcover, increases by
percentage the amount of hardcover for that lot. (The amount of net hardcover, by
percentage, for 1386 is reduced because the lot area for that lot increased.)
Item No.: 15 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: LA20-000024 – Jay Nygard 1380 Rest Point Road – Lot area, Lot
width, Hardcover, and side yard setback variances
Presenter: Melanie Curtis, City Planner Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
The Commissioners commented on the reduced setback for the boat house. Some commissioners
commented on shifting the lines doesn’t solve the issues identified by the applicant, it just shifts
them to the other property owner. The members of the Commission were in agreement that, due
to the lack of demonstrated practical difficulty, denial of the variance as requested would be an
appropriate.
During the course of the discussion with the Planning Commission, some commissioners noted
that the maintenance concern of the applicant could be resolved by the development of a
maintenance easement, which does not require a variance.
5. Public Comment. One public comment has been received, and is attached as Exhibit I.
6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council direct staff to draft a resolution of
approval or denial. If the Council chooses to deny the variance, they should state reasons why.
The applicant has requested an additional hearing by the planning commission; requesting
additional feedback as to which changes they could support. The Council could remand the issue
to the Planning Commission for further input. The goal there would be to provide general
commentary, not redesign the proposal.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should either remand the question to the Commission, or direct staff to prepare a resolution.
Exhibits
A. Planning Commission minutes dated May 18, 2020
B. PC Staff report
C. Additional information provided July 6, 2020
D. Survey
E. Practical Difficulty Form
F. Hardcover Calculation
G. Applicants pictures
H. Applicants letter to Planning Commission
I. Correspondence between staff and the applicant
J. Public Comment
K. City Attorney response RE Boundary by practical location
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits May 18, 2020
Hardcover Lot area
(existing)
Lot area
(proposed)
Existing
percentage
Proposed
percentage
1386 Rest Point Rd 2,763 10,056 10,662 27.48%25.91%
1380 Rest Point Rd 4,549 16,609 16,003 27.39%28.43%
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 6
2. LA20-000024 JAY NYGARD, 1380 REST POINT ROAD, LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH,
HARDCOVER, AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES, 6:16 P.M. - 7:04 P.M.
Jay Nygard, Applicant, was present.
Staff presented a summary of packet information.
McCutcheon noted in the pictures there is a stake next to what he assumes to be the boathouse. He is
assuming that is one foot away from it and assumed the wood stakes with the yellow are the proposed. He
asked if the clump of trees pictured are considered to be on the east or west property.
Barnhart said he would defer questions about the pictures to the applicant.
Ressler stated, based on the City Attorney’s comments that were provided, it sounds like ruling it on the
basis that it was requested would require it to be awarded in Court only. He asked if that was something
that the Planning Commission could provide in the Planning Commission setting, or was it only available
through the legal process.
Barnhart advised that the Commission should focus its analysis and review based on the standards for
variance of the doctrine by practical location. He said he thought that was a decision that came from a
Court system versus a City action.
Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road, referenced the question regarding "boundary by practical location"
and stated that is a legal doctrine, it is not a law. He said doctrines are developed in the legal culture in
order to help guide proper decisions, which is why he brought it up, because he is basing the application
on the legal doctrine to better help the Commission understand why he is trying to do this. He is trying to
do this because the best practical location to put the boundary is at the crest of the hill from the street
down. He knows it changes a little bit when it gets to the boathouse, but he tried to follow the crest of the
line the best he could. As far as the root structures of the trees on the line, they are on both properties
because root structures are as big as the tree umbrella. He said when he was on the Planning Commission
and City Council, he visited every property when something came up and it was important for him to see
the property personally, because pictures and Staff can't always tell someone the whole story. He asked if
anybody got the chance to look at the property.
Libby and Bollis indicated they did.
Mr. Nygard said he was disappointed because he felt Barnhart misrepresented what is going on and it is a
lot easier to see things in person. He indicated Barnhart is saying they are increasing hardcover on the
property, and that is not the case. They removed an illegal driveway turnaround and an illegal fence on
the property to bring the property into compliance, which totaled 270 square feet. Those were removed
before he had the surveys done, so those are not included in the surveys. City Hall may have a survey
which would include those things. On the last page he included a map showing they removed 270 feet of
hardcover on the property, all of it being illegal hardcover. After removing that 270 feet, it reduced the
hardcover from 29 percent to 28 percent overall to the property, even with the boundary shift. As a
lifelong resident of the area and being on the Planning Commission and City Council, it is very important
to him that the area gets taken care of. With every project he has done to improve the property, it is
always in the back of his mind as far as how he can bring it more compliant and still make the project
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 6
work. He stated that several times in the write-up by City Staff, Barnhart claims that the slope is getting
steeper at the property line, which is far from the truth. The intent is to bring the property line to the crest
of the hill. The previous neighbors put a fence right at the crest of the hill because that is the most logical
place for it to go. He was never able to maintain anything on his side of it without trespassing, so he
always had invasive weeds and toxic, nauseous weeds coming through. He has been able to resolve that
issue, but it does not resolve the issue of how to maintain a hill that goes just about straight down for the
majority of the length of the property line. He stated it would be a lot easier to do so from his area up. He
said if you look at the pictures, at the tree, it is 1 ½ feet and it telescopes out. The reason it does is because
that's where the crest of the hill goes. He said he went to a meeting the previous November, and many of
the applications were approved with variances similar to what he is asking for: five-yard setback issue, lot
width issue. At that time, Barnhart said the revised configuration of the lot would not impact the character
of the neighborhood, and that was the reason Barnhart used for approval back in November. He said that
is exactly what would happen in this case: no one would be able to tell from the street, lake, air, or
anywhere else anyone is looking, any difference between the property. He is falling into the guideline that
Barnhart stated last year. As he looks through the different applications, there are rear yard setbacks; a
second rear yard setback; average lakeshore; average lakeshore, structure and hardcover; lake and rear
yard hardcover in excess of 20 feet; lot width, rear yard, and hardcover. Those were variances granted to
other people. He is asking for a similar type of consideration. He said sometimes City Code cannot match
everything, especially in an area where he is, where all the lots are obviously substandard because they
were zoned well after they were platted. He is trying to readjust it to where it would have been if someone
had come out when the lots were platted and said that this is where the lot line should go. He noted a
house is being built two houses away from him and the owner ended up getting two different rear yard
setbacks. He feels precedence on this issue has been that setback variances are okay, especially given the
lot sizes and when they were zoned versus when they were platted. He indicated there has been a lot of
strife between the properties over the years. He inadvertently installed a waterfall over the line after the
fence was installed because he assumed the other owner went along the property line. Although that
caused a lot of strife, the Courts allowed that waterfall to stay there through two different litigations. He
thinks the Courts allowing it to stay there means something. He will have an encroachment into one
property that the City is not trying to help him resolve. If the Courts have allowed it to stay there for 18
years, he guessed they would get to keep it there because it is over the statute of limitations for adverse
possession. He asked how the waterfall problems would be solved, and also how to make sure there aren’t
going to be complaints or legal issues in the future for the City. He stated it is all about solving problems.
He is a little frustrated because he wishes Barnhart would have gotten on the bandwagon and understood
that that is the goal of the application, but Barnhart kind of cherry-picked a couple of things and only gave
the Commissioners part of the story.
Libby asked Mr. Nygard to summarize what he would consider to be the highest net benefit from being
granted the variance, since he owns both properties and basically shares both lot lines, such as a bottom-
line benefit in resale later on. He said it cannot inconvenience either property since he owns both of them.
He appreciates the nuts and bolts and mechanics of it, but as a former independent fee appraiser, he would
like to hear the net benefit if the Planning Commission suggests granting of the variance to the City.
Mr. Nygard said the net benefit is resolving the issues from now until eternity. He has lived at the home
25 years and this is the location where it really belongs, which is why he brought up “boundary by
practical location.” He is considering selling the property. He is putting solar power on it and has put a
new driveway in and reduced the illegal hardcover. If he sells the property, it is going to sell for less, so
there is no net financial benefit for him to do this. He is doing it because he thinks it is the right thing to
do. It is a way to solve problems not only for him, but for the City as well.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 6
Ressler noted Mr. Nygard, having been on the Commission in the past, understands one of the issues is
identifying enough practical difficulty to grant a variance to the rules that the City is required to abide by.
One of the difficulties the Commission is having is understanding a worsening effect when you have the
difficulties, and that is identifying the boathouse going from a six-foot setback to a 1-foot. Unless he
misunderstood, the survey in the application does not reflect the removal of 270 feet of hardcover, nor is
there a “subject to survey showing what it would look like once it is removed.” When it comes to
structure, whenever someone intensifies an existing problem, that is going in the wrong direction. He
asked if Mr. Nygard tried to find a way to solve the issue without doing that.
Mr. Nygard stated he is going off the character of the land, and that is the thing that he always respected
when he looked at these applications. The character of the land says the property line should be the crest
of the hill, and that is why they are going there. As far as the survey, the Commission is looking at the
final survey with the new driveway, removed sidewalk, removed turnaround, and removed illegal fence. It
is an after-the-fact survey. He was not privy to having a survey prior to the removal of those items, but
because he is an engineer, he can do a general calculation to figure out that it is approximately 270 feet of
hardcover removed that wasn't accounted for in the calculations. He is not looking for any kind of
hardcover variance because he is decreasing that. He is looking at adjusting the lot width and side yard
setback for the boathouse. The one side of the boathouse has never been usable land, that being the 1380
property, for the 25 years he has lived there. The owner before him would scrape up the milfoil and make
a huge pile of milfoil there, which built up the ground, and that is how he used that. It's not so much that it
is a practical difficulty, but that is why he gave the Commission the “boundary by practical location” legal
doctrine, because it is out there for a reason. The doctrine says if there is a practical location for that
boundary to be, then that's where that boundary should be. He is identifying the practical location, which
is given by the nature and features of the land itself, with the reasoning that is needed in order to be
granted a variance.
Ressler clarified that the crest of the hill seems to be Mr. Nygard’s answer to the practical difficulty issue
and his opinion is that the more correct way to draw the line would include reducing the area from the
property line from six feet to one foot.
Mr. Nygard said to be really right he would put it all the way up to the boathouse, but there was a
grounding rod over there. He is going to run the sprinkler pipe along there, so he left a foot so that there is
enough area on the land by the boathouse. He could move it back to two feet and jog it behind the
boathouse if necessary. He was considering writing in, if/when he sells the property, a 2-foot easement for
the boathouse so they would always have a permanent ability to maintain the side of the boathouse if
necessary.
Kirchner indicated Mr. Nygard mentioned that the final survey, dated November 12, 2019, was after the
illegal hardcover was removed from 1380 and that he was reducing the hardcover. In looking at the
hardcover calculation worksheet for 1380 Rest Point, also dated November 12, 2019, from Gronberg &
Associates, it indicates the hardcover with the lot line rearrangement would increase it to 28.43 percent. If
his understanding is correct, it is now at 27.39, so it would be increased a little over one percent. He asked
Mr. Nygard to help him understand and clarify what he was referencing with the documents not being
correct or from a prior application and referencing the survey as being the final from November.
