Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
03-08-2021 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us The public is invited to address the council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section. Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda 1. City Council Meeting Minutes of February 22, 2021 2. Council Work Session Minutes of February 22, 2021 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approval of Hennepin County 2021 Special Event Permit – Long Lake Rowing Crew 5. Approval of Rental Licenses 6. Approval of Lawful Gambling LG214 Premises Permit for the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka – Excelsior 7. Termination of Contract for Building Inspection Services with Minnetonka Beach 8. Approval of Local 12 Collective Bargaining Agreement 9. Authorization to Purchase Body, Squad and Weapon Mounted Cameras and Supporting Equipment and Software 10. Appointment of Parks and Golf Course Superintendent 11. Tonkawa Phase II Forcemain Replacement Award 12. Seasonal Employee Appointments 13. LA20-000074 – Edward & Mary Caldwell, 746 Tonkawa Road, Variances – Resolution 14. LA20-000075 – Brian & Anne Huisman, 1121 North Arm Drive, Vacation of Right of Wa – Resolution 15. LA21-000004 – Stonewood LLC o/b/o David Wohlwend, 1150 Pine View Drive, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution 16. LA21-000007 – Pillar Homes, 3220 Navarre Lane, Variances – Resolution 17. LA21-000008 – Brad Barinsky, 1825 Lakeside Trail, Variance for Average Lake Shore Setback – Resolution 18. LA21-000011 – Jason Fischer and Kara Honebrink, 3420 (3416) Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit / Expand Lulu’s Pizzaria – Resolution 19. LA21-000012 – Clairmont Design Build, 1260 Spruce Place, Variances – Resolution 20. LA21-000013 – Bob Johnston, 2190 Wayzata Blvd, Conditional Use Permit – 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. Agenda Council Meeting Monday, March 8, 2021 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us Finance Director Report. 21. Fourth Quarter Financial Report Public Works Director/City Engineer Report 22. 2021 Road Maintenance Project Award 23. Public Works Facility Approval of Utility Engineering and Planning Department Report 24. LA21-000006 – City of Orono, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion 25. LA21-000010 – Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes, 133 Chevy Chase, Variance 26. LA21-000014 – Mark Rausch and Aziz Saddiqui o/b/o University of St. Thomas and David Weekly Homes, NW corner of Willow and Wayzata Blvd., Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Preliminary Plat, and Development Plan Approval – Resolution 27. LA21-000015 – William Stoddard o/b/o Miller Living Trust, PID 34-118-23-32-0002 – Sketch Plan Review Mayor/Council Report Interim City Administrator City Attorney Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2021 03-15-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Dennis Walsh) 03-29-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 03-29-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 04-05-21 Park Commission Work Session, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 04-12-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 04-12-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. 04-19-21 Planning Commission Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) 04-26-21 Council Work Session, Monday, 5:00 p.m. 04-26-21 City Council Meeting, Monday, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 10 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Richard Crosby, III, Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Public Works Director/City Engineer Adam Edwards and Interim City Administrator Ron Olson. Others present: Stewart Crosby, Stephen Shurson, Marge Beard, and Kelly Grissman. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Crosby asked to pull item 10 from the Consent Agenda per Johnson’s request. CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2021 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 8, 2021 3. SPECIAL COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 18, 2021 4. CLAIMS/BILLS 5. APPROVAL OF LOCAL 49 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT 6. APPROVAL OF KENNEL LICENSE RENEWALS 7. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT RENEWAL WITH GRANICUS 8. WATER METER REPLACEMENTS 9. REHABILITATION OF LS #16 (REST POINT ROAD) AND LS #17 (WILDHURST TRAIL) 10. BIG ISLAND DECLARATION AND CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL 11. PUBLIC WORKS RETIREMENT AND RECRUITMENT 12. SEASONAL EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENTS 13. DOCK AND SWIM PLATFORM FOR CITY BEACHES (21-033 & 21-034) Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 10 PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER REPORT 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) Edwards said this evening they will have Three Rivers Park District giving an update on their Master Plan progress on the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. They have a number of representatives from the district, Marge Beard, who is the District 1 representative Commissioner on the Park Board will give an introduction and after that they will turn it over the Stephen Shurson. Marge Beard thanked the Council and said Three Rivers is excited to be here and they kicked this off about a year ago working on the Diamond Lake Regional Trail. Throughout the year with all the ups and downs they have had a great experience in working with Orono residents and Staff and are very excited to share an update. She turned it over to Stephen Shurson the project manager. Mr. Shurson showed a presentation on screen and gave a brief overview and update on the analysis. Ultimately this evening, Three Rivers would seek the Council’s support for the preferred route moving forward. Search corridors are part of the greater metro-wide plan that Met Council has put forth in the regional parks policy plan and the Diamond Lake Trail is one of those search corridors extending from the Lake Minnetonka area to Dayton/Rogers area. There are several different cities the trail would go through and it is about 20-21 miles long. This trail would be off-road, separated from the road, paved, 10 feet wide and one of the main goals of this project is to create a trail that is as park-like and scenic as possible. They would really like to see it as a destination-type of trail; Orono has many beautiful natural resource areas they would like to connect people to. It is a multi-use trail for pedestrians, bikes, in-line skating, dog walking, strollers, etcetera. Mr. Shurson pointed out being a Master Plan project, it is not something that will happen next year, it will take many years if not decades. After the Master Plan is complete later this year they will then begin to look into the property rights that are needed for the trail. The trail construction would not happen until that is complete which will take years or decades to realize the entire length of trail. He said they do need property rights from private property owners and they do not have much of that at all in the Orono area; they would do so on a seller basis only, negotiating that with the private property owners. He showed some graphics of the vision for the trail, a park-like, rural experience; where needed with big separated crossings of major highways which would be by bridge or underpass. He noted with all the wetlands located along the corridor, boardwalks would also be a key way to minimize impacts. About a year ago they had identified several different route alternatives in Orono and the entire corridor that the Council approved and Three Rivers made that public through public engagement. The public engagement happened from July to the end of the year and they had a lot of good information on the trails on their website. He noted people could place comments, as well as watch an informational video. To outreach, Three Rivers did a lot electronically with Facebook and newsletters, they put up a bunch of signs throughout the corridor, did pop-up events in parks and trails, and sent 3,600 mailings to property owners. As of today, they have already met with City Staff and the Parks Commission and today it is the Council’s turn. He noted they have a preferred route for Orono as well as the other six communities. They are drafting the Master Plan and will bring it back to the City at the end of the year. At that time it will include a 30-day commentary for the public. Stewart Crosby showed an analysis and comment summary on screen of the sub-segments in Orono to take a look at some challenges, issues, positives and negatives of each of those. Starting with O8 along Spring Hill Road there were some safety concerns with both O8 and O7 where the trail would cross over County Road (CR) 6 as it is high-speed traffic at 55 mph in both locations. Two options were reviewed going into Medina and going north; one is on Hunter Drive off of O7 and one is off Tamarack in O8. The MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 10 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) –Continued preferred route is heading in the western direction of Tamarack. Mr. Crosby said in both locations the right-of-way varies for the roadway and they have had a conversation with the golf course managers about the trail to learn of their concerns and ideas. Further south at O6, the new trail would be an integral part of this trail and the Diamond Lake Regional Trail would incorporate the new trail on the east side of Long Lake. Three Rivers sees Summit Park as a potential trailhead for this facility and a location where residents and visitors could get onto the trail. O2 is a segment that goes between Wood-Rail Scientific and Natural area and provides many natural and scenic routes, and the public comments noted it would be very scenic and safer than bicycling on the road. There is a concern from residents in this area about loss of privacy and the narrowness of the road if the trail were to go in this location. He noted they did not receive any comments about O4 which is the new trail along County Road 112 and that trail would utilize the existing trail. O3 and O1 utilize the Luce Line State Trail. Three Rivers received several comments from the public and all of those were really interested in making sure the Luce Line does not get paved. The general consensus from the public is that they like to see that trail maintained as gravel. In Wayzata, they have the same O1 Luce Line Trail and Ferndale Road (W4) and several people preferred this route because they felt it was a more direct connection to the Dakota Rail Trail. W2 which uses Wayzata Blvd and Old Long Lake Road through Wayzata Country Club; they had some concerns about the safety adjacent to the golf course and the entrance to the Country Club, but there were others that felt it was a scenic segment. Mr. Crosby noted they went through the same analysis in Wayzata and looked at two different routes along Ferndale that would connect to the Dakota Rail Trail, and east and south along Wayzata Blvd and Berry Ave. Mr. Crosby moved on and showed the recommended route through Orono and Wayzata; the highlighted yellow is the route Three Rivers is recommending. Starting in the southeast, the trail which has yet to go before the Wayzata City Council, but would go up Berry Ave and Wayzata Blvd. to Ferndale Route, then goes north on Ferndale Road to connect to the Luce Line. It heads west on the Luce Line, rather than using Wayzata Blvd and Old Long Lake Road through the Country Club. Three Rivers has had conversations with the DNR and they are receptive to the idea of the regional trail using the Luce Line. At Old Long Lake Road, the route would use that road to get up to East Long Lake Road where they could use Summit Park as a trailhead and use the existing trail along East Long Lake Road going up to Spring Hill Road and heading west to crossing CR 6 at Tamarack. Mr. Crosby pointed out regarding the preferred route, he has highlighted in dashed blue some of the opportunities this route would create in terms of local trail routes and circuits people could do. He said they have noticed there are a lot of people walking and bicycling on Old Long Lake Road – if this Master Plan would come to fruition and they had a paved trail along Old Long Lake Road, it provides the opportunity for several smaller loop trails that people could utilize. They feel that this is a great opportunity for the regional trail to connect north and south, but also provides different opportunities for local community members to have different options for local trail loops. Mr. Crosby noted in the area just west of East Long Lake Road, it is a very challenging segment that goes from East Long Lake Road over to CR 112. Three Rivers has looked at this as an option for a potential partnership trail connection which is a really critical local trail connection that would allow people going east and west along CR 112, Wayzata Blvd. to connect to the regional trail and they have some ideas of how that might occur with a boardwalk over the storm water pond. Seals noted they had some resident complaints and asked Mr. Crosby to share which properties would be affected that Three Rivers would be looking to have access to. While this trail looks really nice, it is not necessarily something Orono needs and when she thinks about residents and what they ask for, she thinks they have really great trails and there needs to be a really good reason to disrupt someone’s private property. She would like to have a better understanding of those private properties, because Seals prefers MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 10 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) –Continued they do not drive a trail right through someone’s lot and that is what it looks like on the map she was shown. Crosby said specifically the Tamarack area. Seals pulled it up on Hennepin County and it does go right between and it does not look good. Walsh wants to read a couple of things that were sent to the Council. One is from Chuck Morrison, who was just notified and could not be here tonight. They are in receipt of the plan, the trail, and the various routes, and are shocked that they would have a trail that would go through their backyard. Walsh does not know the specifics but those are Mr. Morrison’s comments. He said they definitely oppose the western-most route to the greatest extent provided under law. Mr. Morrison’s understanding is that upset residents on other routes that utilize existing easements and transportation corridors have managed to convince them that it should instead run through private property. There are no easements or existing corridors on Mr. Morrison’s property or his neighbors’ properties. Walsh received another comment from Robin Johnson who owns two properties on Tamarack, 1155 and 1325 Tamarack (one is in Orono, one is in Medina) and they have about 38 acres and are opposed to any trail going through either of their properties. Ms. Johnson thinks that would affect their property values, quality of life, etcetera. Walsh noted those are two people who would be very opposed and he thinks as a Council they would be opposed to any trail trying to go through private property or needing to take property besides all the existing easements and roadways they currently have in place. Mr. Crosby brought over a google map to show a little more clarity on CR 6 because the area they are talking about is right at the edge of the corridor map. He clarified they are talking about the trail coming along Spring Hill Road up to the CR 6 intersection and then heading north up Tamarack Drive. The current preferred alignment would then head due west to the corner of the Scientific and Natural Area and then head north. He pointed out the area where Chuck Morrison lives off of Knoll Manor Road and said the other letter of concern was from a neighbor. He said the trail would come up Tamarack and then head west, just north of Knoll Manor Road where these houses are. Walsh said there are no existing easements there currently, it is just the route they would like to bring it through. Mr. Crosby said that is correct. Crosby said that would be a problem. Seals said that is a bona-fide no on that. Walsh would have a hard time supporting that particular route. Crosby said on the other maps they were seeing, everything was south of that area. Mr. Crosby said that is correct. He thinks it might be helpful to notice that as they come through Old Long Lake Road the intent of the Master Plan would be not to utilize any private property, but they could put the trail in the existing road right-of-way. That likely would not occur until there is a project to improve Old Long Lake Road right through the area, so there would be some modifications made to MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 10 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) –Continued drainage and vegetation, but within the road right-of-way. As they head up East Long Lake Road, this is a very challenging location with a very narrow right-of-way (only 30 feet), so Three Rivers will have to look at different alternatives to get the trail down heading north toward the park. One of those options would be a shared facility where the trail would be marked with “sharrows” and would actually be on the roadway rather than needing any private property adjacent to it. Walsh does not think there are any plans in the future for the extension of Old Long Lake Road, so he thinks they need to go to another option; he does not think that one is going to work. He knows Three Rivers wanted some kind of approval tonight and a lot of this is new information in terms of the new route. He could probably give disapproval – he does not know that he can tell which one will be the best – but he can tell the ones that will not work. Crosby noted this piece is not the problem, it is the north piece. Walsh said it is that north piece that cuts through the private property. If they had existing easements and roadways, that is what he recommends Three Rivers stays with and follows. Crosby stated it concerns him that they do not have that portion of the map up there. They show all the others where it tends to be working, but not when going through private property. Walsh noted it is that piece right there. Mr. Crosby appreciates that concern and the fact that Three Rivers mapping cuts off right there, it does show on the continuation as they look to the north and that was not the intent on Three Rivers’ part. Their intent is to show all of the impacts as they are showing here so the City gets a full picture of the recommendation. Crosby thinks that is the biggest issue the Council has. They are not looking for trails to go through private property or to have any residents disrupted. Printup agreed. Seals would rather they not do the trail at all if that is the only option because it is just not right to the residents. Crosby asked if there was something workable on the road side or something else, but they would have to get it north some other way. Mr. Shurson added they should keep in mind this is a long-term planning project and they do show the line going through private property and need property rights to do so. He noted they do this on a seller basis – they will not force a trail through someone’s property that does not want it. Along the Tamarack section, they would be within the road right-of-way until they reach the larger parcel which is owned by Ms. Johnson. He said they actually had a meeting with Ms. Johnson, heard her concerns and told her that they would be looking to build this trail at some point in the future on a seller basis. He noted Ms. Johnson may decide to sell or redevelop her property and that would be the point in which they would MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 10 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) –Continued construct a trail on a basis that would be satisfactory to her or whomever she may sell the property to. Mr. Shurson said there is no forcing the trail on to private property and they are willing to wait. Walsh appreciates that sentiment, but what they are asking for is an approval for future potential, and he is not willing to even give approval for any future potential through that land at all. He does not even want it on the board as a possibility. Seals said no resident - even if they have to get Three Rivers’ permission - wants to see a big trail going through their private land. Walsh said even if they wanted to 20 years from now, Walsh is not willing to put his stamp on it for a potential future possibility. Crosby said the stuff to the south they are good with. Walsh said as long as it is through the roads and right-of-ways, it is all good. Seals agreed. Walsh said everything until they get to Tamarack and go west. Kelly Grissman of Three Rivers said this particular area along Tamarack is an area that they are also working very closely with in Medina. Of the whole corridor, it is probably the area that is the most fluid in terms of the route. Medina is also going through this exact same process that Orono is going through and Three Rivers is working with them to figure out exactly the preferred route they would like to see going forward. Ms. Grissman thinks this is one area that could and will change based on what Medina is looking for. If it works for the City Council today, Three Rivers would still like to get some direction or indication of support for everything south of this so they can still work with Medina on how they can make these two tails connect. Walsh said he thinks they can agree on support of the south; he does not think there is any problem there. Ms. Grissman asked if it would please the Council if Three Rivers stopped short of this last parcel and just kept it directly within the road right-of-way. They could then come back to the Council once they have additional feedback from Medina and could propose a plan as to how to connect those two tails. Walsh said they will talk to Medina either way, so if they want to go up Tamarack and Medina says they can go through. Crosby said in concept, everything south of CR 6. Walsh thinks they are all in agreement for south of that and if Medina wants to continue up Tamarack, they are good with the right-of-ways and the Medina can solve the rest of it if they choose. Ms. Grissman thanked the Council. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 10 14. DIAMOND LAKE REGIONAL TRAIL MASTER PLAN UPDATE (REMOTE) –Continued Johnson asked if Three Rivers is going to plow the trail once it is done. Ms. Grissman said that is a long time from now as they have a 20-30 year time frame. She would imagine that their policy and arrangement would change. Right now the arrangement with the cities is that cities have taken a very active role in winter maintenance if Three Rivers provides reimbursement of about $500 per mile. She imagines they may have a different arrangement with the cities in 30 years and may change what that winter maintenance looks like. Johnson asks because Orono took on the plowing on the Dakota Rail Trail and he thinks that it is rather disappointing that it is left to the cities to do. What ended up happening to make this work is that Orono had to start doing some plowing for other municipalities because they were not capable or interested. It puts the onus on the City of Orono and it is a trail – Johnson lives right off of it and observes it – the use is so much greater when it is plowed. He said before they take on more trail projects, they should do the very best with the ones they have. He thinks that includes plowing and making them accessible all year long before going on to expand into other trails. Seals thinks before they create more trails they are not managing full time, maybe they should allocate funds towards taking care of the trails they have. She said Johnson is 100% right, people love that trail. Johnson noted Three Rivers is doing a great job of maintaining the Dakota Rail Trail as far as usability, making repairs, making changes, but he thinks Three Rivers needs to commit to having it be all year round. Ms. Grissman very much appreciates that feedback and would be happy to bring that back to the Board for their future conversation on winter maintenance as it is something they have been discussing each year. It is an ongoing conversation and she hopes they have a plan that suits Orono’s needs and desires in the near future. Johnson said this trail is from Wayzata through Orono, Spring Park, and Mound and for the first time ever it was open all winter. That is in large part because Orono was willing to take on the lion’s share of it. Walsh hopes they can count on Three Rivers’ support for continuing those conversations in figuring out how Three Rivers can handle it, or allocating more dollars to help manage that. Ms. Beard appreciates being here to hear the feedback from the Council. She knows that Orono took the lead on clearing the Dakota Rail Trail and she appreciates them very much. 10. BIG ISLAND DECLARATION AND CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL Johnson wants to understand what it meant for the City to declare a restriction on this property as a function of this body. If something occurs with their deed that would not have otherwise been there, and as a result of this bond they have an additional restriction. Edwards said in short, any time the City takes money from the state, they incur restrictions on the property they take the money to improve. About a year ago, they had to encumber the property when they took the DNR grant so they restricted the property on the title in favor of the Minnesota DNR. Now MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 10 10. BIG ISLAND DECLARATION AND CHANGE ORDER APPROVAL – Continued they are taking another batch of state money, this time through the Office of Management and Budget through the Department of Economic Development’s deed to Orono. The property, in order to get that bond finalized, requires similar restrictions. Basically the state says they are giving Orono this money and they want to make sure they do not take the money, improve the property, and sell the property for a purpose other than what the money was given for. It is basically saying Orono will keep the property long-term and it will remain a public park for the benefit of the public. Attorney Mattick said that is it, they are taking money and in return Orono does not get to sell it until it is run past the state. He noted there are a lot of restrictions on that property even before this one. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve Big Island Declaration attached in Exhibit A; the Change Order No. 4 for the extended ADA Trail in Exhibit B; and the associated engineering proposal from BMI in Exhibit C. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 15. LA20-000048 – TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I. JACOBS/ A. JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION Barnhart stated at the last Council meeting, he was directed to draft a resolution of approval for the plat of Shoreline Estates; he has done so. The City Council added three conditions in addition to those Barnhart originally proposed. Those were incorporated into the conditions of the document and he summarized those in his background memo. Staff is recommending approval of the preliminary plat as part of that resolution. Since the meeting they have received some additional commentary from the neighboring property owner, and that has been provided to the Council. Walsh said at the last Council meeting they approved the recommendation with the changes and they really wanted some feedback from Hennepin County about the left-hand turn lane going to the east, which they did receive. It confirmed that the City’s understanding is that the County would not recommend it based on a number of factors and that was what the City was waiting on. He said they are not looking for any additional comments at this point, as this is a preliminary plat. Crosby said it was the turn lane and what else. Walsh said it was just the turn lane they were looking for feedback on. Johnson said with that turn lane, does it go without saying that it has to occur without an encroachment. Attorney Mattick replied yes, there is no right for the Applicant to do anything on the Burwell property. Walsh stated any private property. Attorney Mattick said that is right. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 10 15. LA20-000048 – TIMOTHY WHITTEN O/B/O I. JACOBS/ A. JACOBS REVOCABLE TRUST, 1700 SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – RESOLUTION – Continued Johnson said it will be interesting because it is a ditch so he is curious how it will go with a power pole. It goes without saying that the County is saying the turn lane needs to be there and it will not encroach on the Burwell property. Attorney Mattick stated, in his opinion, there is nothing the Council can do to force Ms. Burwell to allow them to work on her property or put any improvements on that property. To him, that is just such an elementary and basic proposition. Walsh noted they would not make that recommendation or caveat to begin with at all. Johnson said they also have that visibility prior to the final plat approval. Walsh replied yes, there are plenty of things that need to get done before final plat approval. Johnson said including any potential damage to the trees on the Burwell property. Walsh noted that is all considered, absolutely. Johnson said the finding of the facts noted four outlots, and three were the lakeward lots and the fourth was for the driveway. Barnhart replied, for the road, yes. The most recent preliminary plat shows three outlots along Shoreline Drive and the one for the road. Crosby asked if all of those outlots are on the lake side. Barnhart replied three of them are on the lake side, and one is for the road. Printup moved, Crosby seconded, to approve LA20-000048 – Timothy Whitten o/b/o Jacobs Revocable Trust, 1700 Shoreline Drive, Preliminary Plat as drafted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Crosby is wearing a green and gold tie and it is for NDSU as his daughter is graduating in May. Johnson noted he sold his house in Orono and found another one in Orono, which was a tough search. The market is tight and very competitive out there. His son is down in Texas and is not escaping the snow. Johnson would really like to see Three Rivers plow; he likes the ideas of more trails but said they should get really good at what they are doing and the ones they have. It is the same thing with the parks. Printup echoes what Johnson said; it took a bit to get Three Rivers to understand that Orono was not interested in that north route but he thinks they did it. He wants to ask their friends to the east in Wayzata, there is a bridge there by the Dakota Trail where it starts and there is more graffiti. He would like to get it cleaned up as it is inviting more and they do not want it oozing this way. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, February 22, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT – Continued Seals noted the kids are going back to school full-time which is a really big thing. She is glad Johnson brought up the trail and agrees they need to do well with what they have before introducing more. Walsh is thankful that they have good citizens who alert the Council to this stuff as this is new info; they would not have known if Mr. Morrison and Ms. Johnson had not emailed. He loves the idea of the trails and as Johnson said they have done a great job with the trails and parks over many years. He is glad his kids are going back to school, also. CITY ADMINISTRATOR REPORT Olson updated the Council and said things are going pretty smoothly. He noted the Police Chief may want to address the Council at the next work session about some changes to use of force laws and his concerns about that. He thinks the Council should know what is going on. Attorney Mattick noted they have been doing some training on it and it has gotten more complicated. It is a new law without much guidance and everyone is waiting for everyone else to do the guidance. The Attorney General’s office has done some but not a lot. The County Attorney’s office has done some but not a lot. He said the City has been doing some training and some guidance because it does change the rules of engagement. Walsh said that will be a good work session and they will figure out what is going on and how they can continue to support the Police Department. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report ADJOURNMENT Crosby moved, Printup seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 6:53 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, February 22, 2021 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 Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. Boat Storage Regulations Discussion Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart explained the reasoning behind the shortness of the storage regulations ordinance. He asked the Council for direction on a few items which addressed the various regulations. He is looking for feedback from the Council regarding side, rear, and front yard storage setbacks. The Council discussed the storage requirements, maximum lengths, setbacks and storage locations for the ordinance. They gave input to Barnhart about a few minor changes and directed staff to move it forward to the Planning Commission to get their input. Barnhart will make the changes discussed and then move it to the Planning Commission for review. 2.City Administrator Search Update Council Member Victoria Seals gave a brief update about the City Administrator search. Meeting Adjourned: 5:44 p.m. CITY OF ORONO: ATTEST: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor _________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: MLU Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 115943 to 116029, totaling $282,854.35. 3. Noteworthy Payments. Vendor Amount Description of Payment #115969 Cintas Corp $911.52 Final payment for service with Cintas for PW uniform cleaning. Switch services to UniFirst Corp. #115996 League of MN Cities $96,611.00 1st half payment for 2021 workers’ compensation insurance. #115999 Metro Cities $3,385.00 Payment for 2021 membership to Metro Cities. Metro Cities monitors regional issues and advocates for cities at the Metropolitan Council and the State. 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: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Maggie Ung Acting Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 041420-1 710-49970-221 CONVERTER BOX - COUNCIL A/V 209.67- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 043020 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - SQUARE CARD READER 37.61- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 050620-1 101-42110-201 CD'S Police Department 77.36- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 050820 101-42110-489 OFFICER PORTRAIT Police Department 14.57- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051220 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - SQUARE CARD READER 67.17- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051319-3 101-41900-223 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES Central Services 720.54- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051320 601-49400-227 INTERCONNECT SUMP PUMP Water 172.25- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051420 710-49970-221 IPAD BATTERY - PW 40.39- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051520 101-43000-221 PHONE CLIP - PW Public Works Department 12.89- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051720 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSES COVID Mayor & Council 280.65- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 113953 051920 601-49400-489 HENNEPIN COUNTY ROW PERMIT Water 660.00- Total 113953:2,293.10- SHRED-IT C/O STERICYCLE IN 02/24/2021 115731 8181148285 101-42110-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Police Department 1,249.25- Total 115731:1,249.25- BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115775 60938 321-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2010A 220,000.00- BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115775 60938 321-47000-611 INTEREST 2010A 24,896.88- BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115775 60940 323-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2016A 495,000.00- BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115775 60940 323-47000-611 INTEREST 2016A 15,200.00- BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115775 61869 322-47000-620 SERIES 2014A AGENT FEE 475.00- Total 115775:755,571.88- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 041420-1 710-49970-221 CONVERTER BOX - COUNCIL A/V 209.67 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 043020 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - SQUARE CARD READER 37.61 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 050620-1 101-42110-201 CD'S Police Department 77.36 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 050820 101-42110-489 OFFICER PORTRAIT Police Department 14.57 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051220 710-49970-221 COVID 19 - SQUARE CARD READER 67.17 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051319-3 101-41900-223 CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES Central Services 720.54 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051320 601-49400-227 INTERCONNECT SUMP PUMP Water 172.25 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051420 710-49970-221 IPAD BATTERY - PW 40.39 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051520 101-43000-221 PHONE CLIP - PW Public Works Department 12.89 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051720 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSES COVID Mayor & Council 280.65 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 02/24/2021 115943 051920 601-49400-489 HENNEPIN COUNTY ROW PERMIT Water 660.00 Total 115943:2,293.10 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount City of Wayzata\DMV 02/26/2021 115944 022521 101-42110-441 SQUAD #256 LICENSE TAB RENEWAL Police Department 14.25 City of Wayzata\DMV 02/26/2021 115944 022521 101-42110-441 SQUAD #257 LICENSE TAB RENEWAL Police Department 14.25 Total 115944:28.50 HERO PLUMBING, HEATING & C 02/26/2021 115945 021921 101-15500 REFUND P20-000083 2868 CASCO PT RD 29.38 Total 115945:29.38 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 45 02/26/2021 115946 02252021 101-21705 457 - 02/25/2021 1,691.00 Total 115946:1,691.00 MN STATE RETIREMENT-HCSP-02/26/2021 115947 02252021 101-21718 PEHSCP - 2/25/2021 3,891.17 Total 115947:3,891.17 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 02/26/2021 115948 02252021RO 101-21705 ROTH - 02/25/2021 200.00 NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 02/26/2021 115948 02252021US 101-21705 457 - 02/25/2021 845.00 Total 115948:1,045.00 ORCHARD TRUST-MNDCP-ING 02/26/2021 115949 02252021 101-21705 457 - 02/25/2021 1,720.00 Total 115949:1,720.00 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREM 02/26/2021 115950 02252021 101-21704 PERA 2/8/21-02/21/21 38,015.28 Total 115950:38,015.28 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/01/2021 115951 030121 651-49910-322 2/21 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 344.85 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/01/2021 115951 030121 602-49450-322 2/21 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 344.85 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/01/2021 115951 030121 601-49400-322 2/21 UTILITY BILLS Water 344.85 Total 115951:1,034.55 BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115952 60938 321-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2010A 220,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115952 60938 321-47000-611 INTEREST 2010A 24,896.88 BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115952 60940 323-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2016A 495,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES 03/02/2021 115952 60940 323-47000-611 INTEREST 2016A 15,200.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115952:755,096.88 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 03/02/2021 115953 61869 322-47000-620 SERIES 2014A AGENT FEE 475.00 Total 115953:475.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 03/08/2021 115954 437044860 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 02/20/21-03/20/21 121.76 Total 115954:121.76 AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LL 03/08/2021 115955 440362 101-41500-301 FINANCE ASSISTANCE Finance Department 1,007.50 Total 115955:1,007.50 ALLSTREAM 03/08/2021 115956 17354217 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 2/23/21-3/22/21 Police Department 322.59 ALLSTREAM 03/08/2021 115956 17354217 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 2/23/21-3/22/21 Central Services 451.62 ALLSTREAM 03/08/2021 115956 17354217 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 2/23/21-3/22/21 Water 75.27 ALLSTREAM 03/08/2021 115956 17354217 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 2/23/21-3/22/21 Sewer 172.05 ALLSTREAM 03/08/2021 115956 17354217 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 2/23/21-3/22/21 Golf Course 53.76 Total 115956:1,075.29 Ammermann, Jonathan & Sarah 03/08/2021 115957 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS20-000105 420 LAKEVIE 1,000.00 Total 115957:1,000.00 ASPEN EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 115958 10226481 701-49800-221 SNOWPLOW UNDERBODY REPAIR 424 828.60 Total 115958:828.60 ASSOCIATION OF MN EMERGE 03/08/2021 115959 2021110-208 101-42110-433 2021-AMEM DUES-C. FARNIOK Police Department 200.00 Total 115959:200.00 Batteries + Bulbs 03/08/2021 115960 P37041015 602-49450-221 12 V BATTERY Sewer 50.38 Total 115960:50.38 BIFFS INC 03/08/2021 115961 W800238 101-45210-415 ORONO GOLF COURSE Golf Course 133.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BIFFS INC 03/08/2021 115961 W800239 101-45200-415 LURTON PARK Parks 66.50 Total 115961:199.50 BLUE & BROWN BACKGROUND 03/08/2021 115962 051021 101-42110-437 TRAINING - SCHOENHERR, MCCOY, BECK Police Department 900.00 Total 115962:900.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265307 602-16500 2020 SEWER IMPROVEMENTS 20-014 324.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265312 101-43280-304 LA20-000048 SHORELINE ESTATES Special Services 1,349.