Mr. Nygard asked the Commissioners to look at the last page of the packet he submitted, noting that he
has the site plan he submitted for the driveway permit which shows new driveway versus removed
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 6
driveway. Referencing a picture from Google Earth, he indicated an area at the bottom of the driveway
where he removed 240 square feet of an illegal turnaround, a retaining wall, and a sidewalk. He said on
the other side of the driveway there was a small slip he pulled out and there were 20 square feet for fence
posts. He stated they were not included in the Gronberg survey because they were removed after he
purchased the property but before Gronberg surveyed it. He said if you add the 270 square feet of
hardcover to the initial existing, you end up with 4,819 square feet, giving over 29 percent hardcover. He
noted it was originally over 29 percent and it is being reduced to over 28 percent. He is asking for 610
square feet and removed 270 square feet, which is 44 percent. They removed a large amount of hardcover
in order to accommodate this. He can foresee the hardcover issue being important, but he also knew they
were illegal additions to the property that did not belong and he wanted to remove them. He noted the
City never dealt with the fence. Even though the driveway was installed, the previous owner who went
through and got a variance and upgraded the property in 2004 or 2006 was blindsided because he did not
know that the driveway turnaround was illegal. The City ended up approving it even though it was illegal.
Although he is saying it is illegal, the turnaround and sidewalk is still City-approved hardcover. He
removed them, anyway.
Ressler asked Mr. Nygard to be available for any questions that may arise and he could do so by raising
his hand so Ressler knew he was willing to participate, and Mr. Nygard agreed to do so.
Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:44 p.m.
There were no public comments relating to this application.
Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m.
Ressler stated the Planning Commission generally does not like to intensify lot line setbacks to structure,
which is the difficulty he is having with the rearrangement.
Kirchner said he has concern regarding the 1-foot setback that would be created at the boathouse. He also
has concern with the hardcover that would end up at 1380 Rest Point Road. He appreciates the applicant's
desire and the efforts taken to remove the hardcover that was over the allowance and get the property
closer to compliance; however, with the lot line rearrangement, a percentage of that is being added back
and he feels like it is going two steps forward and one step back. He has concerns over the proximity of
the lot line to the boathouse for maintenance of the boathouse for future owners as well as the hardcover
that would be added to 1380.
Erickson stated in order for the Planning Commission to determine the existence of a practical difficulty,
they first need to determine that the proposed use is a reasonable use, which is where he has a problem
with the proposal as it relates to the 1-foot setback. He understands the applicant has an explanation, but
he has been trying to conjure up in his mind some circumstance where he might support a 1-foot setback
anywhere for anyone, and he has been unable to do so. His conclusion is that a 1-foot setback is an
unreasonable use and, therefore, there is no practical difficulty as required by state law.
Libby said he agrees with Erickson but has a couple of additional points. He has substantial familiarity
with the property from a terrestrial, aerial, and lakeside standpoint because that is a common visiting point
for him as a boater. An inference of hardship does not follow through with any credence because he
knows what the pitches are from having been there often. He cannot find that any change in the lot line is
going to change any sort of hardship from the pitch and grade from the street to the lakeshore. He cannot
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 6
see a large net benefit either economically or as an access or as a drainage benefit and that this is a change
worth going through for a variance.
McCutcheon said he agrees with the previous comments. He noted that in looking at it without the
boathouse and putting the property line back, it's the top of the hill or bottom of the hill, it’s a horse
apiece, and difficult both ways. The applicant is saying, even when the fence was there, they had to
trespass to maintain the fence. Here is a situation where, if they want to maintain the boathouse, they will
have to trespass. He does not see replacing one problem with another as beneficial. They might as well
leave well enough alone and keep the six-foot setback, which is better than a 1-foot setback. He also does
not see the practical difficulty.
Gettman noted he disagrees with only one point in that it sounds like the applicant is willing to potentially
have an easement but work on that side of the actual boundary line. While the crest is one issue and the
boathouse the other issue, it sounded like the applicant might be willing to adjust the line closer to the
boathouse to address that issue. He sees this as a practical difficulty in that the landowner had to literally
buy the other house to try to resolve the issue. If the Commission can address it now, it will prevent
another issue down the road.
Ressler noted the Commission can’t modify it because it does not have the “subject to” drawing. He
suggested finding a way to rearrange the lot where it is not intensifying the setback to the boathouse. He
noted that was the biggest issue for him. Changing the width of the lot has an impact, and the hardcover
survey being correctly reflected is another. What he is hearing from fellow Commissioners is that the
boathouse setback is creating a problem that is not as big of a problem as it is today.
McCutcheon indicated the existing lot line is close to the shed, and a devil's advocate could say that they
are moving the lot line for the boathouse closer but actually helping the shed. The tiebreaker in his view is
the boathouse is closer to the lake, and the only reason it can be there is because it has been there a long
time and is probably grandfathered in. He referenced the comment about years of strife because of the
property line and doubted it was as simple as that, because if it was as simple as moving a property line,
that would have been the solution a long time ago. A lot of work is being done just to move a lot line and
he is trying to see a value, but he sees a problem going closer to the boathouse.
Ressler agreed that drawing a line between the shed on one side and the boathouse on the other seems like
the reasonable place that it already is. It is up for debate whether it's the crest of the hill, the middle of the
hill, or the bottom of the hill. He personally does not see that a practical difficulty has been demonstrated
enough to change what it is. He understands the hill part, but it did not solve the problem with the two
structures lakeward.
Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to deny Application No. LA20-000024 Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest
Point Road, lot area, lot width, hardcover, and side yard setback variances.
Mr. Nygard stated the reason he put the line one foot from the boathouse is because that was the
straightest line he could draw down from the crest of the hill. He would be willing to adjust the line to
two feet so they would have room to maintain it. He noted the problem with all of the properties is that no
matter what you do, something is going to be out of compliance. There was no easement before when
they had the issues and the fence was put up. He stated that if someone puts a fence up and they are
hostile and then they want to come to your property, traipse through a garden in order to maintain the
fence, it becomes an issue. He wanted to give an easement to ensure the property owners could maintain
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION
Monday, May 18, 2020
6:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 6
the boathouse. He is trying to solve all of the problems at the same time. He understands that the Planning
Commission is struggling with the boathouse, but it is already subpar, and making it a few more feet
subpar does not upset that property in any manner, considering that it was never usable space and was
filled with noxious weeds the whole time. He is trying to put the boundary where it really belongs. The
land is what created the crest of the hill. He did not do that and the neighbor did not do that. The land did
it and it's done it for a long time. He noted that his neighbor two houses up got a variance in order to have
the house located closer to the street. He asked how the land caused that person a problem so that his
house could be located closer to the street. He said one big practical difficulty the Commissioners have
not considered is the waterfall that’s been over the property line for 18 years and, in two different
litigations, two different judges left it there. He has not heard any discussion about it. It is really important
because when those people sued him the last time, he had to buy the house to solve the problem. He is
trying now to solve the problem forever and make it clear and obvious so there are not any more problems
and lawsuits. He indicated he could go through a legal action and try to get it solved that way, but he
thought it would be easier working with his City and having people understand that all of these properties
are unique, it is a unique hill between a couple of properties, and the Commission could understand how
that might cause an issue. He suggested resolving the issue by moving the property line over. It would
solve the waterfall issue, solve the weed issue, solve the maintenance issue, and solve everything else so
there aren't issues in the future. He said the City lets fencing go right on property lines now which creates
issues. That is not what he is suggesting. He is trying to set it up so the people on that property will be
able to maintain that boathouse and will have legal access through an easement in order to do that. He is
getting all of the compromising done ahead of time to try to improve the situation.
Ressler said that the Planning Commission has to rule on what they can see, what they have, and what
they have in front of them. He can understand giving legal access to maintain a shed, but right now the
variance is not necessary based on the lot line that has been placed in front of the Commission, and that
clearly poses a problem. Providing an easement is certainly a solution. He suggested that Staff could give
the applicant options as far as where he can go from here. He stated removing the waterfall may be
something that could be brought up or done another more conforming way.
Bollis noted the boathouse is his hangup and he knows they are supposed to vote on what they see, but the
simplest solution may be to create an easement that runs along the property line for maintenance and it
would run on both sides so each neighbor can maintain each side of the property line as they need to. That
would possibly forego a lot line rearrangement and other nonconformities.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes 7 (Kirchner, Gettman, Bollis, McCutcheon, Erickson, Libby, Ressler), Nays 0.
Date Application Received: March 18, 2020
Date Application Considered as Complete: March 20, 2020
60-Day Review Period Expires: Extended to July 16, 2020
To: Chair Ressler, Planning Commission members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Date: May 18, 2020
Subject: #LA20-24, Jay Nygard, 1380 Rest Point Road,
Variances – Lot area, Lot width, Hardcover, Side Yard setback
Public Hearing
Background
The applicant owns the parcels at 1380 and 1386 Rest Point Road, and proposes an adjustment
of the common property line authorized by section 82-200 (4). Because the already non-
conforming Lot Area will be reduced in size, the Lot Width will be reduced, the percentage of
Hardcover increased, and Side Yard Setback reduced on the property at 1380 Rest Point Road, a
variance is required. The non-conforming status of 1386 Rest Point Road will be reduced,
consistent generally with the amount the non-conformity increased for 1380 Rest Point Road.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Applicant Submittal Information: It is the applicant’s burden to justify the variance through the
demonstration of practical difficulties. The applicant has stated that the request allows for a
simple line adjustment to reflect the natural contour of the properties. The applicant has
provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Reviewing the response to the practical difficulties in
both exhibits B and F, Staff finds that the applicant has not provided adequate statements or
information that supports the variance; the proposal actually increases the slope at the property
line and significantly reduces the side yard setback for an already non-conforming boathouse at
1380 to maintain their boat house, limiting opportunity for that property owner to maintain the
structure in the long term. The applicant’s concerns with maintenance could be preserved by
the granting of a maintenance easement between the two properties.
Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width and hardcover variances
to facilitate a boundary line adjustment. The boundary line adjustment would decrease the
width of the lot, decrease the area of the lot, and increase the percentage of hardcover.
Adjusting the boundary line will reduce the non-conforming setback for an existing boat house
from 6 feet to 1 foot.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the Planning Commission
deny the application as proposed.
FILE #LA20-24
May 18, 2020
Page 2 of 6
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET for 1380 REST POINT ROAD
Section 78-330 – Principal Building Setbacks:
Setback, area, and width in Red are non-conforming
LR-1B DISTRICT Required Existing Proposed
Street 35 28’ No Change
(West) Side 10 18 14
(East) Side 10 15 No Change
Lakeshore 75’ 72.5 No Change
Boat House Setbacks
LR-1B DISTRICT Required Existing Proposed
(West) Side 10 6’ (boat house) 1 foot
(East) Side 10 81.1’ No Change
Lakeshore 75’ 6’ (boat house) No Change
Section 78- 330 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1B DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width
Required 43,560 s.f. (1.0 acres) 140’
Actual 16,609 s.f. (0.38 acre) 98.9@ 75’ / 97.8 @ OHWL
Proposed 16,003 s.f. (0.37 acres) 94.4@ 75’ / 92.7 @ OHWL
Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
Existing 16,609 s.f. (0.38 acre) Allowed: 3,321 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,888 s.f. (17.3%)
Proposed 16,003 s.f (0.37 acre) Allowed: 3,200 s.f. (20%)
Proposed: 2,888 s.f. (18%)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area in Zone
(Square feet)
25%
Allowed
Hardcover (s.f.)
Existing Hardcover
(s.f.)
Existing Hardcover
(%)
Tier 1 (Existing) 16,609 4,152
4,549 27%
Tier 1 (Proposed 16,003 4,000
4,549 28%
FILE #LA20-24
May 18, 2020
Page 3 of 6
Applicable Regulations:
Sec. 78-330 (Lot area, width, setbacks)
Sec. 78-1700
82-200 (4)
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
intent of the LR-1B zoning district, which prescribes lot area and width requirements, is
to protect the quality of stormwater runoff in Lake Minnetonka from the effects of
dense development. If the variances are approved, the resulting boundary line shift
reduces the non-conformity on one lot, while increases the non-conformity on a second
lot. Regarding the side yard setback, the reduction of the non-conforming setback to 1
foot does not support the intent of the ordinance, to separate buildings from property
lines toward meeting open space, water distribution, and maintenance goals. The
applicant has not provided support to justify the variance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan guides
the property for single family residential, at a density of 0.5-2 units per acre. The
variances will not add additional units. This criteria 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 applicant stated N/A. The applicant has
not provided support to justify the variance. The intent of the hardcover, lot
area, and lot width standards is to maintain minimum densities and hard cover
standards on each lot. Further, the side yard setback minimum (for the boat
house) is to promote separation between structures. This criteria is not met.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
The applicant states “Yes, the simple line readjustment to reflect the natural
contour of the properties”, though what is triggering the variance is the
relocation of the lot line, initiated by the applicant. A variance, if granted, should
be justified by the unique circumstances on the property. It is not clear from the
FILE #LA20-24
May 18, 2020
Page 4 of 6
applicant’s information what is unique about the natural contours to justify the
variance. This criterial is not met
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant
states that “there will be no noticeable difference from the street, lake, or air.”
This criteria 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. The applicant
responds “N/A”. There is no evidence to suggest that economic considerations were
the only justification for the variance. This criteria is met.
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. The applicant responds “N/A”. 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. The applicant notes that the use of either property is not changing. Single
family residential uses are a permitted use in the LR-1B zoning district. This criteria is
met.
7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling. The applicant responds “N/A”. This condition is not applicable.
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The applicant responds “yes”, though no
evidence has been provided to support that claim. Often, characteristics of a lot are the
clearest support for a variance. Staff has analyzed the survey provided by the applicant.
There are a number of contours identified near the boat house*, where the existing and
proposed lot lines diverge at the greatest distance. For this exercise, staff noted the
location of the 938 and the 930 contour, as both contours can be observed crossing the
existing and proposed property line. The OHWL was not chosen because of some
ambiguity for its location as shown on the survey. The survey provided by the applicant
suggests that the slope at the property line (6’/30.19’ = 19.8 %) would actually get
steeper (6/27.17’ = 22%) if the boundary line shifts to the east. Finally, shifting the
property line reduces the area for the owner of 1380 to maintain their property,
including the boathouse, a concern of the applicant previously. This criteria is not met.
*The applicant states in his Practical Difficulties response that the contours of the land
make it extremely difficult for owners of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain the property.
It is not stated where the slope is too steep to maintain, it is assumed to be near the
boat house.
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The applicant responds “Unknown if other property pairs may have
similar lot line issue or not. The applicant argues that the conditions are the natural
contours that prevented the previous owner from maintaining the area. Shifting the
property line to reduce a non-conforming setback of 1 foot to “reflect natural contour
of the properties” to correct a perceived maintenance issue could definitely apply to
other parcels in the district.
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant responds: “ Yes, would
remove years of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point road previously refused to
FILE #LA20-24
May 18, 2020
Page 5 of 6
maintain the land and allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386 Rest Point
Road continuously. Furthermore, the natural contours of the land make it extremely
difficult for owners of 1380 to maintain the property due to the steep hill.” The
property owner now owns both parcels, so the strife referenced is moot. The
adjustment of the property line now increases the slope at the property line. Further,
it reduces the amount of area available for a property owner to maintain the boat
house, as the setback reduces from 6 feet to 1 foot. The applicant has not provided
information necessary to support the variance. This criterial is not met.
11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort
or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The applicant
responds “yes”. The reduction in area, width, and hardcover is not likely to impact the
health, safety or morals. However, the reduction in setback will make it nearly
impossible for the owner of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain their building without
encroachment. The applicant has not provided information to justify the variance.
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 again responds: “Yes,
would remove years of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point Road who previously
refused to maintain the land and allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386
Rest Point Road continuously. Furthermore, the natural contours of the land make it
extremely difficult for owners of 1380 Rest Point Road to maintain the property due to
the steep hill.” This standard is not met. It is not clear how making the property line
steeper alleviates a difficulty. Lastly, reducing the setback to 1 foot introduces issues
down the line, as this setback virtually assures a property line dispute in the future.
The applicant has provided some supplemental information (Exhibit F). In that document, the
applicant suggests that the legal doctrine of “boundary by practical location’ applies. The City
attorney is preparing a response to that assertion, which will be provided by the meeting. The
applicant also references several ‘similar situations’ within the city the last couple of years.
Reviewing the case list referenced by the applicant, staff notes that none of the applications
involved reducing the lot area or lot width:
Case # Address Notes
LA18-89 1565 Orchard Beach
Place
Variance did not alter the lot area or width. Minimum
variance to allow building was approved
LA19-41 3570 Ivy Place Preliminary Plat application. Plat combined outlot A and Lot
1 of original Ivy Place. Did not reduce the conforming lot
area and width
LA19-90 577 Park Lane ALS variance.
LA19-93 1971 Fagerness Withdrawn by applicant. No action by the City Council.
LA19-94 1966 Shadywood No change to the lot area and width
LA19-96 1398 Rest Point Road No change to the lot area or width for this nonconforming lot
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.
FILE #LA20-24
May 18, 2020
Page 6 of 6
Public Comments
To date, staff has received two calls inquiring about the application, and one written comment,
attached as Exhibit H.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Council 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 variances, 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 variances?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Planning Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends the Council direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval or denial. If the
Council recommends denial, they should provide reasons.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form
Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan
Exhibit D. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit E. Applicants Pictures
Exhibit F. Applicants Letter of Support
Exhibit G. Correspondence/ staff comment
Exhibit H. Public Comment
Exhibit I. Mailing information
7/6/20
Dustin Rief
City Administrator,
City of Orono
2750 Kelley Parkway
Long Lake, MN 55356
Dear Mr Rief,
Please see my revised application details for LA20-24 below. I took into consideration the
recommendations from the planning commission to reduce non-conformities, hardcover percentage and
to ensure a 2' distance from the boathouse on 1380 for maintenance purposes. I have readjusted the lot
line as seen in the attachments.
Encroachments:
◦The shed at 1380 has become conforming with the lot line readjustment, thus the total
non-conforming structure setbacks between the 2 lots has been reduced from 2 to 1 in the
lake shore setback area.
◦The setback for the boat house is reduced 3.92' to a 2' setback from the 5.92'setback for a
total length of 29' of reduced setback.
Hardcover:
The overall hardcover on both properties drops even though the line is moved towards 1380. We were
able to do this by removing an illegal fence and illegal driveway turnaround/retaining wall that the City
of Orono never properly dealt with through code compliance. In other words, I have done what the City
of Orono staff failed to do in regards to illegal structures at 1380 Rest Point Road.
1380 1386
Previous:
Area 16609 ft2 10056 ft2
Hardcover 4819 ft2 2763 ft2
HC Percentage 29.00%27.5%
Proposed:
Area 16136 ft2 10529ft2
Hardcover 4549 ft2 2763 ft2
HC Percentage 28.20%26.20%
Sincerely,
Jay Nygard
1
Jeremy Barnhart
From:Jeremy Barnhart
Sent:Monday, July 6, 2020 8:37 AM
To:'Jay Nygard'; Dustin Rief
Subject:RE: LA20-24
Attachments:Rief Update for LA20-24.pdf
Mr. Nygard,
The attached documents you provided are difficult to read, do you have a better copy, or can you mail in the original?
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono
952‐249‐4626
From: Jay Nygard [mailto:jaynygard@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, July 6, 2020 8:32 AM
To: Dustin Rief <drief@ci.orono.mn.us>
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: LA20‐24
Dear Mr Rief,
Please add the attached documents to my application. Please inform me of which city staff person will
be taking over this application so that Ican have an unbiased city staff presenting this application.
Sincerely,
Jay Nygard
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM
LA20-000024
1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by
the Zoning Chapter.
Response: N/A
2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by
the landowner.
Response: Yes, simple line readjustment to reflect the natural contour of the properties.
3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Response: There will be no noticeable difference from the street, lake or air.
4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for
the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.
Response: N/A
5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined
in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Response: N/A
6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use
that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's
land is located.
Response: Not changing uses of either property
7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.
Response: N/A
8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.
Response: Yes
9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
said land is located.
Response: Unknown if other property pairs may have similar lot line issue or not
10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.
Response: Yes, would remove years of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point road who previously
refused to maintain the land and allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386 Rest Point Road
continuously. Furthermore, the natural contours of the land make it extremely difficult for owners of 1380
to maintain the property due to the steep hill.
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: Yes
12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.
Response: Yes, would remove years of strife driven by owners of 1380 Rest Point road who previously
refused to maintain the land and allowed invasive species to flourish and invade 1386 Rest Point Road
continuously. Furthermore, the natural contours of the land make it extremely difficult for owners of 1380
to maintain the property due to the steep hill.
1
Jeremy Barnhart
From:Jeremy Barnhart
Sent:Thursday, April 9, 2020 3:53 PM
To:'Jay Nygard'
Subject:RE: LA20-000024 update
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.
2
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.
3
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono
952-249-4626
From:Hueler, Drew
To:Jeremy Barnhart
Subject:Re: Nygard request
Date:Thursday, April 9, 2020 2:14:04 PM
Thanks Jeremy. I understand the request, I don’t think it should be granted near the lakeshore
structure as it will likely cause more issues down the road if one of the properties is sold to
another party. I don’t see an issue with the boundary moving a bit between the houses or at the
street. Jay has a history of harassing neighbors, anything that can be done to avoid conflict
over there seems wise, I don’t see that being accomplished by adjusting the lot like at the
lakeshore or near a structure. If all current structure setback requirements are met I see no
issue.
Regards,
Drew Hueler
Coldwell Banker Realty
612-701-3124
drew.hueler@cbburnet.com
On Apr 9, 2020, at 2:09 PM, Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
wrote:
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono
952-249-4626
<Nygard 1380 & 1386 Rest Pt. Rd.-1.pdf>
<Practical Difficulty Form - 3-18-20.pdf>
*Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you
know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not
have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication.
From:Soren Mattick
To:Jeremy Barnhart
Subject:RE: Emailing: LA20-24 ExF Applicants Letter for Planning Commission - 1380 Lot Line Readjustment
Date:Monday, May 18, 2020 11:30:16 AM
Jeremy,
Boundary by practical location is a legal doctrine that can be used to establish a new location of a property
boundary. The doctrine may be used to establish a boundary line where none can be located or agreed upon. An
individual relying on boundary by practical location would need to prove their case in court - it isn't a zoning
concept.
Soren M. Mattick
Attorney
CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A.
Grand Oak Office Center I
860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290
Eagan, MN 55121
Phone: (651) 234-6217 ● Fax: (651) 234-6237
smattick@ck-law.com ● www.ck-law.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2020 9:06 AM
To: Soren Mattick <SMattick@ck-law.com>
Subject: Emailing: LA20-24 ExF Applicants Letter for Planning Commission - 1380 Lot Line Readjustment
Soren,
A variance applicant argues that a legal doctrine "boundary by practical location" applies to his variance
application. Can you respond so that I can provide some advice to the Planning Commission. If you can't get it to
me by this afternoon for the packet, Monday before the meeting will be fine. Thanks.