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265313 101-43280-304 LA21-000014 ORONO CROSSING Special Services 1,207.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265314 101-19999 21-021 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT 4,198.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265315 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE GENERAL Engineering 1,024.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265315 651-49910-305 GIS MAINTENANCE STORM SEWER Storm Water 615.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265315 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER Water 375.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265315 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 920.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265316 101-43170-304 GENERAL ENGINEERING 02/21 Engineering 413.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265317 435-48974-304 2021 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS 21-001 19,870.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265322 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND IMPROVEMENT PHASE 1 19-033 3,283.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265323 710-49970-401 CITIZEN PROBLEM REPORTER 60.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265324 225-45200-304 EAST LONG LAKE TRAIL 20-029 87.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265326 601-16500 WALTERS POINT MAIN REPLACEMENT 21-022 1,538.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.03/08/2021 115963 0265328 601-49400-304 WATER PLAN STATUS REVIEW Water 370.00 Total 115963:35,633.00 BURRIS, HEATH 03/08/2021 115964 030221 101-19999 REFUND REMAINING SAC PAYMENT - RPS20-00 240.00 Total 115964:240.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 011221-3 101-41110-439 COOKIES/FOOD - WORK SESSION 1/11/21 Mayor & Council 13.65 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 011321-2 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 1/11/21 Mayor & Council 80.64 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 011321-COR 101-42110-439 LUNCH MEETING CORRECTION Police Department 27.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 012621-1 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 1/25/21 Mayor & Council 96.78 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 012621-REV 701-49800-221 REVERSE FUEL PURCHASE 31.37- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 012921 710-49970-416 GO TO MEETING MEMBERSHIP 2,387.07 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 020221-Reve 101-42110-437 BCA TRAINING - BECK Police Department 75.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 020421 710-49970-221 PRINTER TRAY 109.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 020521-1-RE 101-42110-437 TRAINING - HERZOG Police Department 150.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 020921 101-45210-223 GOLF COURSE FRIDGE Golf Course 1,641.80 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 020921-1 101-41110-439 COOKIES - WORK SESSION 2/8/21 Mayor & Council 19.36 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 021021-1 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 2/10/21 Mayor & Council 103.01 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 021721 101-42110-403 SOAP DISPENSERS Police Department 107.64 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022021 101-42110-402 CAR WASH #261 Police Department 15.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022221 701-49800-222 VEHICLE REPAIR - UNIT 424 84.07 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022321 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 2/22/21 Mayor & Council 71.41 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022321-1 101-41110-439 WATER - WORK SESSION 2/22/21 Mayor & Council 4.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022421 101-41110-439 WCC LUNCH MEETING Mayor & Council 92.96 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022521 101-41110-439 WMDFT LUNCHEON Mayor & Council 489.11 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022521-1 101-42110-201 NOTARY STAMPS - HEATHER AND JESSICA Police Department 91.60 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 022621 101-42110-437 FOOD FOR PLATOON - MOBILE FIELD FORCE Police Department 236.11 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 030121 101-42110-352 HANDGUN PERMIT CARDS Police Department 270.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 030121-1 101-42110-441 POST LICENSE RENEWAL 12 OFFICERS Police Department 1,080.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 030221 101-42110-402 CAR WASH #261 Police Department 15.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 030221-1 101-42110-228 CIT/MENTAL HEALTH TRAINING - LANGE Police Department 200.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 081120-4 RE 101-41410-319 COVID-19 - POLLING PLACE SANITIZING REVER Elections 1,925.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 092020 225-45200-530 BIG ISLAND BRASS PLAQUES 18.29- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 101220-rever 710-49970-575 PRINTER - PD -DUPLICATE PAYMENT 218.00- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 110220-2 101-41900-319 SURVEY MONKEY - SUBSCRIPTION Central Services 408.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 110520-1 101-41410-439 ELECTION JUDGES FOOD/WATER 11/3/20 Elections 51.92 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 111020-2 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 11/9/20 Mayor & Council 83.33 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 111919-2-RE 101-42110-352 CHRISTMAS CARDS Police Department 251.03- CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 112520-1 101-41110-439 FOOD - WORK SESSION 11/23/20 Mayor & Council 105.86 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 120920-1 601-49400-405 PATCH FOR WATERMAIN BREAK Water 521.84 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 121020-4 101-41410-437 ELECTION JUDGE THANK YOU CARDS Elections 10.73 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 121420-1 101-41110-439 COOKIES - WORK SESSION Mayor & Council 6.44 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 123120 101-42110-319 SHREDDING OF DOCUMENTS Police Department 600.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 123120 101-41900-319 SHREDDING OF DOCUMENTS Central Services 649.25 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 123120-1 101-41110-439 COOKIES - WORK SESSION 12/30/20 Mayor & Council 4.94 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 03/08/2021 115965 P20099745 101-19999 EMERGENCY EXIT LIGHTS - COUNCIL CHAMBE 35.98 Total 115965:6,992.79 CEMSTONE 03/08/2021 115966 C2290307 408-48800-580 CONCRETE PAD FOR CITY CAMPUS GENERATO 817.65 Total 115966:817.65 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 022321 602-49450-381 1302 SHORELINE - GAS 01/21/21-2/19/21 Sewer 19.86 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 030121 601-49400-381 GAS SERVICE 1/21/21-2/19/21 Water 845.90 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 030121 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICE 1/21/21-2/19/21 Sewer 1,051.93 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 030121 101-41900-381 GAS SERVICE 1/21/21-2/19/21 Central Services 2,118.48 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 030121 101-42110-381 GAS SERVICE 1/21/21-2/19/21 Police Department 667.43 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/08/2021 115967 030121 101-45210-381 GAS SERVICE 1/21/21-2/19/21 Golf Course 345.24 Total 115967:5,048.84 CENTURY LINK 03/08/2021 115968 021921 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 2/19/2021-3/18/2021 Golf Course 229.35 Total 115968:229.35 CINTAS CORPORATION 03/08/2021 115969 4070044386 101-43000-226 SPLIT DISTRIBUTION FOR UNIFORMS Public Works Department 911.52 Total 115969:911.52 City of Orono Utilities 03/08/2021 115970 022421 CH P 101-41900-382 FEBRUARY 2021 UB - CH Central Services 74.36 City of Orono Utilities 03/08/2021 115970 022421 CH P 101-42110-382 FEBRUARY 2021 UB - PD Police Department 74.36 City of Orono Utilities 03/08/2021 115970 022421 PO 101-41900-382 FEBRUARY 2021 UB - PO Central Services 84.56 City of Orono Utilities 03/08/2021 115970 022421 PW 101-41900-382 FEBRUARY 2021 UB - PW Central Services 228.88 City of Orono Utilities 03/08/2021 115970 022421 WP 601-49400-382 FEBRUARY 2021 UB - WATER PLANT Water 145.54 Total 115970:607.70 CITY OF WAYZATA 03/08/2021 115971 030221 602-49450-387 FEBRUARY 2021 SEWER Sewer 3,885.20 CITY OF WAYZATA 03/08/2021 115971 030221 601-49400-387 FEBRUARY 2021 WATER Water 1,936.25 Total 115971:5,821.45 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 03/08/2021 115972 107443106 601-49400-405 WATER PLANT REPAIR Water 788.23 Total 115972:788.23 CLINT SCHUMANN 03/08/2021 115973 030221 101-43000-226 SAFETY TOE SHOES Public Works Department 250.00 Total 115973:250.00 COMPLETE SAFETY LLC 03/08/2021 115974 4744 101-42110-226 PRESCRIPTION INSERT - SILTALA Police Department 199.00 Total 115974:199.00 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 03/08/2021 115975 0023109 101-43000-489 SHOP SUPPLIES Public Works Department 96.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115975:96.00 CURTIS, TIMOTHY 03/08/2021 115976 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D20-000019 1935 CONCORDI 1,000.00 Total 115976:1,000.00 David Goman 03/08/2021 115977 021221 101-43000-226 SAFETY BOOTS Public Works Department 229.99 Total 115977:229.99 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 820203 101-45210-340 PARKS/GC SUPERVISOR AD Golf Course 290.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 821072 435-48974-352 21-001 STREETS PROJECT BID ADVERT 152.88 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 821073 435-48972-352 21-021 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN PH2 BID ADVERT 152.88 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 821244 101-45210-340 PARKS/GC SUPERVISOR AD Golf Course 84.88 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 822407 602-49450-352 MAINTENACE WORKER ADVERTISEMENT Sewer 290.00 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 03/08/2021 115978 822408 101-45210-340 PARKS/GC SUPERVISOR AD Golf Course 35.12 Total 115978:1,005.76 EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 03/08/2021 115979 51210 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 2,829.12 Total 115979:2,829.12 Emergency Medical Products Inc 03/08/2021 115980 2238899 101-42110-221 MEDICAL SUPPLIES Police Department 411.16 Total 115980:411.16 FASTENAL 03/08/2021 115981 MNPLY1278 101-43000-224 NUTS & BOLTS Public Works Department 39.69 FASTENAL 03/08/2021 115981 MNPLY1278 701-49800-240 DRILL BIT SET AND REPLACEMENTS 29.74 FASTENAL 03/08/2021 115981 MNPLY1278 701-49800-240 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 168.99 Total 115981:238.42 FLESSNER, BRUCE W 03/08/2021 115982 030221 999-10015 UB REFUND 2-311900-00 1190 HERITAGE LANE 83.47 Total 115982:83.47 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/08/2021 115983 3270-498363 701-49800-221 BATTERY FOR 715 56.49 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/08/2021 115983 3270-498425 701-49800-222 OIL FILTERS 29.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/08/2021 115983 3270-499460 701-49800-222 TAIL LIGHT BULB 3.49 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/08/2021 115983 3270-499774 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINTENANCE Police Department 41.47 Total 115983:130.95 GEPHART ELECTRIC CO INC 03/08/2021 115984 162367 601-49400-405 N WATER PLANT CL2 ROOM RECEPTACLE.Water 303.75 Total 115984:303.75 GOPHER ACE 03/08/2021 115985 5106/1 101-43000-224 BATTERY D SIZE Public Works Department 16.99 GOPHER ACE 03/08/2021 115985 5203/1 101-43000-224 RUBBING ALCOHOL - REMOVE GRAFFITI Public Works Department 3.99 GOPHER ACE 03/08/2021 115985 5215/1 101-42110-240 SALT PAIL Police Department 21.99 Total 115985:42.97 GRAINGER INC 03/08/2021 115986 9808874573 701-49800-221 WHEEL CHOCKS FOR PORTABLE GENERATORS 102.44 Total 115986:102.44 HEMMER, SEAN & LINDSAY 03/08/2021 115987 021921 602-37690 REFUND I&I INSPECTION - USED PRIVATE CON 150.00 Total 115987:150.00 Hennepin County Property Tax 03/08/2021 115988 030221 602-11506 REFUND FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT ON PROP 731.64 Total 115988:731.64 HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASUR 03/08/2021 115989 1125707 101-45210-441 2021 FOOD LICENSE-GC Golf Course 293.00 Total 115989:293.00 HOTSYMINNESOTA.COM 03/08/2021 115990 70261 701-49800-403 REPAIR PORTABLE PRESSURE WASHER 21.74 Total 115990:21.74 J.S. CATES CONSTRUCTION IN 03/08/2021 115991 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND CPS20-000001 2687 WAYZAT 1,000.00 Total 115991:1,000.00 JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PR 03/08/2021 115992 87540083 101-41900-404 FIRE SUPPRESION SYSTEM REPAIRS Central Services 1,393.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 115992:1,393.00 KYLE KIRSCHNER 03/08/2021 115993 021221 101-42110-317 ANIMAL EXPENSES Police Department 67.41 Total 115993:67.41 Lake West Development 03/08/2021 115994 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND LA19-000025 3245 WAYZATA 5,000.00 Lake West Development 03/08/2021 115994 030321 101-34420 APPLICATION FEES LA19-000025 3245 WAZYATA 550.00- Total 115994:4,450.00 LANO EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 115995 03-812141 701-49800-221 OIL AND AIR FILTERS - UNIT #604 454.25 LANO EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 115995 03-813106 701-49800-221 PIN FOR BOBCAT BROOM - UNIT 452 80.10 Total 115995:534.35 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 03/08/2021 115996 030421 703-49960-151 2021 ST HALF WC INSURANCE 96,611.00 Total 115996:96,611.00 LEOWEBPROTECT.com 03/08/2021 115997 2986 101-42110-433 MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION 03/21 Police Department 143.06 Total 115997:143.06 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22205544 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 1,198.83 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22205545 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,902.01 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22205553 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 363.97 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22227935 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 1,131.54 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22227936 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,056.40 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/08/2021 115998 22227952 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 790.14 Total 115998:8,442.89 METRO CITIES 03/08/2021 115999 770 101-41110-433 2021 MEMBERSHIP Mayor & Council 3,385.00 Total 115999:3,385.00 METRO WEST INSPECTIONS S 03/08/2021 116000 2736 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES JANUARY 2021 Building & Zoning 14,585.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 116000:14,585.00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/08/2021 116001 00072970 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 34.36 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/08/2021 116001 00072971 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 57.26 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/08/2021 116001 00072972 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 8.65 Total 116001:100.27 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 116002 P40125 701-49800-221 REPAIR UNIT 623 197.78 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 116002 P40125 101-43000-226 PPE EAR PROTECTION DJ Public Works Department 32.95 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 03/08/2021 116002 P40125 701-49800-221 CHAINSAW SUPPLIES 70.63 Total 116002:301.36 MISSION COMMUNICATIONS LL 03/08/2021 116003 1048944 602-49450-416 MISSION ANNUAL SERVICE Sewer 1,042.20 Total 116003:1,042.20 MOUND TRUE VALUE 03/08/2021 116004 173458 101-42110-240 CLEANING SUPPLIES Police Department 28.44 Total 116004:28.44 MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 03/08/2021 116005 0572555CP 101-43000-226 PPE REPLACEMENT APPAREL Public Works Department 230.35 Total 116005:230.35 NAVARRE HARDWARE 03/08/2021 116006 329504 601-49400-227 COTTER PINS Water 2.58 NAVARRE HARDWARE 03/08/2021 116006 329689 601-49400-227 BATTERIES 9V Water 6.49 NAVARRE HARDWARE 03/08/2021 116006 329750 101-41900-223 CLEANING SUPPLIES Central Services 24.76 Total 116006:33.83 Navarre Minnoco 03/08/2021 116007 8026 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 31.37 Total 116007:31.37 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303200128 710-49970-221 HEADSET - PW 114.95 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303204039 710-49970-221 PATCH CABLES - RACK 10.94 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303204316 101-42110-221 CABLES - SQUAD CARS Police Department 18.93 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303205981 101-42110-221 CABLE FOR SQUAD CARS Police Department 122.97 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303206734 101-42110-221 CABLES FOR SQUAD CARS Police Department 41.16 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303206856 710-49970-221 PATCH CABLES - RACK 20.85 Newegg Business Inc 03/08/2021 116008 1303211237 710-49970-221 CABLES FOR SQUAD CARS 69.13 Total 116008:398.93 OFFICE DEPOT 03/08/2021 116009 1571603030 101-42110-201 TONER Police Department 150.49 OFFICE DEPOT 03/08/2021 116009 1581532240 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 97.99 OFFICE DEPOT 03/08/2021 116009 1581535800 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES - DISINFECTANT Police Department 10.62 Total 116009:259.10 OUTDOOR ESCAPES OF LAKE 03/08/2021 116010 022221 101-19999 REFUND RAS20-000085 3585 FREDERICK ST 55.35 Total 116010:55.35 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/08/2021 116011 FEBRUARY 101-41900-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 02/2021 Central Services 549.84 RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SER 03/08/2021 116011 FEBRUARY 101-45200-404 GARBAGE SERVICE - 02/2021 Parks 29.26 Total 116011:579.10 ROY C INC 03/08/2021 116012 80710 101-41900-404 CITY HALL / CC DOOR REPAIRS Central Services 1,215.36 Total 116012:1,215.36 Safety Vehicle Solutions 03/08/2021 116013 2105 701-49800-221 WARNING LIGHTS FOR 604 371.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 03/08/2021 116013 2107 701-49800-403 WARNING LIGHT INSTALL FOR UNIT 450 371.00 Safety Vehicle Solutions 03/08/2021 116013 2112 701-49800-222 PHONE HOLDER 65.00 Total 116013:807.00 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 03/08/2021 116014 02122112302 601-49400-240 SOCKET & EXTENSIONS Water 378.70 Total 116014:378.70 T. SCHERBER DEMOLITION & E 03/08/2021 116015 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D20-000012 4465 NORTH SH 1,000.00 Total 116015:1,000.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 03/08/2021 116016 022321 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-02/2021 Law/Legal Services 2,913.80 Total 116016:2,913.80 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 2341008 101-45200-221 BEDERWOOD SHED CONCRETE BASE Parks 150.82 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 2610049 101-45210-201 COVID SUPPLIES GOLF Golf Course 58.25 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 4012742 101-45200-221 BEDERWOOD SHED Parks 282.40 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 5012467 101-45200-221 PAINT TAPE BEDERWOOD SHED Parks 15.92 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 5314469 101-45200-221 BEDERWOOD SHED SUPPLIES Parks 68.57 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 8688739 701-49800-212 PORTABLE DIESEL FUEL TANK 876.82 THE HOME DEPOT 03/08/2021 116017 88086 101-43000-240 TOOLS Public Works Department 56.48 Total 116017:1,509.26 THOMSON WEST 03/08/2021 116018 843751576 101-42110-311 DATA PROCESSING Police Department 255.00 Total 116018:255.00 TIES, MARK & KRISTI 03/08/2021 116019 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D20-000002 3129 CASCO CIR 1,000.00 Total 116019:1,000.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 03/08/2021 116020 M26264 101-41300-319 CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2/8/21 Administration 430.88 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 03/08/2021 116020 M26264 101-42400-319 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 2/16/21 Building & Zoning 711.75 Total 116020:1,142.63 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900605326 101-41900-223 RUGS CITY HALL/ CC Central Services 58.87 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900606641 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900606641 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 2.90 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900606641 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 98.39 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900607957 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 19.50 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900607957 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 2.90 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900607957 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 98.39 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900609272 101-43000-404 RUGS Public Works Department 7.50 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900609272 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS 2.90 UNIFIRST CO 03/08/2021 116021 0900609272 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS Public Works Department 95.09 Total 116021:405.94 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 2/23/2021 - 3/8/2021 Mar 04, 2021 03:15PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/08/2021 116022 022021 101-41900-322 1ST CLASS PRESORT Central Services 245.00 Total 116022:245.00 US Bank Equipment Finance 03/08/2021 116023 437095581 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76 Total 116023:596.76 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 03/08/2021 116024 8589 701-49800-402 REPAIR 426 176.24 VARNER MOBILE SERVICES LL 03/08/2021 116024 8614 701-49800-402 REPAIR 425 LIGHTS 305.30 Total 116024:481.54 VESSCO INC 03/08/2021 116025 82348 601-49400-405 INJECTOR FOR NAVARRE WTR PLANT Water 1,515.00 Total 116025:1,515.00 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 03/08/2021 116026 0078579-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 03/2021 16,458.75 Total 116026:16,458.75 WICKENHAUSER EXCAVATION I 03/08/2021 116027 030321 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND D20-000015 3560 BAYSIDE R 1,000.00 Total 116027:1,000.00 WILLIAMS TOWING 03/08/2021 116028 21-4954 231-45650-436 VEHICLE FORFEITURE CASE OR20-007251 155.00 Total 116028:155.00 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 03/08/2021 116029 0183342-IN 701-49800-221 REPLACEMENT BROOMS - UNIT #604 1,304.00 Total 116029:1,304.00 Grand Totals: 282,854.35 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the issuance of a 2021 Hennepin County Water Patrol Special Event Permit for use of Long Lake by the Long Lake Rowing Crew. 2. Background. The Long Lake Rowing Crew (LLRC) is again requesting permission from the Water Patrol for a Sheriff’s Special Event Permit for use of Long Lake for regular rowing practice during the 2020 boating season. The Water Patrol standard procedure requires written approval by the affected local government bodies prior to issuing such permits. Hours of operation are proposed to be similar to previous years and will be posted to their website once finalized. 3. Public Comment. The City has not received any comments regarding this use. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject to the provisions stated in Orono’s previous years proposals: 1) no organized practice on Sundays, and 2) the activity shall not impede the use of the Summit Park Beach facilities and access by the public. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to send a letter to the Sheriff’s Water Patrol approving issuance of the Special Event Permit for the Long Lake Rowing Crew for the 2021 season subject to the above-noted conditions. Exhibits A. Water Patrol Special Event Permit Application Item No.: 4 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Hennepin County 2021 Special Event Permit – Long Lake Rowing Crew Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A Item 4 LLRC Permit Exhibit A AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By:RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Rental Licenses for the license period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the rental licenses as listed in Exhibit A for the license period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. The Rental License Applicants in Exhibit A have submitted all of the requested documents and have met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental licenses listed in Exhibit A for the license period of January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2022. Exhibits A. Listing of Rental Licenses Item No.: 5 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Exhibit A City Council 2021 Rental License Renewals RL19-000002 Pathlight Property Management 100 RL19-000003 Pathlight Property Management 100 RL19-000004 Pathlight Property Management 100 License# Licensee Total License Fees AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: AMC Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve the Gambling on Premises permit for the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka – Excelsior. 2. Background. The Narrows Saloon has selected the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka – Excelsior (LMERC) to replace the current organization that ran the pull tab booth prior to its closing at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic in March of 2020. The booth had remained closed since this time and the existing lease for lawful Gambling Activity has been terminated with an effective date of termination of March 27th, 2021. The LMERC has submitted an application with intentions to reopen the gambling operation at the Narrows on April 1, 2021 or shortly thereafter. Booth Placement will be similar to location of last booth placement. 3. Recommendation. The Applicant has submitted all the requested documents and have met all requirements. Staff recommends approval of the gambling permit. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the Lawful Gambling LG214 Premises Permit for the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka – Excelsior. Exhibits A. Resolution Item No. 6 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Lawful Gambling LG214 Premises Permit for the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka – Excelsior Presenter: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE MINNESOTA LAWFUL GAMBLING LG214 PREMISES PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE ROTARY CLUB OF LAKE MINNETONKA - EXCELSIOR FOR THE NARROWS SALOON LOCATED AT 3380 SHORELINE DRIVE BE IT RESOLVED, the City of Orono agrees to approve the premises gambling permit application for the Rotary Club of Lake Minnetonka - Excelsior to conduct lawful gambling at the Narrows Saloon, 3380 Shoreline Drive, Orono, Minnesota, for the period from April 1, 2021 through February 28, 2022. Adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota at a regular meeting held on the 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: ____________________________________ ____________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose: To allow for the early termination of the contract for Building Inspection Services between the Cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach. 2. Background: the City has been providing building inspection and other related services to the City of Minnetonka Beach. The most recent contract was entered into on July 13, 2010 and has been being renewed annually since then. With the City’s recent change to all contracted services for building services, the contract will be terminated on July 13, 2021. Minnetonka Beach has requested that they be allowed to terminate the contract early so that they can move forward with securing a building services contract with the vendor of their choice. 3. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving the early termination of the contract. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resolution terminating the contract for Building Inspection Services between the Cities of Orono and Minnetonka Beach. Exhibits A. Contract for Services B. Resolution Item No.: 7 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Termination of Contract for Building Services with Minnetonka Beach Presenter: Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator/Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of,, 2010,by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporati n ("Orono"), and CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH, a Minnesota municipal corporation ("Minnetonka Beach")(hereinafter the "Cities"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the Cities entered into an agreement for building inspection services on January 1, 1989 (`Building Inspections Agreement"); and WHEREAS, Minnetonka Beach is currently requesting the Building Inspections Agreement be amended to provide for the inspection of building setbacks, inspection of zoning ordinance violations, and assistance of enforcing performance agreements; and WHEREAS, the Cities desire to amend and restate their previous agreement to reflect the change in services requested by Minnetonka Beach; and WHEREAS, the Cities agree that this Agreement amends and replaces the Building Inspections Agreement; and WHEREAS, Minn. Stat. § 471.59 authorizes governmental units by agreement of their governing bodies to jointly or cooperatively exercise any powers common to them. NOW THEREFORE, the Cities agree as follows: 1.PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to establish a framework whereby Orono will perform building and zoning inspection services and assist with zoning ordinance enforcement for Minnetonka Beach. 2.DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to this Agreement: a.Building Code"means the current edition of the Minnesota State Building code as adopted by Minnesota Statutes chapter 326B including the Minnesota Rules and codes adopted by reference therein; and including revised or updated editions of said rules and codes as may from time to time by duly adopted by the State: b.Zoning Ordinance"means Minnetonka Beach Zoning Ordinance contained in Chapter Two of the City Code of Ordinances entitled Land Use Management—Zoning, as well those Sections of Chapter One pertaining to code enforcement, definitions and code interpretation. c.Performance Agreement means an agreement entered into between a property owner and the City Authorized by Chapter One Section 111. 3. TERM. The effective date of this Agreement shall be on the date this Agreement is approved by the governing bodies of the Cities and shall remain in force and effect for one year from the date this Agreement is approved and shall be automatically renewed annually thereafter for each successive contract year unless terminated by either party serving written notice within 60 days of current contract expiration.. Any such termination shall also conform to other applicable provisions in this Agreement and shall be subject to Minnetonka Beach paying any and all charges due for services rendered prior to the termination, including the full amount of the retainer fee for the final month of service. 4.SCOPE OF SERVICES. Orono agrees that it will provide building inspection services and assist with Zoning Ordinance enforcement for Minnetonka Beach subject to the following conditions: a.Adoption of Building Code. Minnetonka Beach agrees to adopt by ordinance the Minnesota State Building Code, as defined above, and to keep such adoption current as new model code editions are subsequently adopted by the State. Minnetonka Beach may adopt the standard fee schedule or any alternative fee schedule as provided by 2MCAR 1.l 011 (UBC 304 a). Orono shall inform Minnetonka Beach in a timely manner whenever the ordinances of Minnetonka Beach must be revised to include a new or revised code edition. b.Level of Services. The level of services rendered to Minnetonka Beach by Orono shall be essentially the same as the services rendered by Orono in the City of Orono, except as hereinafter stated. The basic services shall include preconstruction plan review and on- site construction inspection as required for enforcement and administration of the Building Code and the Zoning Ordinance. Specifically included are all services related to general construction, building setbacks, plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning, and refrigeration work. Orono will provide the necessary inspection, provide information and stop construction when deemed necessary to enforce the Zoning Ordinance, Performance Agreement requirements related to building on the land, condition established by the City Council in the approval of conditional use permits and granting variances and any other Chapter Two Land Use Management violation.. Specifically excluded are any services relating to administration or enforcement of the following: National Electric Code, which is under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Electricity. Erosion Control and Post Construction provisions of the Zoning Ordinance which shall be administrated and enforced by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District The Building Code and Zoning Code inspections shall be performed by a certified Building Official of the State of Minnesota, or by a qualified building inspector working under the direct supervision of the Orono Building Official. c.Administrative Procedures. This section is set forth to clarify the responsibilities of each participant and to establish procedures for issuing permits and performing inspections. 1) Responsibility of Building Permit Holder(Owner or Contractor): Provide pre-permit confirmation of all Building Code and Zoning Ordinance requirements with sufficient site and construction design information as may be required by Minnetonka Beach and/or the Orono Building Official. Perform all construction in compliance with all Building Code and Zoning Ordinance requirements. Pay all required license, plan review, permit and inspection fees. Call Orono for all required inspections with sufficient notice for proper scheduling (24 hour notice). 2) Responsibility of Minnetonka Beach: Accept applications, plan specifications for all building and other permits and administer the requirements of State Statute for the timely issuing of all building permits Administer all zoning and subdivision requirements including approval of plats, lot combinations, grading and erosion control plans, site plans, building size, location and use, and performance standards at the time of building permit application and as a condition of issuing the building permit. Administer all contractor licensing requirements. Issue all permits and collect local permit fees and state or regional charges including Metropolitan Council Environmental Services charges and Building Code surcharges. Minnetonka Beach shall send copies of all building permits to Orono on a regular basis. Maintain permanent records. Complete all periodic reports and governmental surveys. Prosecute all City Code violations or take necessary civil actions of law to enforce the City Ordinance, and Performance Agreement, or take other actions deemed appropriate by the City Council 3) Responsibility of Orono: When requested attend pre-construction meetings with Minnetonka Beach City Administrator or City Planning and Zoning Administrator. Perform all preconstruction building plan reviews pursuant to code. Perform all construction inspections required for Building Code enforcement. Perform all construction inspections required for Chapter Two Land Use Management enforcement including but not limited to: principal use setback, and height requirements, driveway and accessory use set back, driveway and impervious surface, grading, tree preservation, shore land protection, removal and disposal of hazardous waste and material, site maintenance and other inspections required for Chapter Two Land Use Management enforcement. Perform all construction inspections required to enforce Chapter Two Land Use Management provision of the City Code, conditions required by the City Council as part of granting a variance or conditional use permit and to assure that the building and other uses including but not limited to landscaping, placement of fences and walls. Perform all demolition inspections and approve all demolition permits as required by the City Ordinance and Performance Agreement. Provide inspection reports and other information for permanent records kept by Minnetonka Beach. Perform inspections and on-site enforcement related to Chapter Two of the City Code of Ordinances entitled Land Use Management—Zoning Ordinance violations. The City to provide follow-up enforcement. Provided that the City is responsible for all notifications and follow-up, assist with enforcing provisions of Performance Agreements. Consult with the City Administrator, Planning and Zoning Administrator, City Attorney, Public Works Director and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District as deemed necessary by the Building Official. Assist in all Building Code, Zoning Ordinance and Performance Agreement violations, civil actions, and prosecutions with the Orono Building Official's time, records, and expert information. Provide general Building Code information to citizens of Minnetonka Beach on the same basis as provided the citizens of Orono. Provide other inspection services or technical recommendations to the City Staff and City Council related to Building Code matters, as may from time to time be requested by Minnetonka Beach. The Building Official of Orono will work with Minnetonka Beach's Fire Marshal and where appropriate the Minnetonka Beach City Administrator, Public Works Director, Planning and Zoning Administrator and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District on all pre-construction, construction and violations as part of the regular service in addition to other inspection services such as hazardous building services. These services shall be billed at the normal inspection rate set forth in Exhibit A of this Agreement. At the discretion of the Building Official,require corrections to the work being performed andl or to stop work that is being done in violation of the building code, zoning ordinance, performance agreement or resolutions of the City Council. Once an "as built" site plan in the form prescribed and as required by the performance agreement, including but not limited to grading, landscaping the placement of principal and accessory land uses, is approved by the Building Official as being in conformance with the approved plans and specifications contained in the Performance Agreement, and when all conditions of the Performance Agreement have been satisfied, the Building Official may issue a Certificate of Occupancy. 4) Procedure for Building and Zoning Code Administration: Minnetonka Beach shall review all pertinent zoning requirements and site plans including building size, location and use and certify same to Orono Building Official as meeting Minnetonka Beach's approval. Orono's Building Official shall review the building construction plans for conformance with the Building Code and Minnetonka Beach's Building Code section entitled "Demolition Permits; Asbestos Survey, Removal and Disposal" and wark with the applicant to approve, modify or reject the same. Minnetonka Beach, upon approval of the plan by the Orono Building Official and consistent with all local requirements, issues the building permit, collects the local and regional fees and on a regular schedule shall send copies of all building permits to Orono. Permit Holder commences construction and calls for all required inspections (24 hour notice is requested). Orono Building Official, or designee, performs all required inspections and notifies Minnetonka Beach in a timely manner but at least monthly of progress, any violations, and final completion. Orono, upon final approval by Orono's Building Official, and consistent with all local requirements of Minnetonka Beach, issues the Certificate of Occupancy. 5.ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY. The daily administration of the inspection services rendered to Minnetonka Beach pursuant to this Agreement shall be under the sole discretion of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance and other matters relating to regulations, and policies shall remain under the control of Orono. Headquarters for the services rendered to Minnetonka Beach under this Agreement shall be located at Orono city offices. Orono's Building Official shall submit to Minnetonka Beach a monthly report of services rendered and charges due, in such form and detail as Minnetonka Beach may reasonably require, as well as periodic suggestions regarding other matters relating to the inspections services. 6.COMMUNICATIONS, EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES. Orono shall provide the necessary supplies, equipment and vehicles to the Orono Building Official, except Minnetonka Beach shall provide any necessary supplies that must be specifically printed for Minnetonka Beach such as permits, forms, etc. 7.PERSONNEL, EMPLOYEES OF ORONO. Orono is an independent contractor. Personnel assigned to perform the inspections for Minnetonka Beach shall be employees of Orono, and Orono shall assume all obligations arising out of the employment relationship, including but not limited to salary, warkers' compensation, Public Employees Retirement Association, withholding tax and health insurance with respect to such personnel. Minnetonka Beach shall not be required to furnish any fringe benefits or compensation whatsoever. 8. ALL PERSONNEL TO BE OFFICERS OF MINNETONKA BEACH. The Orono Building Official or Inspector assigned to duty within Minnetonka Beach shall be provided specific authority to administer and enforce the Building Code, Zoning Ordinance including provisions of the Performance Agreement and conditions contained in a City Council's resolution approving a conditional use permit and or granting a variance provided by this Agreement. Such autharity shall be granted by proper action of the City Council of Minnetonka Beach through adoption of an ordinance specifying such authority. 