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono
952-249-4626
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. This application is regarding a variance for retaining walls in the lake yard.
2. Background/ Summary. The applicant received a variance (LA19-50, Resolution 7007)
in August of 2019 to construct retaining walls in the lake yard, to support permitted stairs
to the lake. During construction of the stairs, the need for additional/ higher retaining
walls was identified, in part to avoid large trees at the top of the hill, and to prevent
erosion due to steep slopes.
The applicant proposes modifications to the original plan, increasing the height of
portions of the retaining wall from the approved 1-2 feet to 1-5 feet and elongating the
retaining wall. The retaining walls do not impact views of the lake as the stairs are
generally sunk into the slope. The modifications to the stairs are approvable, the
modifications to the retaining wall should be approved by the City Council.
The changes are clouded and highlighted in yellow on Exhibit B.
3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council review the proposed
modifications and recommends approval of the draft resolution. The draft resolution
upholds the original approvals of Resolution 7007, yet reflects updated pages in Exhibit
A.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution.
Exhibits
A. Draft Resolution
B. Revised Plans
C. Revised hardcover calculations
D. Resolution 7007 (with Orig. Plans)
References
CC Memo and Exhibits 8/12/2019
PC Exhibits 07/15/19
Item No.: 16 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: LA19-000050 – Paul Vogstrom o/b/o Eric Vogstrom, 2710
Pence Lane, Variances - Amended Resolution/Exhibit
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development
Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
1
A RESOLUTION
APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM
MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE
SECTION 78-1279
FILE NO. LA19 -000050
WHEREAS, on August 12, 2019, via Resolution 7007, the City Council approved a
variance to permit the construction of retaining walls in the lakeyard at 2710 Pence Lane, and legally
described as:
Lot 2, Block 1, Pence Lane Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the
“Property”);
WHEREAS, the Applicant has requested an amendment to Resolution 7007 to
change the configuration of the retaining walls, which were fixed by virtue of the original approval
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed this amendment on July 13, 2020 and felt
the change was minor in nature and not likely to negatively impact the findings determined during
the original review, and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota
hereby approves the amended plans attached as Exhibit A:
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA19-000050. 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.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
2
2. The Property is located in the LR-1B One Family Lakeshore 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 variance:
a. Lake Setback Variance
6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and
recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance
upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic
conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values
of property in the surrounding area.
ANALYSIS:
1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The intent of the lake yard setback is to preserve the
natural lakeshore and not permit structure or hardcover in this area. Retaining walls help
minimum the visually impact of the stairs, which are permitted by ordinance.
2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.” The requested variance is consistent with the residential goals
within the comprehensive plan.
3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are
practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in
connection with the granting of a variance, means that:
a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner,
however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls.
The use of the Property remains residential. The proposed improvements are
residential in nature, and reasonable from a residential scope.
b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created
by the landowner.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
3
The proposed lake access stair and retaining walls do not result in hardcover
exceeding 25% for the Property and the walls are excluded from the calculation
total. The slope of the lakeshore requires stairs for dock and lake access;
c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The variance to permit construction of the walls to support the stairs within the 75-
foot setback will be less visible and more functional than an above grade stair. The
retaining walls will not change character of the locality.
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 retaining walls are an allowed use in the LR-
1B District.
7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling
as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable.
8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property.” The topography of the Property increases as it
moves away from the lake and the proposed stair improvement is necessary for access
to the lake. It is reasonable to permit the type of stair the owner has proposed in addition
to the retaining walls to support such stair system. The retaining walls will not adversely
impact adjacent properties.
9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the
land is located.” The applicant’s proposal does not appear to be out of character with the
area. The walls will not encroach nearer to the lake than the stair and can be screened
from view from the lake.
10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting a lake setback variance and to allow
the construction of the retaining wall supported stair system within the 75-foot lake setback
is reasonable and necessary to preserve the property rights of the owner.
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
4
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 lake
setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the 75-foot setback will not adversely
impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or be contrary to the ordinances.
12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but
is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The applicant has provided demonstration
of the practical difficulties which support granting the lake setback to permit the
construction of retaining walls within 75 feet of the OHWL.
CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS:
Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a
variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow retaining walls within the lake
yard, subject to the following conditions:
1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings.
2. The approved project shall conform to the survey and plan dated 06/18/19 and building
plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution
as Exhibit A.
3. The Applicant shall submit an acceptable landscape plan which provides screening of the
retaining walls when viewed from the lake with the building permit application.
4. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require
further Planning Commission and City Council review.
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 13th day of July, 2020.
ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO:
_______________________________ ________________________________
CITY OF ORONO
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
NO. ________________________
5
Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. Consider allowing two boats to be docked at dock site A.
2. Background. On April 13, 2020, the City Council approved the license for Jonathan and Kelly
Eiss, allowing them to place a dock on city property (Dock Site A) adjacent to 3445 Crystal Bay
Road. In drafting the license regulations generally, the Council incorporated by reference Lake
Minnetonka Conservation District (LMCD) regulations.
During the discussion for Dock site A, this same discussion continued with reference to a second
boat owned by the Licensee and shown on their proposed dock plan; ultimately, the motion was
made to only allow one boat, which was approved.
The applicant requests the Council allow 2 boats. He has also provided the email chain with the
LMCD. In it, he describes the dock configuration with a 2nd boat (page 5, Exhibit A).
Eventually, the LMCD responded with:
“After reviewing the matter described below, LMCD staff and legal counsel have
determined that the LMCD will allow the dockage arrangement between the City of Orono
and residents of Crystal Bay Road by the city-owned parcels in question to continue for the
2020 boating season. The LMCD will review city licensure generally and whether a license
ought to be required for these docks.”
While there is some ambiguity on what the LMCD is approving, the Council motion was clear,
only one boat is permitted to be docked. The licensee requests an amendment, allowing both of
his boats to be docked.
Only one boat is currently docked on the property.
3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council consider the issue.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should approve or deny the request.
Exhibits
A. Email Chain
B. Minutes from April 13, 2020 CC meeting
C. Picture of dock
D. Dock Plan (submitted with request to LMCD)
Item No.: 17 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Allow A Second Dock at Dock Site A
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
From:Eiss, Jonathan D
To:Jeremy Barnhart
Cc:Denny Walsh
Subject:FW: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Date:Wednesday, June 24, 2020 10:32:28 AM
Attachments:image002.png
image003.png
Hello Jeremy and Dennis,
It was nice to meet you today, Jeremy.
As I understood, you told me to get the LMCD to approve my dock arrangement. I sent them the
dock configuration. They approved it in the e-mail below. Matt Cook from the LMCD responded,
“After reviewing the matter described below, LMCD staff and legal counsel have determined that the
LMCD will allow the dockage arrangement”
I will remove the second boat if you think it is important, while the council considers a 2nd boat. I
just read your email to remove my 2nd boat now. I would have addressed this sooner had I seen
your e-mail. I want to show that it is important to me to follow the rules of the lake and city. I do
not want to jeopardize the 1st boat in any way.
Please let me know if you think it is important to remove the Whaler before the council meeting.
Thank you for your help.
Jon & Kelly Eiss
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2020 3:43 PM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Cc: Vickie Schleuning <vschleuning@lmcd.org>; Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hi Jonathan, Jeremy,
After reviewing the matter described below, LMCD staff and legal counsel have determined that the
LMCD will allow the dockage arrangement between the City of Orono and residents of Crystal Bay
Road by the city-owned parcels in question to continue for the 2020 boating season. The LMCD will
review city licensure generally and whether a license ought to be required for these docks.
Feel free to call if either of you have questions.
Thank you again for your patience.
Matthew Cook
Environmental Administrative Technician | Lake Minnetonka Conservation District
5341 Maywood Road, Suite 200 | Mound, MN 55364
Ph 952-745-0789 | Fx 952-745-9085 | mcook@lmcd.org
Connect with Us
www.facebook.com/LakeMinnetonkaConservationDistrict
www.twitter.com/LakeMtkaCD
www.lmcd.org
From: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 9:35 AM
To: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Subject: RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Thank You
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 9:33 AM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Cc: Vickie Schleuning <vschleuning@lmcd.org>; Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hi Jonathan,
Yes, we’re still looking into the matter.
Thanks for your patience.
Matt
From: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 9:31 AM
To: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Cc: Vickie Schleuning <vschleuning@lmcd.org>; Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hello Matt,
…just checking to make sure you are still looking in to this?
Thanks!
Jon
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Sent: Friday, April 24, 2020 2:43 PM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Cc: Vickie Schleuning <vschleuning@lmcd.org>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hi Jon,
I wanted to let you know that this matter has been forwarded to the LMCD’s legal counsel for
further review and Code Analysis.
Someone from the LMCD will reach out once a conclusion has been reached.
Thanks,
Matt
From: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 2:31 PM
To: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Subject: RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Thank You!
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:57 PM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>; LMCD <lmcd@lmcd.org>
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hi Jon,
Yes, we have received your email. I will be discussing this matter with our Executive Director, Vickie
Schleuning, on Thursday or Friday this week.
Thanks for your patience.
Matt
From: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2020 1:11 PM
To: LMCD <lmcd@lmcd.org>; M Cook <mcook@lmcd.org>
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: RE: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hello Mathew and Tammy,
Will you please confirm that you have received my email below and that you are the appropriate
person for my question.
Thanks,
Jon
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: Eiss, Jonathan D
Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2020 8:41 AM
To: lmcd@lmcd.org; mcook@lmcd.org
Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: Eiss Dock 3445 Crystal Bay Rd
Hello Mathew and Tammy,
Jon Eiss here. I live at 3445 Crystal Bay Rd. I am one of the very fortunate Orono residents that was
given access to the lake across the street from my house on Crystal Bay. I am in the process of
getting my application approved. The city (Jeremy Bernhart) is asking that I get in writing that my
proposed dock set up is LMCD compliant. I attached a diagram of my proposed set up.
The lot is 40 feet wide. The dock goes straight out with 8 Creapeu style 8’ sections. I have a boat lift
that is 10’ 8” wide and a 2nd boat lift that will sit directly behind the other lift that is 7’6” wide. Both
sides of the dock and lift would be inside the 10 foot setbacks. I have a 23 foot Supra ski boat and a
13 foot Boston Whaler for the kids.
They told me an email is fine. If you believe this would be LMCD compliant, please respond to this e-
mail.
Thank you for your help with this.
Jon
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 4:21 PM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE:
Jonathan,
Thank you for the additional information. I think the Council believes, after hearing from the LMCD
Rep, Richie Anderson, that only one boat would be allowed to be docked. I don’t administer the
LMCD rules, so if you can get something in writing from the LMCD that two boats are permitted, that
will satisfy the city.
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
City of Orono
952-249-4626
From: Eiss, Jonathan D [mailto:jonathan.eiss@usbank.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:28 PM
To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us>
Subject: Fwd:
Hello Jeremy,
I attached a diagram below. When I was at the meeting I heard them talking about not being in
the dock business and then when multiple boats or wave runners came up, I heard the mayor
say that as long as they were LMCD compliant, that was OK.
I do not have a wave runner. I’m just asking for the Boston whaler to also be allowed, as it is
LMCD a compliant.
Thank you for your help with this.