9.ENFORCEMENT. Enforcement policies within Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within Minnetonka Beach. Orono personnel assigned to duty in Minnetonka Beach shall enforce the Building Code, Zoning Ordinance including provisions of the Performance Agreement and conditions contained in a City Council resolution approving a conditional use permit and or granting a variance. Orono Building Official will not enforce any other local, state or federal regulations, including the sections of the Minnesota State Building Code not included in the definition provided in Section 2, unless such enforcement is otherwise specifically provided for by written contract. 10. CODE VIOLATIONS AND PENALTIES. All violations occurring within Minnetonka Beach shall be: resolved by agreement between the parties, resolved by civil action of law and/or charged in accordance with the ordinances of that City and shall be subject to the penalties provided therein. Prosecution of such violation shall be by the Prosecuting Attorney of Minnetonka Beach. All costs and expenses incurred by said prosecution or other legal actions or the Minnetonka Beach City Attorney shall be paid by Minnetonka Beach. 11. COOPERATION AND ASSISTANCE. Minnetonka Beach shall provide full cooperation and assistance to Orono, its officers, agents, and employees in the rendering inspections and the Orono Building Official shall fully cooperate with all officers, agents and employees of Minnetonka Beach. Any problems resulting from the performance of these inspection services by the Orono staff shall be referred to Orono City Administrator who must respond to the Minnetonka Beach City Administrator within five (5) days of such notice. 12. FEES AND BILLING. a.Fees. Minnetonka Beach shall pay Orono far the services performed pursuant to this Agreement in the amount listed in Exhibit A. The fees in Exhibit A may be revised from time to time by written agreement of the parties. b.Billin. Orono shall bill Minnetonka Beach on or before the 15th day of each month for the retainer fee, plan review, hourly and inspection charges incurred in providing services during the previous month. Minnetonka Beach shall remit payment thereon on or before the ls` day of the next month. 13. INDEMNIFICATION. Orono shall defend and indemnify Minnetonka Beach and its employees, officials, and agents from and against all claims, damages, injuries or death, losses or expenses, including attorney fees, which Orono may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the performance of the Orono Building Department per this Agreement. Under no circumstances, however, shall Minnetonka Beach be required to pay on behalf of itself and Orono, any amounts in excess of the limits on liability established in Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466 applicable to any one party. The limits of liability for Minnetonka Beach and Orono may not be added together to determine the maximum amount of liability for Minnetonka Beach. The intent of this section is to impose on Minnetonka Beach a limited duty to defend and indemnify Orono for claims arising out of the performance of this Agreement subject to the limits of liability under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 466. The purpose of creating this duty to defend and indemnify is to simplify the defense of claims by eliminating conflicts between the parties and to permit liability claims against both parties from a single occurrence to be defended by a single attorney. 14. AMENDMENTS. Any amendments, addenda, alterations, or modifications to the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall be in writing and signed by both parties. 15. NOTICES. Pursuant to this Agreement, notices shall be hand delivered or mailed as follows: AS TO ORONO: City of Orono Attn.: City Administrator 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 AS TO MINNETONKA BEACH: City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach Attn.: City Administrator 2945 Westwood Road Minnetonka Beach, MN 55361. 16. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Orono and Minnetonka Beach and cancels any and all prior agreements or proposals, written or oral, between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Date: (Q Z l d CITY OF ORONO By: i It ayor ATTEST: 7v r-'/--? Linda S. Vee Date: _l L CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH r By: '! l Its Mayor ATTEST: sr.__. , `L—i-,-__ Marilyn Regnier EXHIBIT A FEES AND CHARGES The following Exhibit outlines the services available and the costs for those services as of 2010. A. Monthlv Retainer Fee: The monthly retainer fee is for reimbursement of general Orono overhead expenses attributable to providing service to Minnetonka Beach, which amount shall be $25.00 per month. B. Inspection Char e: The inspection charge is for time spent by the Orono Building Official ar his authorized inspectar in the performance of the building inspection services described herein at a charge of$30.00 per %2 hour inspection. C. Hourly Service Char: An hourly service charge for time spent by the Orono Building Official, his authorized inspector or another authorized agent of Orono at meetings with officials or employees of Minnetonka Beach, and any time spent in preparation for or appearances in court, public hearings, Planning Commission, or City Council meetings, travel to and from such meetings and for other services not specifically defined in this Agreement. Minnetonka Beach must first obtain approval from the Orono City Administrator, and in his or her absence, the Orono Building Official, before an authorized agent of Orono can perform an additional service not defined in this Agreement.) The amount of the hourly charge shall be 40.00 per hour. The hourly rate may be prorated on the basis of 15 minute increments. D. Plan Review Fees: Plan Review Fees shall be paid to Minnetonka Beach directly by each building permit applicant in accordance with the then current Orono fee schedule. Orono shall charge Minnetonka Beach far any time spent in such plan reviews as part of the monthly billings. E. Future Adjustment in Char es: It is specifically agreed that Orono may annually review and increase or decrease the amounts charged for the monthly retainer fee, hourly service charge and/or inspection charge based upon changes in the cost of providing employees and/or equipment for such services. The amount charges in any given year shall be as established in the current Orono fee schedule. Orono shall notify Minnetonka Beach at least 90 days prior to the effective date of any change in the rates charged. Such changes in dollar amount charged may be made without voiding this Agreement, but shall be exercised by an amendment of this Exhibit. REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION DATE: June 22, 2010 ITEM NO: I Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section: Name Lyle Oman ,- City Administrator's Report Title Building Official l 1 Item Description: Minnetonka Beach Building Inspections Agreement At their June 15th work session, Council discussed the request from Minnetonka Beach to provide additional zoning inspections as part of the current inspection agreement with Orono. The attached Building Inspections Agreement has been amended to include certain types of zoning inspections including the inspection of building setbacks, inspection of zoning ordinance violations, and assistance of enforcing performance agreements. The Agreement replaces all previous agreements and is effective for one year after approval by the governing bodies of Minnetonka Beach and Orono. The Agreement will be automatically renewed annually unless terminated by either party serving written notice within 60 days of the current contract expiration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached Amended and Restated Building Inspections Agreement with the City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach, effective for one year after approval by the governing bodies of Minnetonka Beach and Orono with automatic renewal annually unless terminated by either parly serving written notice within 60 days of the current contract expiration. AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR BIIILDING INSPECTION SBRVICES i of ,, : This agreement is made and entered into this day i;' r,F< 19 'L, by and between the City of Orono, Minnesota and the City of` Minnetonka Beach is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statues ' 1971, Chapter 561, Section 16.861. Witnesseth: WHEREAS, City of Minnetonka Beach is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the performance of the hereinafter specified building inspection services within the City of Minnetonka Beach; and WHEREAS, the City of Orono is agreeable to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, an agreement such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes Section 16.861, Subdivisions 1 and 2. NOW, THER$FORE, he City of Orono agrees that it wi 11 provide building inspection services for the City of Minnetonka Beach subject to the following terms and conditions: 1.Definition of Building__Code. The "Building Code" administered and enforced under the terms of this agreement shall mean the current edition of the Minnesota State Building Code as adopted by Minnesota Statutes Sections 16.83 to 16.867 including the following rules and codes adopted by reference therein; and including revised or updated editions of said rules and codes as may from time to time be duly adopted by the State: A) 1985 Edition of the State Build.ing Code ("SBC") rules identified as 2 MCAR 1.0101 throught 2 MCAR 1.18901, including SBC Appendix "A", Technical Requirements for Fallout Shelters, and SBC Appendix "B", variations in Snow Loads; B) 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code, ("UBC") as adopted by the State of Minnesota, including Appendix Chapters 32, reroofing; 35, Sound Transmission Control; 49, Patio Covers; 55, Membrane Structures; and 70, Excavation and Grading; C) 1981 Edition of the National Electric code, identified as nNEC° D) 1978 American National Standard Safety Code for Elevators, Dumbwaiters, Escalators and Moving Walks, identified as ANSI A17.1-1978 and Supplement ANSI a17.1a-1979; E) 1979 Minnesota Plumbing Code, identified as Chapter 4715 extracted from Minnesota Rules 1983 including amendments adopted January 7, 1985; Page 1 of 7 F) "Flood Proofing Regulations", June, 1972, Office of the Chief Engineers, U.S. Army; i G ) Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Rules Chapter 1345 Extracted from Minnesota Rules 1983 as in effect July 31, 1986 ; H) "Design and Evaluation Criteria for Energy Conservation in New Building, Additions and Remodeled Elements of Buildings and Standards for Certain Existing Public Buildings", identified as 2MCAR Section 1.16001 through 2MCAR 1.16006. (SBC 6001-6006) ; I) State of Minnesota Mobile Home Installations Standards 1982, identified as 2MCAR 1.90103; and J) Standards of Performance for Solar Energy Systems and Subsystems Applied to Energy Need of Buildings, 1977 Edition, identified as 2MCAR 1.16101 through 2 MCAR 1.16108. K) 1982 Uniform Fire Code as adopted by the State Fire Marshal's Office. 2. Adoption of Building Code. The City of Minnetonka Beach agrees to ado t by ordinance the Minnesota State Building Code as defined above, and to keep such adoption current as new model code editions are subsequently adopted by the State. The City of Minnetonka Beach may adopt the standard fee schedule or any alternate schedule as provided by 2MCAR 1.10111 (UBC 304 a). The City of Orono shall inform the City of Minnetonka Beach whenever the ordinances of the City of Minnetonka Beach must be revised to include a new or revised code edition. 3. Level of Building Official Services (hereinafter "services"). The level of services rendered for the City of iinnetonka Beach by the Orono Building Official shall be essential ly the same as the services rendered in the City of Orono, except as hereinafter stated. The basic services shall include preconstruction plan review and on-site construction inspection as required for enforcement and administration of the Building Code as defined above. Specifically included are all services relating to general construction, plumbing, heating, ventilating, air conditioning and refrigeration work. Specifically excluded are any services relating to administration or enforcement of the National Electrical Code which is under the jurisdiction of the State Board of Electricity. The services shall be performed by a certified Building Official of the State of Minnesota, or by a qualified building inspector working under the direct supervision of the Orono Building Official. 4. Administrative Procedures. This section is set forth to clarify the responsibilities of each participant and to establish procedures for issuing permits and performing inspectional service. A) Responsibilityo uf Permittee (Owner or Contractor) : Page 2 of 7 l. Provide pre-permit conf irmation of a 11 Bui lding Code requirements with sufficient site and construction design t information as may be reguired by the City of Minnetonka Beach and/or the Orono Building Official. 2. Perform a 11 construction in comp 1 iance with a 11 Bui lding Code requirements. 3. Pay all required license, plan review, permit and inspection fees. 4. Call the City of Orono for all required inspections with sufficient notice for proper scheduling (24 hour notice). B) Res onsibility of the City of Minnetonka Beach. 1. Administer and enforce all zoning requirements including approval of site plan, building size, location and use, and general performance standards. 2. Administer all contractor licensing requirements. 3. Issue all permits and collect local permit fees and state or regional charges including Metropolitan Waste Control SAC charges and State Building Code Surcharges. The City af Minnetonka Beach sha 1 1 send copies of a 11 bui lding permits to the City of Orono on a regular basis. 4. Maintain permanent records. 5. Complete all periodic reports and governmental surveys. 6 . Prosecute all violations. C) Responsibilityo uf the City of Orono. 1. Perform all preconstruction building plan reviews. 2. Perform all construction inspections required for Building Code enforcement. 3. Provide inspection reports and other information for the permanent records kept by the City of Minnetonka Beach. 4. Assist in all Building Code violation prosecutions with the Orono Building Official's time, records, and expert information. 5. Provide general Building Code information to the citizens of the City of Minnetonka Beach on the same basis as provided the citizens of the City of Orono. Page 3 of 7 6. Provide other inspection services or technical recommendations related to building code matters as may from t time to time be requested by the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Building Official of Orono will work with Minnetonka Beach's Fire Marshal on all pre-construction, construction and violations as part of the regular service in addition to other inspectional services such as hazardous building proceedings. These services shall be billed at the normal inspection rate set forth in Appendix A of this agreement. 7. The City of Orono shall issue Certificates of Occupancy. D) Procedure for Building Code Adminstration. 1. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall review all pertinent zoning requirements and site p lan including building size, location and use and certifies same to the Orono Building Official as meeting the City of Minnetonka Beach's approval. 2. The Orono Building Official shall review the building construction plans for conformance with the Building Code and a prove,modify or reject same. 3. The City of Minnetonka Beach, upon approval of the plan by the Orono Building Official and consistent with all local requirements, issues the Building Permit, collects the local and regional fees and on a regular schedule shall send copies of all building permits to the City of Orono. 4. The Permittee commences construction and calls for all required inspections (24 hour notice is requested). 5. The Orono Building Official performs all required inspections and notifies the City of Minnetonka Beach of monthly progress, any violations, and final completion. 6. The City of Orono, upon final approval by the Orono Building Official , and consistent with all local requirements of the City of Minnetonka Beach, issues the Certificate of Occupancy. Page 4 of 7 l,.i...... 5. Administrative Responsibi lity• The dai ly administration of the building inspection services rendererd to the City of Minnetonka Beach hall be under the sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance and other matters relating to regulations and policies shall remain under the control of the City of Orono. Headquarters for the services rendered to the City of Minnetonka Beach under this agreement shall be located at the City offices of the City of Orono. The City of Orono Building Official shall submit to the City of Minnetonka Beach a monthly report of services rendered and charges due, in such form and detail as the City of Minnetonka Beach may reasonably require, as well as periodic suggestions regarding other matters relating to the inspectional service. 6. Communications, Equipment and Supplies. The City of Orono shall provide the necessary supplies, equipment and vehicles to the Orono Building Official, except the City of Minnetonka Beach shall provide any necessary supplies which must be specially printed for the City of Minnetonka Beach such as permits, forms, etc. 7. Personnel, Employees of the Cityo uf Orono. Personnel assigned to perform the bui lding inspection services for the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be employees of the City of Orono which latter City shall assume all obligations arising out of the employment relationship, including but not limited to salary, workmen's compensation, P.E.R.A., withholding tax and health insurance with respect to such personnel. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall not be required to furnish any fringe benefits or compensation whatsoever. 8. A1 1 Personnel to be officers of the City of Minnetonka Park. The Orono Building Official assigned to duty within the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be provided specific authority to administer and enforce the Building Code as provided by this agreement. Such authority shall be granted by proper action of the City Council of the City of Minnetonka Beach through adoption of an ordinance specifying such authority. 9. Enforcement. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Orono personnel assigned to duty in the City of Minnetonka Beach shall enforce the Building Code regulations for the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Orono gersonnel will not enforce any other local , state or federal regulations, including the sections of the Minnesota State Building Code not included in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, zoning or other ordinance or statute within the City of Minnetonka Beach unless such enforcement is otherwise specifically provided for by written contract. 10. Violations and Penalties. Al1 violations occurring within the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of that city and shall be subject to the penalities provided therein. Prosecution of such violation shall be by the Prosecuting Attorney of the City of Minnetonka Beach. All costs and expenses incurred by said prosecution shall be paid by the City of Minnetonka Beach. Page 5 of 7 11. Cooperation and Assistance. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall p ovide full cooFeration and assistance to the City of Orono, its o f icers, agents and emp loyees in the rendering of the Bui lding inspection services, and the City of Orono Building Official shall f zlly cooperate with all officers, agents and employees of the City of Minnetonka Beach. Any problem resulting from the performance of these building services by the Orono staff shall be referred to the Orono Building and Zoning Administrator who must respond to the Minnetonka Beach City Administrator within five days of such notice. If the Building & Zoning Administrator fails to respond within the specified time, the entire matter shall be referred to the Orono City Administrator for immediate action. 12. Cost to the City of Minnetonka Beach. For and in consideration of the rendition of the services described herein, the City of Minnetonka Beach shall pay the City of Orono as specified in Appendix A, attached. 13. Effective Date of Service. The effective date of service shall be on the t day of ,'t- 198• 14 . Hold Harmless and Indemnification Agreement. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, the City Council , and the agents and employees of the City of Orono from and against all claims, damages, losses or expenses, including attorney f ees, which the City, City Counci 1 and agents and emp loyees of the City may suffer or for which it may be held liable, arising out of or resulting from the assertion against them of any claims, debts or obligations in consequence of the erformance of the Orono Building Department in the enforcement and administration of the Building Code per the directive of the City of Minnetonka Beach. 15. Termination of Aqreement. This agreement shall remain in force and effect from the effective date of service until cancelled by either party. Any such termination shall also conform to other applicable provisions in this agreement, and shall be subject to the City of Minnetonka Beach paying any and all charges due for services rendered prior to the termination, including the full amount of the retainer fee for the final month of service. A) Cancellation by the City of Minnetonka Beach shall require 30 days written notice to the City of Orono. B) Cancellation by the City of Orono shall require 60 days written notice to the City of Minnetonka Beach. The City of Minnetonka Beach agrees to pay to the City of Orono any expenses, including reasonable attorney's fees, incurred by the City of Orono in enforcing the terms of this agreement. Page 6 of 7 IN WITNESS WHEREO, the parties have executed ths agreement in dup 1i ate this ` day of :1+!:. F a-19• CITY QF ORONO CITY OF MINNETONRA BBACH a e 4ay r Mayor f 9,->i.. Q C= - C y Cle City Clerk Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX A R OF AGREEMENT FOR BIIILDING INSPECTION SERVICES BgTW$EN TIiE CITY OF ORONO AND THE CITY OF MINNETONRA BEACH The following Ap endix outlines the services available and the costs for those services as of January lst, 1989 : 1. A Monthly Retainer Fee for reimbursement of general City of Orono office overhead expenses attributable to providing service to the City of Minnetonka Beach, which amount shall be $25.00 per month. 2. An Ins ection Charge for time spent by the Orono Building Official or his authorized inspector in the performance of the building inspection services described herein at a charge of $15.00 per inspection. 3. An Hourlv Service Charge for time spent by the Orono Building Official, his authorized inspector or another authorized agent of the City of Orono at meetings with officials or employees of the City of Minnetonka Beach, a rd any time spent in preparation for or appearance in court, public hearings, Planning Commission or City Council meetings, travel to and from such meetings and for other services not specifically defined in this agreement. (The City of Minnetonka Beach must first obtain approval from the City Administrator of Orono and in his or her absence, the Building & Zoning Administrator of the City of Orono, before an authorized agent of the City of Orono can perform an additional service not defined in this agreement.) The amount of the hourly charge shall be $25.00 per hour. The hourly rate may be pro- rated on the basis of 15 minutes increments. 4. Plan Review Fees shall be paid to the City of Minnetonka Beach directly by each building permit applicant_ in accordance with the then current City of Orono fee schedule. The City of Orono shall charge the City of Minnetonka Beach for any time spent in such glan reviews as part of the monthly billing. 5. Future Adjustment in Charges. It is specifically agreed that the City of Orono may annually review and increase or decrease the amounts charged for the monthly retainer fee, hourly service charge and/or inspection charge based upon changes in the cost of providing emp loyees and/or equipment for such services. The amount charged in any given year shall be as established in the current City of Orono Fee Schedule. The City of Orono shall notify the City of Minnetonka Beach at least 45 days prior to the effective date of any change in the rates charged. Such changes in dol lar amount charged may be made without voiding this agreement, but shall be exercised with the amendment of Appendix A of this agreement. 6. Payment Schedule. The City of Orono shal l bi 11 the City of Minnetonka Beach on or before the 15th day of each month for the retainer fee, plan review, hourly and inspection charges incurred in providing services during the previous month, and the City of Minnetonka Beach shall remit payment thereon on or before the lst day of the next month. AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into this lst day of January 1978 , by and between the CITY OF ORONO, Minnesota, and the CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH„ Minnesota, is made under and by virtue of Minnesota Statutes 1a71, Chapter 561, Section 16 . 861 . W I T N E S S E T H : WHEREAS , the City of Minnetonka beach is desirous of contracting with the City of Orono for the performance of the here- inafter specified building inspection services within the City of Minnetonka Beach, and WHEREAS , the City of Orono is agreeable to render such services on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, and WHEREAS an agreement such as this is authorized under and by virtue of the provisions of Minnesota Statutes 1971, Chapter 561, Section 16 . 861, Subdivision 1 and 2 . NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Orono agrees that it will provide building inspection services for the City of Minnetonka Beach on the following terms and conditions: 1. Level of Building Official Services ( "services" ) . The level of services rendered for the City of Minnetonka Beach by the Orono Building Official shall be essentially the same as the services rendered in the City of Orono, ex as ereinafter stated . The basic services shall include preconstructi plan review and on-site construction inspection as required for enforcement and administration of the Minnesota State Building cr Code regulations SBC 101-202, 301-336 and 6001-6013 . The ser- vices shall be performed by a certified building official of the State of Minnesota or a building inspector working under the direct supervision of the Orono Building Official . Option l : The explicit inclusion of Option 1 within this agreement shall require the City of Orono to render the City of Minnetonka Beach inspection services related to and enforcement of the Minnesota Plumbing Code regulations r4HD 120-135 . Option 2 : The explicit inclusion of Option 2 within this agreement shall require the City of Orono to render the City of Minnetonka Beach inspection services related to and enforcement of the Nlinnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Code regulations SBC 7101-8505 and 8801-$810 . 2. Adoption of Building Codes. The City of Minnetonka Beach agrees to adopt by ordinance the Minnesota State Building Code incluaing SBC 101-202, 301-336 , 6001-6013 , and the Organiza- tion and nforcement regulations ( SBC appendix D or UBC Chapter 2) and the permits and inspections regulations ( SBC appendix E or UBC Chapter 3 ) . The City of Minnetonka Beach may adopt the standard fee schedule or any alternate schedule as provided by SBC 110 . All adopted regulations shall be the current code editions enforced by the City of Orono. The City of Orono shall inform the City of Minnetonka Beach whenever the ordinances of the City of Minnetonka Beach must be revised to include a new or revised code edition. Option l : The explicit inclusion of Option 1 within this agreement shall be contingent upon the City of Minnetonka Beach' s adopting by ordinance the Minnesota State Plumbing Code regulations I IHD 120-135 . Option 2: The explicit inclusion of Option 2 within this agreement shall be contingent upon the City of Minnetonka Beach' s adopting by ordinance the Minnesota Heating, Ventilating, Air Conditioning, and Refrigeration Code regulations, SBC 7101- 8505 , 8$01-8810 . 2- All regulations adopted by the City of Minnetonka Beach as set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above shall be referred to herein- after as the "Building Code. " 3. Administrative Procedures. This section is set forth to clarify the responsibilities of each participant and to establish procedures for issuing permits and perform- ing inspectional service. A. Responsibility of Permittee (Owner or Contractor) : 1 . Provide pre-permit confirmation of all Building Code requirements with sufficient site and construc- tion design information as may be required by the Orono Building Official . 2. Perform all construction in compliance with all Building Code requirements. 3 . Pay all required license, ermit ancf inspec- tion fees. 4. Call for all required inspections with suffi- cient notice for proper scheduling . B. Responsibility of the City of P innetonka Beach. 1. Administer and enforce all zoning require- ments including site plan, building size, location and use, and general performance standards . 2. Administer all contractor licensing require- ments. 3 . Issue all permits and collect local permit fees and state or regional charges . 4 . Maintain permanent records . 5 . Complete all periodic reports and govern- mental surveys. 6 . Prosecute all violations. 3- C. Responsibility of the City of Orono. 1 . Perform all preconstruction building plan reviews. 2. Perform all construction inspections required for Building Code enforcement. 3 . Provide inspection reports and other inforrnation for the permanent records kept by the City of Minnetonka Beach. 4 . Assist in all Building Code violation prosecutions with the Orono Building Official ' s time, records and expert information. 5 . Provide general Building Code information to the citizens of the City of Minnetonka Beach on the same basis as provided the citizens of the City of Orono. D. Procedure for Building Code Administration. 1 . The City of Minnetonka Beach reviews the zoning requirements and site plan including building size, location and use and certifies same to the Orono Building Official as meeting the city' s approval . 2. The Orono Building Official reviews the building construction plans for conformance with the Building Code and approves, modifies or rejects same. The permittee shall pay directly to the City of Orono a plan check fee in the amount consistent with the current City of Orono fee schedule. 3 . The City of Minnetonka Beach, upon approval of the plan by the Orono Building Official and consistent with all local requirements, issues the Building Permit, collects the local and regional fees and notifies the City of Orono of the permit date, number and other pertinent information. 4- 4 . The Permittee commences construction and calls for all required inspections. 5 . The Orono Building Official performs all required inspections and notifies the City of Minnetonka Beach of monthly progress, any violations, and final completion. 6 . The City of Minnetonka Beach, upon final approval by the Orono Building Official, and consistent with all local requirements, issues the Certificate of Occupancy. 4 . Administrative Responsibility. The daily admini- stration of the building inspection services rendered to the City of iinnetonka Beach shall be under the sole direction of the City of Orono. The degree of services rendered, the standards of performance and other matters relating to regulations and poli- cies shall resnain under the control of the City of Orono. Head- quarters for the services rendered to the City of Minnetonka Beach under this agreement shall be located at the city offices of the City of Orono. The City of Orono Building Official shall sub- mit to the City of Minnetonka Beach a monthly report of services rendered and charges due, as well as periodic suggestions re arding other matters relating to the inspectional service. 5 . Communications, Equipment ana Supplies. The City of Orono shall provide the necessary equipment and vehicles to the Orono Building Official and the City of t innetonka Beach shall provide any necessary supplies, which must be specially printed for the City of Minnetonka Beach such as permits, forms , etc. 6 . Personnel, Employees of the City of Orono. Per- sonnel assigned to perform the building inspection services for the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be employees of the City of Orono which city shall assume all obligations with regard to salary, workmen' s compensation, p. E.R.A. , withholding tax and 5- health insurance to such personnel . The City of Minnetonka Beach shall not be required to furnish any of the foregoing fringe bene- fits. 7 . Al1 Personnel to be Officers of the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Orono Building Official assigned to duty within the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be provided specific authority to administer and enforce the Building Code as provided by this agreement. Such authority shall be granted by proper action of the City Council of the City of Minnetonka Beach through adoption of an ordinance specifying such authority. 8 . Enforcement. Enforcement policies within the City of Orono shall prevail as the enforcement policies within the City of Minnetonka Beach. Orono personnel assigned to duty in the City of Minnetonka Beach shall enforce the Building Code regu- lations for the City of Minnetonka Beach. The Orono personnel will not enforce any other local , state or federal regulation, including the sections of the Minnesota 5tate Building Code not included in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, ordinance or statute within the City of Minnetonka Beach unless such enforcement is otherwise specifically provided for by written contract. 9 . Violations and Penalties. All violations occurring within the City of Minnetonka Beach shall be charged in accordance with the ordinances of that city anc7 shall be subject to the penal- ties provided therein. Prosecution of such violation shall be by the Prosecuting Attorney of the City of Minnetonka Beach. All costs and expenses incurred by said prosecution shall be paid by the City of Minnetonka Beach. 10 . Cooperation and Assistance. The City of Minnetonka Beach shall provide full cooperation and assistance to the City of Orono, its officers, agents and employees in the rendering of the building inspection services. 6- 11 . Effective Date of Service. The effective date of service shall be on the day of 19 No inspections or other services will be performed by the City of Orono for the City of Minnetonka Beach until such time as the City of Minnetonka Beach adopts all Building Codes and ordinances required herein and until all parties have signed and executed this agreement. In no event will inspection services commence before the day of 19 12 . Termination of Agreement. This agreement shall remain in force and effect from the effective date of service until cancelled by either party. Any such termination shall also conform to other applicable provisions in this agreement. 13 . Cost to the City of t iinnetonka Beach. For and in consideration of the rendition of the services, the City of Minnetonka Beach shall pay the City of Orono, as follows: 25 . 00 per month retainer for general office overhead; 25 . 00 per single inspection; $25 . 00 per hour for any and all other services rendered by the Building Official, including, but not limited to, any time for preparation for, or appearance in court, public hearings, Planning Commission and Council meetings . The City of Orono shall bill the City of Minnetonka Beach on or before the 15th day after each month for which services were rendered and the City of Minnetonka Beach shall remit payment thereon by the lst day of the next month. In addition to the above charges, the City of Orono shall collect from each applicant the plan review fee accorcling to the current City of Orono fee schedule for similar work, and the City of Orono shall collect from each Permittee a $25 . 00 reinspection fee as provided by the Building Code. 7- 14 . This Agreement Explicitly Includes the Services Designated: 0 tion l :p L 'i---- or the City of Orono for the City of t linnetonka Beach Option 2: i' r the City of Orono for the City of Minnetonka Beach 15 . Hold Harmless and Indemnification. The City of Orono shall not be liable for and the City of Minnetonka Beach agrees to, and does hereby hold harmless and indemnify the City of Orono, its Building Official, employees or agents for any loss or damage of any kind whatsoever resulting from (1 ) any failure of the City of Orono to enforce the Build- ing Code, to discover any defects or to modify any plans for structures reviewed; or (2 ) the negligence of the City of Orono in performing any services rendered to the City of Minnetonka Beach pursuant to the terms of this agreement. The City of Minnetonka Beach agrees to pay to the City of Orono any expenses, including reasonable attorneys ' fees , incurred by the City of Orono in enforcing the terms of this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement in duplicate this 9th day of Janua_ry 19 78 . ATTEST:CITY OF QRONO f / '. : J Li'i 7 :./'... C' 7 ,ti,/ Ma or This agreement was approved by the City of Orono by Resolution # on lerk-A mi strator 1) C; ;,, c-- ,.j , 19. ATTEST:CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH L.. MaY , This agreement was approved V by the City of Minnetonka Beac by Resolution # Clerk-Administrator on (,(,cJ . 19 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ MN420-3-705692.v1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE EARLY TERMINATON OF AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ORONO AND THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH FOR BUILDING INSPECTION, ZONING ENFORCEMENT, AND OTHER RELATED SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Orono (the “City”) previously entered into that certain contract, dated July 13th, 2010 (the “Contract”), with the City of the Village of Minnetonka Beach (Minnetonka Beach) whereby the City would provide Minnetonka Beach with certain building inspection, zoning enforcement, and other related services; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, it is self-renewing in one-year terms after the initial one-year term and the current term of the Contract expires on or around July 15, 2021; and WHEREAS, the Contract provides that either party may terminate the Contract upon 60 days’ written notice to the other party; and WHEREAS, the City has restructured its building inspection services and intends to contract with a third-party to provide these services to its residents in the future; and intends to terminate the Contract on July 15, 2021; and WHEREAS, if Minnetonka Beach continues to utilize the services provided by Orono under the Contract, it will be required to transition to a new building inspector now, and will be further required to contract for these services independently in or around July 2021, resulting in a possible second transition; and WHEREAS, staff from the City and Orono have discussed the possibility of early termination, and both parties believe that early termination is in each party’s best interest; and WHEREAS, the Minnetonka Beach has obtained quotes from multiple service providers that they believe can replace the services being provided by the City under the Contract, and Minnetonka Beach intends to contract with a new service provider upon termination of the Contract; CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ MN420-3-705692.v1 THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Council of the City of Orono does hereby approve of the early termination of the Contract, on a mutually-agreed upon date on or after Minnetonka Beach has engaged the services of a third-party building official. NOW, THREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, pursuant to the terms of the Contract, the City shall bill Minnetonka Beach for all outstanding charges due under the Contract, including the full amount of the retainer for the final month. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 22nd day of February, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: Approved By:RJO 1. Purpose. To approve a new collective bargaining agreement with the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO representing the City’s Administrative employees. 2. Background. The City Attorney and City Administrator have negotiated a tentative agreement with the Administrative Union for a two year period from 1/01/2021 to 12/31/2022. The details of the agreement were discussed with the Council during a closed session on January 25th, 2021. The agreement includes a 3% wage increase for 2021, and a 2% increase on 1/1/2022 with an additional 1% on 7/1/2022. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the labor agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to Approve the Labor Agreement with the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO and the City of Orono Exhibits A. Local 12 2021-2022 Agreement B. Wage Scales Item No.: 8 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Approval of Local 12 Collective Bargaining Agreement Presenter: Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY OF ORONO, MN AND OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 12, AFL-CIO Effective January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Number Article 1 Purpose ............................................................................................................... 1 Article 2 Recognition of Exclusive Representative ............................................................. 1 Article 3 Definitions ............................................................................................................ 