Thanks,
Jon
Jon Eiss | Wealth Management Advisor | U.S. Bancorp Investments
p. 952-249-7074 | c. 612-840-2221 | f. 952-249-7081 | jonathan.eiss@usbank.com
U.S. Bancorp Wealth Management
1212 Wayzata Blvd E. | EP-MN-0731 | Wayzata, MN 55391
From: Jon Eiss <joneiss@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2020 3:21:14 PM
To: Eiss, Jonathan D <jonathan.eiss@usbank.com>
Subject: [EXTERNAL]
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that
is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also
confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be
advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or
otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the
sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately
delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the
marketing name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment
advisor and a brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance
products are available through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S.
Bancorp subsidiaries. Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License
#OE24641. Policies are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be
available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor
any other instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate
email system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient.
Unless specified by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should
avoid sending client sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to
U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This
email is for informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from
sources we consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness and should not be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account
statements. The information contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or
commitment for any transaction or to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is
it intended as investment advice. Any market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion,
data, or other information herein is not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to
change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp Investments accepts no liability for its use or to
update or keep it current, nor does this information constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Because of individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as
advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is
no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the
performance data quoted and you may have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal advisors. When appropriate, professional
advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you
should read.
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or
may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and
proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are
legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the
marketing name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment
advisor and a brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance
products are available through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S.
Bancorp subsidiaries. Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License
#OE24641. Policies are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be
available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor
any other instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate
email system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient.
Unless specified by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should
avoid sending client sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to
U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This
email is for informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from
sources we consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness and should not be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account
statements. The information contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or
commitment for any transaction or to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is
it intended as investment advice. Any market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion,
data, or other information herein is not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to
change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp Investments accepts no liability for its use or to
update or keep it current, nor does this information constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Because of individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as
advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is
no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the
performance data quoted and you may have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal advisors. When appropriate, professional
advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you
should read.
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or
may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and
proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are
legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the
marketing name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment
advisor and a brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance
products are available through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S.
Bancorp subsidiaries. Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License
#OE24641. Policies are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be
available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor
any other instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate
email system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient.
Unless specified by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should
avoid sending client sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to
U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This
email is for informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from
sources we consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness and should not be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account
statements. The information contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or
commitment for any transaction or to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is
it intended as investment advice. Any market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion,
data, or other information herein is not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to
change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp Investments accepts no liability for its use or to
update or keep it current, nor does this information constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Because of individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as
advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is
no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the
performance data quoted and you may have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal advisors. When appropriate, professional
advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you
should read.
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or
may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and
proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are
legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the
marketing name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment
advisor and a brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance
products are available through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S.
Bancorp subsidiaries. Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License
#OE24641. Policies are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be
available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor
any other instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate
email system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient.
Unless specified by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should
avoid sending client sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to
U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This
email is for informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from
sources we consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness and should not be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account
statements. The information contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or
commitment for any transaction or to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is
it intended as investment advice. Any market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion,
data, or other information herein is not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to
change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp Investments accepts no liability for its use or to
update or keep it current, nor does this information constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Because of individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as
advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is
no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the
performance data quoted and you may have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal advisors. When appropriate, professional
advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you
should read.
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that is, or
may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also confidential and
proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be advised that you are
legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or otherwise disclosing this
information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the sender that you have received this
communication in error, and then immediately delete it. Thank you in advance for your
cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the
marketing name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment
advisor and a brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance
products are available through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S.
Bancorp subsidiaries. Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License
#OE24641. Policies are underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be
available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor
any other instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate
email system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient.
Unless specified by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should
avoid sending client sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to
U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do
not necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This
email is for informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from
sources we consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or
completeness and should not be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account
statements. The information contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or
commitment for any transaction or to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is
it intended as investment advice. Any market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion,
data, or other information herein is not warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to
change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp Investments accepts no liability for its use or to
update or keep it current, nor does this information constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions.
Because of individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as
advice designed to meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is
no guarantee of future results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the
performance data quoted and you may have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp
Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal advisors. When appropriate, professional
advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you
should read.
U.S. BANCORP made the following annotations
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Privacy Notice. This e-mail, and any attachments, contains information that
is, or may be, covered by electronic communications privacy laws, and is also
confidential and proprietary in nature. If you are not the intended recipient, please be
advised that you are legally prohibited from retaining, using, copying, distributing, or
otherwise disclosing this information in any manner. Instead, please reply to the
sender that you have received this communication in error, and then immediately
delete it. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Investment and insurance products and services, including annuities are:
Not a deposit ● Not FDIC insured ● May lose value ● Not bank guaranteed ● Not insured by
any federal government agency
Investment products and services are available through U. S. Bancorp Investments, the marketing
name for U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc., member FINRA and SIPC, an investment advisor and a
brokerage subsidiary of U. S. Bancorp and affiliate of U.S. Bank. Insurance products are available
through various affiliated non-bank insurance agencies, which are U.S. Bancorp subsidiaries.
Products may not be available in all states. CA Insurance License #OE24641. Policies are
underwritten by unaffiliated insurance companies and may not be available in all states.
U.S. Bancorp Investments will not accept buy or sell (including short sale) instructions nor any other
instructions regarding a client's account sent by any electronic mail (email) system.
All email sent to this address will be received by the U.S. Bancorp Investments corporate email
system, and is subject to archival, and review by someone other than the recipient. Unless specified
by the sender, email may not be secure. For your protection, you should avoid sending client
sensitive or confidential and proprietary information electronically to U.S. Bancorp Investments.
The opinions expressed in this email and/or its attachments are those of the author(s) and do not
necessarily represent those of U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and/or its affiliates. This email is for
informational purposes only and the material may be based on data obtained from sources we
consider reliable. The information is not guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness and should not
be considered a replacement of official confirmations or account statements. The information
contained herein is not an offer, solicitation, recommendation or commitment for any transaction or
to buy or sell any security or other financial product, nor is it intended as investment advice. Any
market price, indicative value, estimate, view, opinion, data, or other information herein is not
warranted as to completeness or accuracy, is subject to change without notice, and U.S. Bancorp
Investments accepts no liability for its use or to update or keep it current, nor does this information
constitute research.
This information is not intended to be used as the primary basis of investment decisions. Because of
individual client requirements, this communication should not be construed as advice designed to
meet the particular investment needs of any investor. Past performance is no guarantee of future
results. Current performance may be lower or higher than the performance data quoted and you may
have a gain or loss when you sell. U. S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. and affiliates are not tax or legal
advisors. When appropriate, professional advice should be sought.
Any attachments may include additional important disclosures and disclaimers, which you should
read.
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose. To consider a Sketch Plan proposing creation of 2 buildable lots, and an extension of
Baldur Park Rd at 1350 Baldur Park Road.
2. Background. This is the second sketch plan prepared by the property owner, the first was in
2018 (Case No. LA18-68).
This plan is different from the original as a second lot is added, Baldur Park Road is also
extended as a public road, (including a cul de sac), and arrangements to address floodplain issues
are proposed. The applicant appears to control the rest of the property at the end of Baldur Park,
though these parcels are not included in the subject project.
The two lots created will be accessed off the new Baldur Park Road extension. Any development
on these lots will require variances from the lake yard (75 foot) setback, as this segment of the
peninsula is very narrow.
The lots do not meet the minimum requirements for area. Both lots need to be ½ acre and have ½
acre in dry buildable area:
Required area Gross area “Dry buildable”
(estimated) area
Lot 1 21,780 16,954 7,814
Lot 2 21,780 14,526 7,590
3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On November 18th, the Planning Commission
reviewed the application, but consistent with sketch plan practice, did not vote on the application.
Their minutes are attached as Exhibit C.
The members of the Commission were in agreement that all lots should meet the minimum in
terms of lot area and lot width. With these requirements, it is unlikely that parcel can support two
lots without incorporating additional land at the end of the point. Commissioners commented on
the safety of Baldur Park Road. The road would be on a land bridge 20 feet wide, with the lake
on either side.
Commissioners recognized the Council’s comment previously to have the right of way width be
consistent with the rest of Baldur Park Road. The plan shows an 18 foot wide road within a 20
foot right of way. The platted portion of Baldur Park is 30 feet wide (ROW), with pavement
width of about 20 feet.
4. Public Comment. No comments on the proposed layout have been received, comments made
during the original proposal have been included, as they may remain relevant.
5. Staff Recommendation. Staff understands the applicant’s desire to create one to two additional
lots on the peninsula. It appears that this goal can be accomplished through the use of higher
Item No.: 18 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: LA19-000084 – Julie Thometz o/b/o 1350 Baldur LLC, Baldur Park
Road, Sketch Plan
Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
Agenda
Section:
Planning Department
Report
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
ground nearer the north end of the point, though the applicant has thus far resisted this option.
Based on the additional plans created by the applicant, and the Planning Commission’s
comments, the subject parcel cannot support two buildable lots, stormwater management, and a
road.
Staff requests confirmation of the following issues:
a. All lots shall meet lot area and width requirements based on definition of lot in the zoning
and subdivision code.
b. Conservation design plan may be waived.
c. Council support for flexibility for Baldur Park Road ROW and pavement width to be
consistent with Baldur Park Road (30 and 20 feet).
d. All wetland and floodplain regulations addressed.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend.
Exhibits
A. Draft Plan
B. Planning Staff report to Planning Commission
C. Planning Commission minutes
D. Comment letter to applicant dated September 30, 2019
E. Public comment (received regarding previous sketch LA18-68)
References
PC Staff Report & Exhibits 11/18/19
To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members
Dustin Rief, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: November 18, 2019
Subject: #19-84, Julie Thometz o/b/o 1350 Baldur LLC, Baldur Park Road,
Sketch Plan
Background
The subject parcel was part of a sketch plan (Case No. LA18-68) in 2018. At that time,
one easement back lot was proposed to be platted. The applicant has adjusted their plans,
adding an extension of right of way and a second platted lot, for the possible construction
of two additional lots on the point at Baldur Park.
The Planning Commission (August 20, 2018) and City Council (October 8, 2018) reviewed
that application. The minutes from these meetings are attached as Exhibits H and I,
respectively and are offered for additional background.
Commissioners generally struggled with the creation of lots that required variances to
improve. Council members generally supported flexibility to the road standards, and noted
that inherent difficulties may support flexibility with respect to lot standards.
The proposal
A single property owner owns the 14 platted parcels at the end of Baldur Park. These
parcels include the subject parcels, the existing home at the end of the point, and an
accessory building/ garage.
The plan shows the combination of the southern 7 lots to be platted into 2 lots to be built
on. Additional right of way for an extension of Baldur Park Road is proposed, including a
cul de sac. No building or grading plans have been provided. The remaining lots at the
point are not included in the proposal.
Sketch Plan Review Parameters
The goal of this review is to provide the applicant with an overview of the pertinent City
ordinances and how they affect the proposed plat, and to discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of the proposal. The “Summary of Issues for Consideration” reveals a number
of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicants regarding
the proposal. Planning Commission should review each topic and identify any issues to
which the applicant should pay special attention.
Application Summary: This is a sketch plan for a proposed plat that would combine 7
lots into two buildable lots and additional Right of Way.
Staff Recommendation: Staff seeks comment on the proposed plat.
FILE # LA19-000084
November 18, 2019
Page 2 of 4
As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicants are non-binding
but will be extremely helpful as the project moves forward.
Analysis
The main change from the proposal last fall is the introduction of an extension to Baldur
Park Road and a cul de sac. Baldur Park Road is currently a public road, and the applicant
has indicated that the proposed extension will be also. There is no room to construct a cul
de sac at the current northern end of the existing Baldur Park Road.
The property is currently zoned LR-1C and guided for Urban Low Density Residential in
the Comprehensive Plan. The application does not propose a change to either document,
and pending further refined plans, is anticipated to conform.
Lot Area. The subdivision code defines lot area as:
In urban areas served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain contiguous dry
buildable land equal to the minimum areas as prescribed in chapter 78 or half-acre,
whichever is less (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or
pedestrian easements, surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any
surface water wetlands or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific
property), and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of a
wetland or floodplain area.
Each lot created must be 0.5 acres and 100 feet of width. Since these are lake lots, the
width is measured at the lake and 75 feet back. The lots appear to meet the width
requirement, but not the lot area. Additionally, the lots will require variances from the
lakeyard prior to construction.
The revised proposal, attached as Exhibit B provides solutions to the floodplain issues
identified below. However, these solutions decrease the lot area, resulting in lots less
that Code standards. A variance will be necessary.
Required area Gross area Defined area
Lot 1 21,780 16,954 7,814
Lot 2 21,780 14,526 7,590
Based on the lot area issues, it appears that the subject 2 lots could be combined into one
buildable lot, and a second (or third) buildable lot be created further toward the point. The
provision of a cul de sac supports this future development.
Floodplain. The plans reflect a cut and fill proposal to create building pads out of the
floodplain by creating additional floodplain. This process will need to formally be
approved via a Conditional Use Permit. The MCWD has provided comments based on the
current plan. Additionally, MCWD comments based on preliminary review of the 2018
plan remain relevant, both are attached as Exhibit E. It appears the solution is approvable.
FILE # LA19-000084
November 18, 2019
Page 3 of 4
Road/ Cul de sac length. Baldur Park Road is currently approximately 990 feet from its’
intersection with Birch Lane. The maximum length permitted by code is 1000 feet. Baldur
Park Road currently ends without a turn-around or cul de sac. The proposed extension of
Baldur Park will lengthen the road about 400 feet to approximately 1390 feet. Staff
supports this deviation from the length as a cul de sac benefits the public and there are no
other options to reduce the length of the cul de sac.
Currently, Baldur Park Road is a 18’ wide road within a 30 foot wide right of way. The
proposal shows a 18 feet wide paved surface within a 20’ right of way. Both are deviations
from the code requirements of 24’ wide pavement within a 50’ right of way. Staff can
support a deviation, but to the existing standards of Baldur Park. The Council seemed to
confirm this deviation last fall.
It appears that the road is proposed above the base flood elevation of 931.5, though further
detail will be necessary.
Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. Stormwater plans have not been
developed at this stage. Stormwater will need to be managed as required by the Watershed
District.
The project will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee (SW&DT Fee).
Final calculation of the fee would be based on the final lot count. If, for example the
development results in 2 lots at 0.5 acres, the SW&DT Fee would be $6,050 per new lot as
outlined in the 2019 Orono Fee Schedule.
Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. The lots will need to connect
to sanitary sewer, the sanitary sewer line will need to be extended at the applicant’s
expense. A SAC connection fee will be required at the time of connection. Extension of
the sewer will be the responsibility of the developer.
Municipal Water does not serve the property. A well will need to be developed for each
lot.
It is assumed that all other utilities will be underground and located within easements and
right of way. This will be verified with the review of the utility plan and supports the need
for additional right of way.
Wetlands. It appears that a portion of the western shore is impacted by wetlands. The
MCWD will likely require a buffer of some width, which may impact access and building
sites. Wetland buffers may be included in lot area calculations, but not the wetlands
themselves. The proposal does include an averaged wetland buffer, to be approved by the
watershed district.
Tree and/or Woodland Impacts. The site plan indicates several large cottonwood trees on
the property, many of which will be removed to accommodate construction.
Conservation Design. This project will trigger the need for a conservation design, due to
FILE # LA19-000084
November 18, 2019
Page 4 of 4
the proposed density. Staff supports a waiver of this requirement because of the size and
scope of the development.
Summary of Issues for Consideration
Staff suggests that the primary focus for consideration and discussion by the Planning
Commission should include the following topics:
1. Does the Planning Commission support the lot layout as presented?
2. Does the Commission generally support a variance from the lot area requirements?
3. Does the Commission generally support a variance from the 75’ lake yard setback?
4. Does the Commission support a waiver from the cul de sac length standard?
5. Does the Commission support a waiver for the new Baldur Park Road to be
consistent with the existing Baldur Park Road?
6. Does the Commission support a waiver from the conservation design requirement?
7. Has the Commission identified issues in addition to those identified by staff?
Staff Recommendation
Staff seeks direction on the Issues stated above
Public Comments
As part of the project last year, public comments were received and attached as Exhibit G.
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application Summary
Exhibit B. Applicants’ Submitted Sketch Plan
Exhibit C. Location Map
Exhibit D. Staff Comment Letter
Exhibit E. MCWD Comment Letter*
Exhibit F. MCWD Wetland NOD
Exhibit G. Public Comments*
Exhibit H. PC minutes dated August 20, 2018
Exhibit I. CC Minutes dated October 8, 2018
Exhibit J. Engineering Comments dated November 13, 2019
*Exhibits E, F, and G were offered as part of the sketch plan in 2018 and are provided here as they
remain relevant to the current application.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 5
12. LA19-000084 JULIE THOMETZ, 1340 BALDUR PARK ROAD & PINS 08-117-23-31-0006,
08-117-23-31-0007, 08-117-23-31-0008, 08-117-23-31-0009, 08-117-23-31-0010, 08-117-23-31-0011,
08-117-23-31-0012, 08-117-23-31-0013, 08-117-23-21-0014, 08-117-23-31-0016, 08-117-23-31-0017,
08-117-23-31-0018, SKETCH PLAN, 10:25 P.M. - 10:45 P.M.
The applicant was not present.
Barnhart presented a summary of packet memorandum.
Ressler stated the Commission has looked at this a lot and wondered if they could get a picture of what
the whole thing is going to be. He does not know why the Commission's feedback is not being heard.
Barnhart said at the review last fall the Planning Commission's comments were more about a strict
adherence to the lot standards. The City Council wanted to see the road, but they were a little more
flexible to the lot standards. The applicant did listen and addressed the road extension and provided some
additional information related to the floodplain issue. He agreed with Ressler that the applicant did not
show the rest of the point.
Thiesse asked when the last time was that the Commission allowed a division for a substandard lot,
adding that the Commission does not do that.
Barnhart agreed that the Commission does not.
Thiesse said he can't see why the Commission would think about it in this case. Someone is trying to
force two substandard lots in so they can keep the end of the peninsula for later use. He suggested telling
them they don't get it until the Commission sees the rest of it. This is not a place for two houses. There
will be a road right along the lake, there isn't a stormwater pond to be seen, and he does not know where
they will put it, but there has to be one.
Gettman stated he thought there were other neighbors that were against this because this particular owner
has not provided anything but hostile situations for them.
Barnhart indicated those comments were provided in the Commissioners' packets and were generated
from the last review. The applicant is now proposing a cul-de-sac and an extension of the road which
Staff sees as a benefit.
McCutcheon noted the Commission is hesitant to put a cul-de-sac in when the Commissioners don't know
the end plan. Normally when there's a subdivision there's an entire picture put out so the Commission
knows if there's a unique opportunity for a common area, etc. The Commission does not have all the
pieces of the equation, so it is hard to give an answer. He did not know what would be wrong with
dictating that the Commission needs to see the full plan.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 5
Barnhart indicated the City cannot require somebody to plat, which is kind of what is happening when
requiring them to include that in the plat.
McCutcheon said he cannot, in good conscious, subdivide a lot where the Commission knows there will
be future problems.
Ressler said it is not a perfect situation with that road, with the congestion and as narrow as it is now. He
agreed that 30 feet at a minimum should be the width, not 20. He stated a substandard lot is a substandard
lot, and the Commission is generally opposed to that for a subdivision. The Commission seems to say the
same thing as far as feedback goes but continues to not see what is being asked for.
Erickson stated this is virtually the same thing that was shown a couple of months ago.
Ressler noted there was an addition of a cul-de-sac.
Erickson said there was a cul-de-sac at that time, too, which in his mind is the only good feature of the
whole thing.
Gettman indicated there was no cul-de-sac.
Erickson said there are other features which are out of the question, and he agrees that the road right-of-
way should be 30 feet. He is willing to concur with the City Council that the cul-de-sac could be as far as
1,300 feet rather than 1,000. He pointed out that the 18-foot road is right next to the lake, it doesn't give a
measurement but it's within inches of the lake, and asked if there was enough room for a good guardrail.
It should be riprapped, there should be a guardrail to keep people from driving in the lake when you're
only 6 inches away from it. By the time a better job is done of centering that 30-foot right-of-way some
distance from the east side and also some distance from the floodplain on the west, then it will go right
through the middle of the property and there will be no room for any house, which is how it ought to be in
his opinion. The Commission's job is to respond to what's in front of it.
Ressler said the ongoing feedback is the Commission does not feel that Lot 2 is a buildable lot.
Barnhart stated that was fair.
Ressler said if the applicant is going to build on Lot 1, knowing that you're also going to have one at the
end of the peninsula, you have a 30-foot roadway width and you have a cul-de-sac.
Barnhart noted things kind of jumped around, but related to question number 1 regarding the lot layout,
Lot 2 is not a buildable lot and modifications need to be made there. Question number 2, does the
Commission generally support a variance from the lot area requirements, and he is hearing consistently
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 5
no. Question number 3, does the Commission generally support a variance from the 75-foot lake yard
setback. He said that will be required to build on Lots 1 or 2. It will likely be needed from both sides.
Ressler asked whether it was lake yard or average lakeshore setback.
Barnhart stated it was lake yard.
Thiesse answered no, they're filling a floodplain as it is just to get a basement. He asked if there is
anything on the peninsula that's buildable outside the 75 and if that would maybe cut it down to one
house.
Barnhart said it would be two or three, maybe. Not Lot 2, and Lot 1 is limited. The challenge with the
point is that 75 will come into play on both sides.
Thiesse stated that is also a luxury.
Erickson said they would have to build a sea wall just to protect their slab.
Ressler noted a lot of the difficulty is that there is no structure there right now.
Thiesse noted the building pad is not that much larger than the gentleman on Rest Point; it's about 60 by
35.
Barnhart asked, regarding question number 4, does the Commission support a waiver from the cul-de-sac
length standard, which you'll need to do if you're going to get a cul-de-sac.
Thiesse answered absolutely.
Barnhart asked if the Commission supported a waiver from the new Baldur Park Road to be consistent
with the existing Baldur Park Road. He explained that's the right-of-way and the width.
Thiesse asked what the right-of-way is now, whether it was 30.
Barnhart said the applicant proposed 20 and Staff suggested a minimum of 30.
Thiesse said the existing Baldur Park is 30 and he is a 30 person.
McCutcheon said he would not want to go narrower.
Barnhart asked if the Commission supports a waiver from the conservation design requirement. The code
requires a conservation design when you have a project that is more than 7 acres or has density of less
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 5
than 2-acre lots. Staff supports a waiver because of what they are trying to protect from a view standpoint.