1 Article 4 Employer Rights .................................................................................................. 2 Article 5 Union Security ..................................................................................................... 2 Article 6 Hours of Service .................................................................................................. 3 Article 7 Grades and Classifications .................................................................................. 4 Article 8 Compensation ..................................................................................................... 4 Article 9 Group Insurance .................................................................................................. 5 Article 10 Leaves of Absence .............................................................................................. 6 Article 11 Vacations ............................................................................................................. 8 Article 12 Holidays ............................................................................................................... 9 Article 13 Vacancies and Job Postings ................................................................................ 9 Article 14 Seniority .............................................................................................................. 9 Article 15 Discharge and Probationary Period ................................................................... 10 Article 16 Grievance Procedure ......................................................................................... 10 Article 17 Discipline ........................................................................................................... 12 Article 18 Miscellaneous ................................................................................................... 12 Article 19 Duration ............................................................................................................. 13 Addendum Three Letters of Understanding Exhibit A Salary Scales 1 ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE 1.01 Parties: THIS AGREEMENT is entered into between the Employer, City of Orono and the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO (herein after referred to as the Union) pursuant to and in compliance with the Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended (hereinafter referred to as the P.E.L.R.A.) to provide the terms and conditions of employment for office, clerical and professional employees during the duration of this Agreement. ARTICLE 2 RECOGNITION OF EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE 2.01 Recognition: In accordance with the P.E.L.R.A., the Employer recognizes the Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local No. 12, AFL-CIO, as the exclusive representative for office, clerical and professional employees employed by the City of Orono which exclusive representative shall have those rights and duties as prescribed by the P.E.L.R.A. and as described in the provisions of this Agreement. 2.02 Appropriate Unit: The union shall represent all such Employees of the Employer contained in the appropriate unit as defined in Section 3.02 of this Agreement and the P.E.L.R.A. and in certification by the Director of Mediation Services, Case No. 17PCE0829. ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS 3.01 Terms and Conditions of Employment: Terms and conditions of employment mean the hours of employment, the compensation therefore including fringe benefits, except retirement and contributions or benefits, and the Employer's personnel policies affecting the working conditions of the Employees. 3.02 Appropriate Unit: For purposes of this Agreement, the appropriate unit shall mean office, clerical and professional employees employed by the City of Orono excluding the following: confidential employees and supervisory employees. 3.03 Employer/City of Orono: Any reference to the Employer in this Agreement shall mean the City of Orono or its designated officials or representatives. 3.04 Exempt Employee: Employee meeting the classification of exempt under the Federal Labor Standard Act of which do not qualify for overtime compensation. 3.05 Nonexempt Employee: All Employees not meeting exempt criteria as outlined in the Federal Labor Standard Act. 3.06 Overtime: Overtime is defined as all hours in pay status in excess of forty (40) hours per week. 3.07 Days: For purposes of this Agreement, the term days shall mean calendar days unless otherwise noted. 3.08 Probationary Employee: Employee in the initial stage of employment as outlined in Article 15. 3.09 Regular Employee: Employee which has successfully completed the probationary period. 3.10 Full Time Employee: a City employee who is employed on a schedule that averages at least 40 hours per week per calendar year and excludes elected officials, part-time employees and seasonal employees. 3.11 Part Time Employee: Employees on a schedule of less than 40 hours per week. 2 3.12 Seasonal Employee: Employee who is hired for a season or temporary time period 3.13 Department Head: The positions of department head are as follows: Public Works Director, City Clerk, Community Development Director, Finance Director, and Police Chief 3.14 Years of Service: is the based on the date of hire or adjusted date of hire. It is calculated as follows first year of service is from date of hire to first anniversary. Example 5th year of service equals 4th anniversary date plus 1 day thru the 5th anniversary date. 3.15 Other Terms: Terms not defined in this Agreement shall have those meanings as defined by the P.E.L.R.A. ARTICLE 4 EMPLOYER RIGHTS 4.01 Inherent Managerial Rights: The Union recognizes that the Employer is not required to meet and negotiate on matters of inherent managerial policy, which include, but are not limited to, such areas of discretion or policy as the functions and programs of the Employer, its overall budget, utilization of technology, the organizational structure and selection and direction and number of personnel, and all management rights and management functions not expressly delegated in this Agreement are reserved to the Employer. 4.02 Management Responsibilities: The union recognizes the right and obligation of the Employer to efficiently manage and conduct the operation of the City of Orono within its legal limitations and with its primary obligation to provide citizens of Orono services. 4.03 Effect of Laws, Rules and Regulations: The parties recognize that all Employees covered by this Agreement shall perform the services and duties prescribed by the Employer rules, regulations, directives, and orders issued by properly designated officials of the Employer, insofar as such rules, regulations, directives, and orders are not inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement and recognizes that the Employer, all Employees covered by this Agreement, and all provisions of this Agreement are subject to the laws of the State. 4.04 Employer Security: The Union agrees that during the life of this Agreement neither the Union, its officers or agents, nor any of the Employees covered by this Agreement, will engage in, encourage, participate in, or support any strike, sympathy strike, slowdown, or other interruption of or interference with the normal functions of the Employer, except as specifically allowed by Public Employment Labor Relations Act of 1971, as amended. ARTICLE 5 UNION SECURITY 5.01 Right to Dues Check-Off: Employees shall have the right to dues check-off to the union, provided that dues check-off and the proceeds thereof shall not be allowed any organization that has lost its right to dues check-off. 5.02 Procedure: The Employer shall deduct an amount sufficient to provide the payment of regular dues and/or other union approved deductions established by the Union, from the wages of Employees. Employees shall provide authorization, in writing, of such deduction on a form mutually agreed upon by the Employer and the Union. The deduction of dues shall commence 30 working days after initial employment with the Employer. The Employer shall remit monthly such deduction to OPEIU Local 12, (2277 Hwy 36 W, Suite 301, Roseville, MN 55113-3830) with a list of the names of the Employees from whose wages deductions were made, along with pertinent Employee information necessary for the collection and administration of union dues, preferably in an Excel formatted report that may be electronically transmitted. The Union shall certify to the Employer, in writing, the current amount of regular dues to be withheld. The Union shall provide the formula to calculate the actual dues deduction to the Employer. 3 5.03 Fair Share Fee: The Union shall collect a Fair Share Fee, in an amount determined by the Union, from bargaining unit members who choose not to become members of the Union. However, any such fees so collected by the Union shall be accomplished in accordance with the applicable terms of Minn. Stat. Sect. 179A.06 Subd.3. 5.04 Hold Harmless: The Union agrees to indemnify and hold the Employer harmless against any and all claims, suits, orders, or judgments brought or issued against the Employer by a union member as a result of any action taken by the Employer under all provisions of this Agreement pertaining to dues or other union approved deductions. 5.05 Stewards: The Union may designate up to two Employees from the Bargaining Unit to act as stewards and will inform the Employer in writing of such choices and changes in the position of stewards immediately. 5.06 Union Announcements: The Employer will make space available on a workplace bulletin board for the posting of union notices and announcements and any others pertinent union information. 5.07 Reasonable Time: With advance notice to the Employee's immediate supervisor, the Employer agrees that during working hours, on the Employer's premises, and without loss of pay, the local union business agent or designated union representative shall be allowed reasonable time, which does not unduly interfere with his/her normal duties, to: post union notices and announcements or consult with the Employer, its representative, local union officers, or other union representatives concerning grievances. Employees must keep track of their time spent on union activities during the workday so that time can be reviewed for reasonableness by the Employer. 5.08 Employer Voicemail and Email: The Employer shall permit union officers to utilize Employer voicemail and email systems only for the purpose of notifying union members of union membership meetings. Union officials may come onto the Employer's property to conduct union business but only after reasonable advanced notice to the Employer and only when it does not interfere with Employees' work duties. ARTICLE 6 HOURS OF SERVICE 6.01 Work Week/Day: The normal work week for Employees shall consist of five days a week. The normal work day for full-time Employees shall be eight consecutive hours. Employees working eight consecutive hours shall receive a duty free 30 minute unpaid lunch break, and a 15- minute mid-morning, and a 15-minute mid- afternoon break. Breaks and meal period may be combined. The City will be flexible with work hours with respect to City meetings and duties outside of regular work hours. 6.02 Overtime Pay: Overtime is defined as all hours worked by nonexempt employees in excess of forty · hours per week Monday - Friday. All hours worked by nonexempt employees on Saturday and Sunday shall be paid at one and one half (1 ½) times Employee's regular rate of pay, with a two hour minimum. For all hours worked in excess of forty hours per week, nonexempt Employees have the option to use this time as compensatory time or paid overtime. 6.03 Compensatory Time: Nonexempt Employees shall be permitted to accumulate hours worked over forty hours (40) as accumulated compensatory time. Accumulated compensatory time carryover limit is forty hours (40) per pay period. Employees shall be eligible to use all compensatory time at the end of the calendar year with mutual agreement of the employer and employee. Prior to December 31st of each year, a nonexempt Employee must cash out all but twenty (20) hours of compensatory time and those remaining hours not used remain available for use in the following year. 6.04 Flexible Hours of Service: By mutual agreement between the Employer and Employee work hours may be flexible. 4 ARTICLE 7 GRADES AND CLASSIFICATIONS 7.01 Grades: For the purpose of salary determination, the classifications of office, professional and clerical Employees will be as follows: Grade 2 Community Service Officer Grade 5 Admin Support; Admin Support – Police; Municipal Services Assistant; Public Works Support Rep & Utility Billing Clerk (PWSRUBC) Grade 7 Management Assistant; Planning Assistant Grade 10 Accountant; IT Technician Grade 11 City Planner Grade 12 City Planner – Senior 7.011 Exempt Positions: For the purposes of overtime determinations the following positions are classified as Exempt, and thereby not eligible for overtime: Grade 10 Accountant, IT Technician Grade 11 City Planner Grade 12 City Planner-Senior 7.02 Anniversary Date: Employees hired after the execution of this agreement shall progress on the scale (steps) on the anniversary date of their hire. Current Employees will remain on current schedule of adjusted anniversary dates. The Adjusted Anniversary Date applies to those employees who were employed prior to January 1, 2016. The anniversary date for those employees for pay and performance was adjusted at that time to accommodate the adoption of the City’s current organizational pay structure. It does not apply to the Employee’s actual employment date for the purpose of time in service or PERA. Employees hired after January 1, 2016 have an anniversary date based on their date of hire. 7.03 COLA: The Cost of Living Adjustment for this contract shall be: 3% increase effective 01/01/2021; 2% increase effective 01/01/2022; and 1% increase effective 07/01/2022. 7.04 Pay Grade Scale: See Exhibit A. ARTICLE 8 COMPENSATION 8.01 Initial Placement: New Employees will be placed on the salary schedule as agreed between the Employee and the Employer. However, initial placement shall not exceed the 3rd step, and placement above the initial step shall be done only upon notification to the Union by the City Administrator and placement shall be subject to the provisions of Article 16 of this Agreement. 8.011 Pay Changes: An Employee moving to a position of a lower grade shall be placed in the new grade on the same step as occupied in the previous grade. An Employee promoted to a higher grade shall in no situation lose pay and shall receive a minimum of a 10% increase in pay. 8.02 Paydays: Paydays shall be on a biweekly schedule. When a payday falls on a holiday, checks will be issued on the previous workday. Exception: Christmas holiday falls on Tuesday or Wednesday. If exception is met a minimum of a 7 day notice will be provided to Employees. 8.03 Comparable Worth: The wages provided herein may be increased during the term of this contract for purposes of complying with the conditions of M.S. 471.991 through 471.998 as amended. 5 8.04 Longevity Pay: Beginning on the anniversary of the Employee's 8th year of service, a longevity incentive will be applied to the hourly rate/salary of the Employee. The Employee shall receive $0.05 per hour per year of service 8 years and above as a longevity incentive. This will be effective July 1, 2018 and will be adjusted at the employment anniversary of each Employee. This will be added to the Employee's hourly wage and is based on 2080 working hours per year. Sample calculations: 8 (years of service) x $0.05 = $0.40; Longevity pay= $0.40 x 2080 = $832 17 (years of service) x $0.05 = $0.85; Longevity pay = $0.85 x 2080 = $1,768 8.05 Temporary Higher Rate: An Employee who is temporarily assigned a position in a higher rated job and who performs the major duties of the higher rated job for a period of more than 10 days, shall receive the rate of pay as outlined in the pay scale for all hours worked in the higher rated job. The assignment must be approved by the City Administrator. 8.06 Department Head: If a bargaining unit Employee is assigned to department head duties, they shall earn the starting step of department head pay. 8.07 Training: To keep staff knowledgeable and improve their skills to do their jobs better, Employees will be eligible to participate in training and professional development for coursework directly related to the job/position with prior approval of their supervisor, with the Employer paying for the training or professional development. ARTICLE 9 GROUP INSURANCE 9.01 Selection of Carrier: The selection of the insurance carrier and policy shall be made by the Employer. The City Administrator will meet and confer with the exclusive union representative upon request regarding this matter. 9.02 Insurances: The Employer's contribution per full-time Employee in accordance with Affordable Care Act receiving single health insurance coverage is $915.00 per month towards a cafeteria benefit plan that offers group health, life, long-term disability and dental insurance, for the years 2021 and 2022. The Employer's contribution per Employee receiving family health insurance coverage is $1,457.50 per month towards a cafeteria benefit plan that offers group health, life, long-term disability and dental insurance, for the year 2021. For 2022, the Employer's contribution per Employee receiving family health insurance coverage is the same amount of $1,457.50 per month plus 50% of any increase in the family health insurance premium, toward a cafeteria benefit plan that offers group health, life, long-term disability and dental insurance, all of which is subject to the health insurance opt-out provisions set out in Paragraph 9.03. 9.03 Health Insurance Opt-Out Option: If a health insurance opt-out option is available with the City's group health insurance plan, an Employee who has health insurance through a group-sponsored plan elsewhere may elect to waive health insurance coverage. An Employee who waives health insurance coverage will receive, as the City's insurance contribution, the difference between the lowest cost single coverage health insurance plan and the City's single insurance contribution, as set out in paragraph 9.02, as an opt-out credit to use through the City's cafeteria benefit plan. 9.05 Life Insurance: The Employer will provide group term life insurance for each eligible Employee enrolled in and who qualifies for the Employer life insurance plan. Each eligible Employee may purchase additional group term life insurance policy through payroll deduction. 9.06 Involuntary Reductions: Continuation of Benefits: Full-time Employees whose hours are involuntarily reduced shall continue to receive full Employer contribution for insurance benefits. 6 9.07 Retirement - Continuation of Group Health and Dental Insurance This section applies to all Employees who retire on or after January 1, 1993, and participated in the Employer's group health and dental insurance program and met the requirements necessary to receive a disability benefit or an annuity from a Minnesota public pension plan other than a volunteer fire fighter plan. Minnesota law, Minn. Stat. Chapter 43A, provides that upon retirement, an eligible Employee and his or her covered dependents can participate in the group health/dental insurance program at the same premium rate as active Employees until age 65. Retirees who have continuously participated in the group insurance program since leaving employment and retirees who are currently continuing coverage through COBRA (Consolidation Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) can participate at the same premium rate as active Employees until age 65. The City will not contribute any money towards these benefits. Coverages and levels of benefits provided to retirees under age 65 and their dependents must be identical to that provided for active Employees and their dependents. Retirees age 65 and over may stay in the group indefinitely, but premium rates do not have to be pooled with the active Employee rates and retiree coverage does not have to be identical to active coverage. The retiree must pay the entire premium. Spouse and/or dependent coverage can be continued after retirement only if the Employee carried dependent coverage prior to retirement. Employees are not required to continue spouse and/or dependent coverage after retirement. 9.08 Eligibility: Medical and Dental Insurance: To be eligible for the full dollar Employer contribution for single insurance, an Employee must be regularly employed at least 1560 hours per year. ARTICLE 10 LEAVES OF ABSENCE 10.01 Sick Leave: 10.011 Accrual - 12-Month Employees: Sick leave with pay shall be granted to all probationary and regular Employees at the rate of one (1), eight (8) hour working day for each calendar month of full-time service. For this purpose, one (1) calendar month shall be any month in which an Employee is paid for twelve (12) or more working days (ninety-six [96] working hours). Regular part-time employees over 20 hours per week receive a prorated accrual based on hours worked relative to full-time hours worked. Seasonal/temporary Employees are not eligible for sick leave accrual benefits. Employees will not be allowed to accrue more than 960 hours (120 days) of sick leave. Once an Employee accrues 960 hours they will not accrue additional time unless the number of hours drops below 960. 