The setbacks already protect quite a bit of the lake standards.
Thiesse noted this area is a pretty prominent point of the lake but he did not know what could be gained
from it.
Barnhart responded you would get a tree inventory that will probably show there's quite a bit of
cottonwoods.
Gettman said it is already very limited.
Barnhart stated the main thing you'd get would be a tree inventory, but also soil work would be required
and any wetlands, which has already been done.
Bollis said on the conservation design requirement, that can push the project in a different route because it
is going to talk about it being a peninsula and a point. Road rights-of-way are going to get smaller, et
cetera, based on the conservation design. He does not see why it should be waived in this situation; it is
not waived on other projects.
Barnhart noted that it actually is waived on some projects.
Bollis repeated he does not see a need to waive it here.
Erickson said for this parcel his suggested density is 0 houses per acre. They have a good site for a piece
of road with a cul-de-sac at the end, and that would be a reasonable use for this site.
Ressler commented maybe having a second or third house on the end contingent upon having a 30-foot
road and a cul-de-sac.
Erickson said, looking at the outline, neither of the houses should be built and they need to come back
with another plan to show what they are going to do beyond the cul-de-sac. But what is in front of the
Commission today is a road and a cul-de-sac.
Barnhart stated that he is not hearing support to waive the conservation design requirements.
Bollis stated he was correct.
Barnhart asked if there were any other issues the Commission would like him to share with the City
Council.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 18, 2019
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 5
McCutcheon said the safety of the road is a big issue because there are no lights in Orono, especially if
someone is lost or for UPS drivers. It is one thing when you have one person's driveway who has driven it
their whole life, but when you open it up to the public, it’s a concern.
Thiesse commented the UPS guy will be thrilled he has a turnaround instead of backing all the way up.
Ressler said if it wasn't for the fact that the Commission would be approving an emergency vehicle
turnaround and the cul-de-sac, he is not sure he would be in support of anything being subdivided. If that
is something that benefits the rest of the peninsula, he could see perhaps another house next to the
structure that is there right now as long as it is within lake yard setback requirements. It is potentially the
one that does show up on what the Commission has been looking at under Lot 1 but under the same
premise, which appears that it would not meet the lake yard setback at best.
Thiesse asked whether floodplain fill was outside of the Commissioners' jurisdiction and clarified the
applicant would have to get permits elsewhere.
Barnhart said the Commissioners would have to approve a Conditional Use Permit for any fill. He
confirmed they would get permits elsewhere but also from the Commission. Standards have been adopted
in the City Code, and the Commissioners would apply those to that type of application. He stated he has
feedback to share with the applicant and City Council and then it can move forward.
September 30, 2019
Julie Thometz
1340 Baldur Park Road VIA EMAIL
Wayzata, MN 55391 jthometz@comcast.net
Re: Subdivision on Baldur Park
File # LA19-000084
The City has received your proposal to subdivide your property at Baldur Park Rd. The submittal indicates a
proposal to combine multiple lots into three buildable lots, with a subdivision to create right of way (ROW) for an
extension of Baldur Park Road, resulting in a plat. This process is governed by the City’s subdivision process.
Based on the plan provided, the city offers the following comments:
The sketch plan process is an initial presentation of a subdividers plan and serves as a basis for conceptual discussion
between the city and the subdivider. You have been advised that your confidence in the Planning Commission and
Council’s response is proportionate to the level of detail offered in the submittal.
The platting of several lots at the northern end of Baldur Park, with an extension of Baldur Park Road does not pose
a significant policy question. The issues for discussion are primarily based on the details of the plan: Lot width and
size, ROW width and size, storm water management, floodplain impacts and solutions, etc. It is strongly
recommended that you retain the services of a surveyor or civil engineer to prepare responses to the items below,
prior to presentation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Multiple reviews of a sketch plan by the
Planning Commission and City Council are not available. At minimum, please provide a paper copy of the plan, I
have received a photograph of the plan.
Lot Area/ Width. As submitted, the plan is not to scale, so it is impossible to confidently determine that the lots
meet the requirements for size and width. That said, the minimum standards for lots in this LR-1C zone are:
Lot Area: .5 acres (exclusive of public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements,
surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water, wetlands or areas at or below the
floodplain elevation for a specific property), and have legal access to the building site without encroachment of
a wetland or floodplain area. Confirmation of the lot area is requested.
Lot Width: Width of the lot is measured at the OHWL and at the 75’ setback, and must be 100 feet. The
lots appear to meet the standard, but should be confirmed.
Street design. The plan shows a cul-de-sac and a road, as advised. It is assumed that the road and cul de sac is
public. A waiver will be required to be approved by the City Council to reduce the width of the road ROW and
paved surface. Staff can support the reduction of the pavement width to correspond to the existing Baldur Park
Road. Staff will not support parking on this new section of Baldur Park. Stormwater management may require
barrier curbing in places.
Flood Elevation/ Wetlands. Both proposed home pads show an encroachment into the flood elevation. To meet
floodplain regulations, the lowest point of any structure will need to be at least 932.5. Elevating the houses on fill
will require a Conditional Use Permit. Engineering will need to be completed and reviewed to confirm that the fill
will not impact the flood level of the lake.
A wetland delineation has been receieve3d and accepted by the Watershed District.
Shoreland rules. Section 78-1221 Subdivision/ platting provisions apply to this subdivision. The Planning
Commission and City Council will need to consider the following in determining land suitability for subdivision:
(1) Susceptibility to flooding;
(2) Existence of wetlands;
(3) Soil and rock formations with severe limitations for development;
(4) Severe erosion potential;
(5) Steep topography;
(6) Inadequate water supply or sewage treatment capabilities;
(7) Near-shore aquatic conditions unsuitable for water-based recreation;
(8) Important fish and wildlife habitat;
(9) Presence of significant historic sites; or
(10) Any other feature of the natural land likely to be harmful to the health, safety or welfare of future
residents of the proposed subdivision or of the community.
Additional information will be required as part of the preliminary plat process:
(c) Information requirements. Sufficient information must be submitted by the applicant for the city to make a
determination of land suitability. In addition to information required by other provisions in this chapter
and chapter 82, the following information shall also be submitted:
(1) Topographic contours at two-foot intervals showing limiting site characteristics.
(2) The surface water features required in Minn. Stat. § 505.02, subd. 1, to be shown on plats,
obtained from United States Geological Survey quadrangle topographic maps or more accurate
sources.
(3) Adequate soils information to determine suitability for building and on-site sewage treatment
capabilities for every lot from the most current existing sources or from field investigations, such as
soil borings, percolation tests or other methods.
(4) Information regarding adequacy of domestic water supply; extent of anticipated vegetation and
topographic alterations; near-shore aquatic conditions, including depths, types of bottom sediments,
and aquatic vegetation; and proposed methods for controlling storm water runoff and erosion, both
during and after construction activities.
(5) Location of 100-year floodplain areas and floodway districts from existing adopted maps or data.
(6) A line or contour representing the ordinary high water level, the toe and the top of bluffs, and the
minimum building setback distances from the top of the bluff and the lake or stream.
Utilities. Stormwater. It is advised to meet with the watershed district early to understand their permitting
requirements. Three lots (the two pink lots and the existing home) will trigger stormwater management.
All lots will be served by municipal sanitary sewer services, at the developers expense. The sanitary sewer main
will need to be extended to the north, with individual lots served by service lines.
Conservation Design. City Code requires conservation design for projects either greater than 5 acres, or at densities
greater than one unit per 2 acres. We can support a waiver of the conservation design requirement in lieu of
identifying substantial trees (Oaks, Maple, Basswood, etc. greater than 6’ DBH)
Variances/ waivers necessary
Based on the information available, the following waivers or variances are identified:
Cul de sac length
Right of way width
Paved surface width
Conservation Design
Road or driveway improvements within the 75 lake yard.
Fill in the floodplain
Variances for future lot improvement
To maximize the benefit of the sketch plan process, it is recommended that a surveyor or civil engineer prepare
responses to these comments. 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.
Sincerely,
CITY OF ORONO
Jeremy Barnhart, AICP
Community Development Director
AGENDA ITEM
Prepared By: DJR Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR
1. Purpose: To publish Requests for Proposals for Consulting Engineer in accordance with the
RFP schedule adopted by Resolution No. 6585 adopted February 8, 2016.
2. Background: The City Council adopted a resolution to establish a schedule of 5 year reviews
through the RFP process for professional services contracted by the City. Staff reviews the
document annually for any scheduled RFP’s. The Consulting engineer services review is
scheduled for 2020 and was last done in 2010. This RFP is in accordance with the previously
adopted schedule. The timeline for publication, review and selection is within Exhibit A:
Request for Proposal: Consulting Engineer Services RFP.
3. Staff Recommendation: City Administrator recommends approval of the Consulting
Engineer Services RFP and to establish an ad-hoc Consulting Engineer Services RFP review
committee.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to Approve Request for proposals for Consulting Engineer Services and the appointment
of an ad-hoc Consulting Engineer Services RFP review committee.
Exhibits
A. Request for Proposal: Consulting Engineer Services RFP
Reference
A. Resolution No. 6585
Item No.: 19 Date: July 13, 2020
Item Description: Consulting Engineer RFP
Presenter: Dustin Rief, City Administrator Agenda
Section:
City Administrator
Report
1
CITY OF ORONO, MINNESOTA
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING AND PLANNING
SERVICES
SECTION I. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES
The City of Orono is requesting proposals from municipal engineering firms for engineering and planning
services.
SECTION II. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. The City of Orono is a managed growth community of 8,100 people located 20 minutes west of
Minneapolis on Lake Minnetonka. Orono encompasses an area of 24 square miles, 30% of which is Lake
Minnetonka. Orono operates as a Statutory Plan A City. The City is governed by a five member City
Council which includes four members elected at large, and a Mayor elected at large. The City Council
meets the second and fourth Monday of each month. The Planning Commission meets on the third
Monday of each month. The Parks Commission meets on every first Monday of the month. The City has
a full time City Engineer on staff who also serves and the Director of Public Works. The City also has a
Planning, Zoning and Building Department headed by a Community Development Director.
B. The City has a strong tax base, driven by high valued lakeshore homes and large lot residential
development. The City is about 90% developed, and projects an ultimate population of around 9,500.
Orono has one small commercial district (Navarre) and shares a “downtown” commercial district with the
City of Long Lake. A modest level of future redevelopment and infill development is expected in the
commercial and lakeshore residential areas.
C. Orono’s Community Management Philosophy is based on eight key principles which guide the
City’s management and decision-making processes:
1. The foremost guiding principle and goal of Orono's planning is to protect and preserve Lake
Minnetonka, and all Lakes and natural resources, its water quality, and its recreational assets.
2. To retain the existing urban-rural land use pattern on a permanent basis.
3. To maintain our local character and identity. This local character is defined by strong
neighborhoods, preponderance of wildlife, open spaces, lakes, and wetlands.
4. To protect and preserve our many natural resources including all lakes, creeks, marshes,
wetlands, woodlands, groundwater and steep slopes.
5. To preserve open space, light, air, and solar access for all citizens while maintaining night sky.
6. To protect the general public health, safety and welfare through the development of ordinances,
policies, and infrastructure that provides safe, efficient streets and neighborhoods, transportation
alternatives, parks and opens spaces.
2
7. To guide investment and reinvestment in the City at densities consistent with environmental
protection and the planned land use pattern. The city’s focus is in development and redevelopment is
preservation of established character, rather than the creation of a new character.
8. To protect the financial stability of the City, providing an adequate level of services at efficient
cost to the taxpayer.
C. The City is responsible for maintaining approximately 49 miles of public roads, of which
approximately 9.5 miles are designated as MSA roads. With a small number of exceptions, all City
roads are paved. Orono also has 19 miles of private roads which are owned and maintained by private
homeowners associations, located primarily in the designated Rural Area of the City.
D. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed District currently is the Local Government Unit (LGU) for
implementation of the Wetland Conservation Act.
E. Orono’s municipal water system consists of two water towers, four wells, and approximately 22
miles of water main. The Navarre Water System consists of two wells, a treatment plant and storage
facility, and distribution lines serving a residential population numbering approximately 2,100 in addition
to approximately 45 non-residential consumers. The Highway 12 Water System consists of a two well,
treatment facility, storage tower, and distribution lines serving both residential and commercial/industrial
users.
F. The City’s sewer system consists of approximately 62 miles of gravity and pressurized sewer mains
including 45 lift stations.
SECTION III. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS AND TIMETABLE
A. All proposals should be sent and all questions and correspondence should be directed to the City of
Orono, Dustin Rief, City Administrator (952-249-4601) at 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356.
B. All proposals must be received at the City offices no later than 4:30 p.m., Friday, August 14th, 2020. The
copies shall be sealed and clearly identified with "Engineering Services RFP” by the submittal deadline.
C. Proposals must be signed by an authorized representative of the company.
D. Proposals should be limited to a maximum of 30 pages, including all supporting documentation.
E. In order to ensure a fair review and selection process, engineering firms submitting proposals are
specifically requested not to make other contacts with the City staff or Councilmembers regarding their
proposals.
F. The City staff plan to review and analyze all proposals in September 2020, and schedule interviews
with one or more firms in late October, 2020. The City plans to make a final selection by November 9th,
2020.
G. The effective date of engineering services commencement will be negotiated to assure a smooth
transition in engineering services, but the transition is expected to occur expeditiously.
H. The term of the contract shall be indefinite, subject to ongoing review and evaluation by the City.
SECTION IV. REQUIRED CONTENTS FOR PROPOSALS:
A. Title Page. Show the proposal subject, the name of the proposer’s firm, address, telephone number, e-
3
mail address, name of the contact person, and the date.
B. Table of Contents. Include a clear identification of the material by section and page number.
C. Proposing Firm Overview
1. Describe your firm’s background and history, including the number of years in business and the
number and breakdown of personnel that will serve the city. Include information about the firm’s
experience performing similar work.
2. Provide a list of other services offered by your firm that may benefit the City.
D. Identification and Qualification of Assigned Personnel.
1. Describe your firm’s capacity for providing city engineering and planning services as indicated in
this RFQ. The ideal firm should have extensive experience in municipal engineering and planning
including, but not limited to, the following areas:
a. Preparation of public infrastructure construction plans
b. Preparation of feasibility reports
c. Preparation of assessment rolls
d. Plat and site plan review
e. Water/sewer/storm water expertise
f. GIS/technical mapping services
g. Construction inspection services
h. Surveying services
i. Comprehensive Plan Development and related Planning Services
2. Describe the training and experience (including years) of the persons who will be providing city
engineering services. Please provide resumes for all key staff that will be providing city engineering
services.
3. Describe your firm’s staff and resource capacity to respond to time-sensitive or short notice
requests and complicated issues. Include the proposed hours of availability of engineering and additional
support staff from your firm.
4. Describe the training and experience (including years) of the persons who will be providing city
planning services. Please provide resumes for all key staff that will be providing city planning services.
5. Describe your firm’s staff and resource capacity to respond to time-sensitive or short notice
requests and complicated issues. Include the proposed hours of availability of planning and additional
support staff from your firm.
6. Describe your firm’s commitment, and the commitment of the key individuals in this proposal, to
personal and professional development, and the benefit of that commitment to the City.
7. Describe the approach you would use to communicate and coordinate projects with the city
council, city clerk, city employees, the public, and the media.
E. Basis for Compensation
1. Provide a proposed hourly rate schedule, including any multipliers or pay factors for overhead for
all positions (Principle Engineer, Landscape Architect, Senior Planner, Surveyor, GIS Technician, CAD
Operator, Construction Inspector, Planner, natural resources technician, etc.), for those services referred
to as hourly services.
2. If you are proposing a monthly retainer, indicate what services are to be provided within the
scope of the retainer.
F. List of References, Potential Conflicts, and Claims
1. Provide at least five references from public clients, two of which are from cities of similar size for
4
whom similar services have been performed within the past five years.
2. Describe the procedure employed by your firm for identifying and resolving conflict of interest
issues. State any potential conflict(s) of interest (i.e. real estate developers, other units of government,
etc.) that your firm may have in providing engineering and planning services as outlined in this RFQ.
3. Provide a statement of any insurance claims and/or ethics complaints taken against the firm or
firm’s engineer(s) over the last five years and the status or outcomes of such action. Please indicate
whether the action is pending or is currently under review by the State Ethics Board,
G. Detailed Response to the Scope of Services
1. The proposal should address in a detailed fashion the approach of the firm to each of the general
work elements outlined in the following Scope of Services.
2. The proposing firm should be able to provide all of the services listed in the Scope of Services,
either with the organization or by using a sub-consultant.
SECTION V. SCOPE OF WORK
The City of Orono is searching for a firm that will provide a wide range of professional services. The
general work elements are outlined below:
A. General Engineering Services. Under the direction of the City Engineer:
1. Provide Specialty Engineering support such as Water Resources Engineering, Environmental
Engineering, Traffic Engineering, Survey and GIS support.
2. In addition to the specific services listed above, there are a host of other services that are needed
occasionally. Please note any other service that your firm is capable of providing, such as environmental
services, land surveying, state agency coordination, traffic engineering, , water resource management, etc.
3. Assist with coordinating, supervising, and evaluating programs, plans, services, equipment, and
infrastructure.
4. Assist with finding potential funding solutions, including grants, assessments and direct
legislative appropriation.
5. Assist with Formulate short and long-range plans for design and constructing public works
improvements; including streets, water, sanitary sewer, storm sewer, parks, and buildings.
6. Assist with development and implementation of a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
7. Assist with the management of City infrastructure issues through proactive planning, monitoring,
operations and maintenance management.
8. Assist in implementing all water resource functions, including implementation of the Storm
Water Management Plan and erosion and sediment control as it relates to the City’s NPDES requirements.
9. Assist with the review land use applications and construction plans for private developments for
consistency with City adopted engineering specifications, City policies, and relevant laws, rules, and
regulations, and ensure that city council directives are implemented.
10. Update City maps and utility records, including maintaining a GIS/database.
11. Obtain proper approval and documentation from local, state, and federal authorities prior to
implementing projects.
12. Provide engineering services on projects and provide project management for constructing
municipal public works projects.
13. Assist in planning, layout, and design of parks, trails, pedestrian routes, and other recreational
amenities.
14. Assist with the Pavement Management Program including the rating of the condition of streets
within the city.
B. Bidding and Design Services. Under the direction of the City Engineer:
1. Prepare plans and specifications for projects.
2. Consult with state and federal agencies having jurisdictional authority over the project as
5
warranted.
3. Prepare and distribute advertisements for bids.
4. Prepare contract documents for bidding purposes.
5. Revise the bids and prepare bid tabulations.
6. Provide a recommendation to the city for the award of contracts.
C. Project Management / Construction Services. Under the direction of the City Engineer:
1. Prepare construction project plans and specifications.
2. Convene a preconstruction meeting with staff, contractor and utility representatives.
3. Perform construction staking and surveying.
4. Monitor the construction process for compliance with codes, regulations, standards, and approved
plans; assure financial accountability of private projects as they relate to escrows and letters of credit.
5. Prepare and maintain necessary documentation, including photographs and/or video if warranted,
and a log of the contractor’s progress.
6. Convene regular construction progress meetings, as necessary.
7. Prepare, review and recommend action for proposed change orders.
8. Review and recommend final acceptance by the City. Assist the City in ensuring that contractors
have been paid and lien waivers have been acquired.
9. Provide record drawings and update the GIS and asset management systems, upon conclusion of
projects to the City.
D. Prepare Engineering Reports and Technical Correspondence. Under the direction of the City
Engineer:
1. Assist preliminary studies, review all preliminary studies for compliance with ordinances,
comprehensive plans, engineering standards, and financial guidelines including:
a. Prepare feasibility reports and present at public meetings
b. Prepare preliminary and final assessment rolls
c. Prepare water, sanitary and storm sewer utility rate studies
d. Prepare surface water system analysis and design
e. Prepare wetland delineation and mitigation
f. Prepare traffic studies / signage / forecasting
g. Complete and submit state aid reports as necessary
2. Prepare comments regarding reports, plans, and studies of other agencies.
3. Complete plat and site plan review for applicable engineering standards.
E. Planning Services. While the City maintains a fully staffed Planning and Zoning Department, the city
will require periodic support on special planning projects as well as specialty consultation support. Under
the direction of the Community Development Director:
1. Review plat submissions and development proposals.
2. Assist in the development of urban design / community engagement, community plans,
transportation plans, pedestrian plans and other related plans, including the City’s Comprehensive Plan.
3. Assist with community outreach / engagement related to city projects.
F. City Meetings (Including but not limited to the following)
1. Participate in routine internal meetings involving engineering coordination, questions and issues.
2. Meet with developers on proposed development projects regarding engineering and infrastructure
development as requested.
3. Attend city council meetings, planning commission meetings and work sessions as needed or
upon request.
4. As needed, attend occasional meetings with citizens and local businesses.
6
SECTION VI. PROPOSAL EVALUATION:
A. The City intends to retain the services of the firm evaluated to be the best qualified to perform the
work for the City, with experience, compatibility, cost, and other performance factors considered.
B. A committee of city staff will evaluate the applications based on the 100-point scale listed below. The
committee will produce a list of finalists who are judged to be the most responsive and responsible
proposer for the services requested. Interviews will be conducted to finalize the selection. The committee
will make a recommendation to the City Council for formal approval.
1. The firm’s approach to, and understanding of, the Scope of Services (25 pts.)
2. The experience and qualifications of key personnel (25 pts.)
3. The firm’s experience and performance with similar contracts and clients (15 pts.)
4. Cost of services (35 pts.)
C. The City shall not be liable for any expenses incurred by the proposer including, but not limited to,
expenses associated with the preparation and submission of the proposal, attendance at interviews, or final
contract negotiations.
D. The City reserves the right to request additional information from any and all proposers for purposes
of clarification, and to accept or negotiate any modification to any proposal received by the posted
deadline.
SECTION VII. TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
A. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or to negotiate a contract that is in the best
interest of the City at the absolute and sole discretion of the City Council.
B. The contract for services will require that the engineering firm selected maintain general liability,
automobile, worker’s compensation, and errors and omissions insurance. The contract will also contain
provisions requiring the selected firm to indemnify the City and firm serves at the will of the City Council
and the City Council has the right to terminate the agreement, at its sole discretion, upon the provision of
notice.
SECTION VIII. REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND SELECTION SCHEDULE
Advertise and Distribute RFP: July, 2020
RFP Submittal Deadline: August 14th, 2020
Review of Proposals: September, 2020
Interviews: October 2020
Award: November 9th, 2020
Start Date: January 1st, 2021