10.012 Reporting: Each Employee shall be informed of their unused accrued sick leave on their paycheck. 10.013 Application: Sick leave shall be deducted from the accrued sick leave days earned by an Employee. If a holiday falls within the time an Employee is on paid sick leave, that day shall not be counted against accumulated sick leave. Sick leave pay shall be approved only upon submission of a request form. Such form shall be readily available at each Employee location. 7 10.014 Death of Employee's or Spouse's Family: All full-time regular Employees will be allowed up to 3 days paid funeral leave, if requested. This applies for the death of any immediate family, meaning: mother, father, spouse, child, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, step-child, siblings, in-laws, and grandparents and grandchild. This time will not be deducted from any accruals of the Employee. 10.015 Sick Leave of Employee's or Spouse's Family and Illness: Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 181.9413, eligible Employees may use up to 160 hours of sick leave in any 12-month calendar period for absences due to an illness or injury to the Employee's adult child, spouse, sibling, parent, grandparent, stepparent, parent-in-laws (mothers-in-law and fathers-in-law) and grandchildren (biological, adopted or foster grandchildren). This leave is inclusive of, not in addition to, the FMLA leave described in section 10.06. 10.016 Donation of Sick Leave: As provided for in the Employee Handbook (revised 12/10/18), with the approval of the city administrator, Employees having accrued sick leave are allowed to donate a portion of the accrued sick leave to fellow Employees experiencing a major medical condition. A major medical condition is considered to be a severe illness, major surgery, other physical ailment or other instances that qualify under the sick leave policy that causes, or is expected to cause an absence from work for 15 working days or more in any 12 month period. 10.017 Bone Marrow or Organ Donation: A paid medical leave of absence of up to 40 hours may be granted to qualifying Employees per Minnesota Statues 181.945 for the purposes of undergoing a medical procedure to donate bone marrow or an organ. A physician's statement is required, verifying the purpose and length of leave requested. If there is a medical determination that the Employee does not qualify to donate bone marrow or an organ, the paid leave prior to that medical determination is not forfeited. 10.018 Severance Pay: Employees leaving the City in good standing by either retirement or resignation will receive 100% of their accrued vacation leave. Each Employee with at least three (3) years but less than twelve (12) years, of full time service will receive, upon termination of employment in good standing, one-third (1/3) of the Employee's accumulated sick leave as severance pay. Each Employee with twelve (12) years or more of service will receive, upon termination of employment in good standing, one-half (1/2) of the Employee's accumulated sick leave as severance pay. Applicable taxes will be withheld from the payments. Pay will be computed at the compensation level effective at the time of retirement or resignation. 10.019 Healthcare Savings Plan: Employees are eligible to participate in the Minnesota Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan (HCSP) established under Minn. Stat. § 352.98 and as outlined in the Minnesota State Retirement System's Trust and Plan Documents. All funds collected by the Employer on the behalf of the employee will be deposited into the Employee's post-employment health care savings plan account. Contributions to the Post Employment Health Care Savings Plan shall be made as follows: Employee Payroll Contribution: Employees with 0-5 years of service will contribute 0% of pay. Employees with over 5 years of service will contribute 1% of pay. Severance Contribution to Employment Health Care Savings Plan: Employees with 0-5 years of service will contribute 0% of severance pay. Employees with over 5 years of service will contribute 100% of severance pay. 8 10.02 Worker's Compensation: Employees receiving Worker's Compensation benefits because of job connected injury or sickness shall, if he/she assigns his/her check to the City, receive full wages for that period not to exceed 90 days and to the extent that Employee's sick leave is accrued. Or, if any Employee is receiving Worker's Compensation benefits and does not assign his/her check, he/she will be paid for the difference between the Workers' compensation allowance and his/her regular weekly pay for a period not to exceed 90 days and to the extent that Employee's sick leave is accrued. 10.03 Medical Leave: See FMLA Criteria in 10.06. 10.04 Child Care Leave of Absence: 10.041 Eligibility: A pregnant Employee shall have all rights for which they qualify under this contract, which may include accrued sick leave, short-term disability, long-term disability, and any other rights afforded under this contract for disability due to pregnancy, delivery, and recovery. 10.042 Length: Any full-time Employee shall have the right to receive a child care leave of up to six (6) months without pay or fringe benefits and without loss of seniority, subject to the provisions of this article for the purpose of maternity, adoption, or combination thereof. This leave is inclusive of, not in addition to, the FMLA leave described in section 10.06. 10.043 Notice: The Employee applying for the provisions of this article shall give the Employer notice in writing of the request for child care to anticipated commencement of leave and shall present therewith the written medical certification from the physician of the Employee's pregnant condition and of the Employee's expected date of delivery, and/or evidence of adoption or pre-school child care. 10.044 Retention of Benefits: If the Employee qualifies and returns to work in accordance with the above, either to the Employee's original job or to a position of like status and pay, the Employee will be given credit for the seniority accrued up to the time of leaving as well as the seniority the Employee would have accrued had the Employee been available for work during the period of the Employee's absence. 10.045 Conformance to Law: The provisions of this section are subject to such amendment or modification as may be required to comply with any future applicable state or federal laws or regulations which may become binding upon the parties hereto. 10.05 Military leave: Military leave shall be granted pursuant to applicable laws. 10.06 Federal Family and Medical Leave: Leaves shall be granted to eligible Employees in accordance with the Federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), as amended. 10.07 Closing Due to Adverse Weather Conditions: When it is necessary to close operations due to adverse weather conditions, Employee will be paid for the hours closed as approved at the discretion of the City Administrator. When City offices remain open, those Employees who are unable to report to work may take their unused vacation leave to make up for time lost. ARTICLE 11 VACATIONS 11.01 Earned Vacation Accruals: 0-5 years of service earn 10 days of vacation time 6-10 years of service earn 15 days of vacation time 11-15 years of service earn 18 days of vacation time 16 years of service earn 19 days of vacation time 17 years of service earn 20 days of vacation time 18 years of service earn 22 days of vacation time 19 years of service earn 23 days of vacation time 20+ years of service earn 24 days of vacation time 9 11.02 Usage and Reporting: Employees may not accrue more than 240 hours of vacation, at the end of the fiscal year. Each Employee shall be informed of their unused accrued vacation on their paycheck. Vacation can be used after 6 months of service, from start date. Regular part-time employees over 20 hours per week receive a prorated accrual based on hours worked relative to full-time hours worked. Seasonal and temporary employees are not eligible. ARTICLE 12 HOLIDAYS 12.01 Full-time: Full-time Employees shall be granted twelve (12) paid holidays as follows: New Year's Day Martin Luther King Jr. Day Presidents Day Memorial Day Independence Day Labor Day Veterans Day Thanksgiving Day Day After Thanksgiving Day Business Day Before Federal Christmas Holiday Federal Christmas Holiday Floating Holiday (1) Employee option if not designated by the City. ARTICLE 13 VACANCIES AND JOB POSTING 13.01 Posting of Vacancies: All permanent vacancies in the appropriate unit shall be posted. 13.02 Application for Vacancies: All Employees under this agreement, including those on lay-off status, may submit application in writing for any vacancy which is posted pursuant to this Article. 13.03 Remote Notice: All Employees who are not actively working may access the City of Orono website. 13.04 Filling Vacancies: Notice of the candidate selected to fill the vacancy shall be given to the designated steward and the Union office upon submission of the information to payroll. 13.05 Promotion Positions: 13.051 For purposes of this section, a promotion is defined as moving to a classification involving an increase in pay per hour. 13.052. Promotion probationary period will be three (3) months, during which time Employees may be reassigned to their previous position at Employer's discretion. 13.06 Trial Period: New Position: Within the first three (3) months actually worked in the new position, the Employee has the right to return to the position formerly held. ARTICLE 14 SENIORITY 14.01 Seniority: Seniority will be determined by an Employee's length of continuous full time service with the Employer and posted in an appropriate location. Seniority will be a factor for transfers, promotions, and layoffs when all job-relevant qualification factors are equal. 10 14.02 Layoffs: The Employer shall determine the position(s) in the classification which are to be eliminated provided, however, that all Employees in the temporary and part-time positions shall be laid off before regular Employees. Layoffs shall be in reverse seniority order provided Employee can perform work available. ARTICLE 15 DISCIPLINE, DISCHARGE AND PROBATIONARY PERIOD 15.01 Probationary Period: An Employee under the provisions of this Agreement shall serve a probationary period of 180 days (6 months) of continuous service with the Employer during which time the Employer shall have the unqualified right to suspend without pay, discharge, or otherwise discipline such Employee: and during this 6 month probationary period, the Employee shall have no recourse to the grievance procedure, insofar as suspension, discharge, or other discipline is concerned. By mutual agreement between Employer and Union the probationary period may be extended an additional 90 days. However, a probationary Employee shall have the right to bring a grievance on any other provision of the contract alleged to have been violated. 15.02 Completion of Probationary Period: An Employee who has completed the probationary period may be suspended without pay, discharged, or disciplined only for cause. An Employee who has completed the probationary period and is suspended without pay, discharged, or otherwise disciplined shall have access to the grievance procedure. ARTICLE 16 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE 16.01 Grievance Definition: A "grievance" shall mean an allegation by an Employee resulting in a dispute or disagreement between the Employee and the Employer as to the interpretation or application of terms and conditions of employment insofar as such matters are contained in this Agreement. 16.02 Representative: The Employee or Employer may be represented during any step of the procedure by any person or agent designated by such party to act in his behalf. 16.03 Time Limitation and Waiver: Grievances shall not be valid for consideration unless the grievance is submitted in writing and on forms provided, to the City Administrator setting forth the facts and the specific provisions of the Agreement allegedly violated and the particular relief sought within twenty-one (21) business days after the date the event giving rise to the grievance occurred. Failure to file any grievance within such period shall be deemed a waiver thereof. Failure to appeal a grievance from one level to another within the time periods hereafter provided shall constitute a waiver of the grievance. 16.04 Adjustment of Grievances: An effort shall first be made to adjust an alleged grievance informally between the Employee and the immediate supervisor. If this effort is unsuccessful, the grievance shall then be adjusted in the following manner: Level I: If the grievance is not resolved through informal discussions, the immediate supervisor shall give a written decision on the grievance to the parties involved within ten (10) business days after receipt of the written grievance. Level II: In the event the grievance is not resolved in Level I, the decision rendered may be appealed to the City Administrator, provided such appeal is made in writing within five (5) business days after receipt of the decision in Level L If a grievance is properly appealed, Employer shall set a time to meet regarding the grievance within fifteen (15) business days after receipt of the appeal. Within ten (10) business days after the meeting, the City Administrator or his designee shall issue a decision in writing to the parties involved. 16.05 Arbitration Procedures: In the event that the Employee, the Union and the Employer are unable to resolve any grievance, the grievance may be submitted to arbitration as defined herein: 16.051 Request: A request to submit a grievance to arbitration must be in writing signed by the 11 aggrieved party, and such request must be filed in the office of the City Administrator within twenty (20) business days following the decision in Level II of the grievance procedure. 16.052 Prior Procedure Required: No grievance shall be considered by the arbitrator which has not been first duly processed in accordance with the grievance procedure and appeal provisions. 16.053 Selection of Arbitrator: Upon the proper submission of a grievance under the terms of this procedure, the parties shall within ten (10) business days after the request to arbitrate attempt to agree upon the selection of an arbitrator. If no agreement on an arbitrator is reached, either party may request the Bureau of Mediation Services to furnish a list of five (5) arbitrators. The parties will alternately strike names from the list of arbitrators until only one (1) name remains. The employee will strike the first name. The remaining arbitrator will hear and decide the grievance. The request shall ask that the appointment be made within thirty (30) business days after the receipt of said request. Failure to agree upon an arbitrator or the failure to request an arbitrator from the Bureau of Mediation Services within the time periods provided herein shall constitute a waiver of the grievance. 16.054 Submission of Grievance Information: Upon appointment of the arbitrator, the parties shall provide the arbitrator the submission of the grievance which shall include the following: 1. The issues involved. 2. Statement of facts. 3. Position of the grievant. 16.055 Hearing: The grievance shall be heard by a single arbitrator and both parties may be represented by such person or persons as they may choose and designate, and the parties shall have the right to a hearing at which time both parties will have the opportunity to submit evidence, offer testimony, and make oral and written arguments relating to the issues before the arbitrator. The proceeding before the arbitrator shall be a hearing de novo. 16.056 Decisions: The decision by the arbitrator shall be rendered within thirty (30) business days after the close of the hearing. Decision by the arbitrator in cases properly before him/her shall be final and binding upon the parties, subject however, to the limitations of arbitration decisions as provided by the PELRA. 16.057 Expenses: Each party shall bear its own expenses in connection with arbitration, including expenses relating to the party's representatives, witnesses, and any other expenses which the party incurs in connection with presenting its case in arbitration. A transcript or recording shall be made of the hearing at the request of either party and the cost shall be borne by the requesting party or, if the request is mutual, the cost shall be shared. The parties shall share equally fees and expenses of the arbitrator and any other expenses which the parties mutually agree are necessary for the conduct of the arbitration, provided that each party shall be responsible for compensating its own representatives and witnesses. 16.058 Jurisdiction: The arbitrator shall have jurisdiction over disputes or disagreements relating to grievances properly before the arbitrator pursuant to the terms of this procedure. The jurisdiction of the arbitrator shall not extend to proposed changes in terms and conditions of employment as defined herein and contained in this written Agreement; nor shall an arbitrator have jurisdiction over any grievance which has not been submitted to arbitration in compliance with the terms of the grievance and arbitration procedure as outlined herein. 16.06 Waiver: If a grievance is not presented in the manner and within the time limits set forth above, it shall be considered waived. If a grievance is not appealed to the next step in the manner and within the specific time limit set forth above, it shall be considered settled on the basis of the Employer's last offer. Employer will act in good faith to answer a grievance within the time limits set forth above. If the Employer does not answer a grievance within the time limits set forth above, it is deemed denied. 12 ARTICLE 17 DISCIPLINE 17.01. Progressive Discipline: 17.011 The Employer will discipline non-probationary Employees for just cause only. Discipline will be in one (1) or more of the following forms: A. Oral reprimand B. Written reprimand C. Suspension D. Demotion, or E. Discharge 17.012 Written reprimands, notices of suspensions, notices of demotion and notices of discharge which are to become part of an Employee's personnel file will be read and acknowledged by signature of the Employee. Employee and the Union will receive a copy of such reprimands and/or notices. After 24 months written reprimands will be removed from the Employee's personnel file. 17.013 Employees may examine their own individual personnel files once every six months in accordance with the data practice act. 17.014 Employees will not be questioned concerning an investigation of disciplinary action unless the Employee has been given adequate opportunity to have a Union representative present at such questioning. 17.015 Grievances relating to this article shall be initiated by the Union at Level 2 of the grievance procedure under Article 16 of this Agreement. ARTICLE 18 MISCELLANEOUS 18.01 Jury Duty Pay: An Employee who is called for jury duty will be reimbursed for the difference between the amount paid for such services and the Employee's straight time hourly rate for regularly scheduled hours of work during the period of service. Employees will be expected to report for their regular duties when temporarily excused from attendance at court. Such Employees shall not suffer any loss of seniority during such absences. 18.02 Automobile: A mileage allowance, as set by the IRS rates, shall be paid for authorized use of personal cars in connection with Employer business. 18.03 Bond: Should the Employer require that any Employee covered under this Agreement be bonded, the premium on such bond shall be paid by the Employer. 18.04 Notices to Union: All orders or notice to an Employee under this Agreement involving a permanent change in assignment, promotion, or lay-off, and leaves of absences shall be given in writing with a copy of same sent to the union office. 18.05 Deferred Compensation: The City shall offer a deferred compensation plan to Employees. 18.06 Union Stewards: The Employer recognizes the right of the Union to designate stewards from the Employees to handle such Union business as may from time-to- time be delegated to such stewards or committee by the Union's executive board. 18.07 Application of Benefits: It is understood and agreed by the parties that Insurance Benefits (Article 9), Leave Provisions (Article 10), Vacations (Article 11), and full Holidays (Article 12) are benefits designated for Employees performing services 30 hours per week. 18.08 New Positions: In the event the Employer creates new positions in the appropriate unit that are not covered by the present classification structure in the Agreement, prior to establishing the position, the Employer 13 shall indicate to the Union the proposed classification and structure of the position and in the event of disagreement, the Union shall have the right to meet and negotiate pursuant to the P.E.L.R.A. on the compensation for such position. For purposes of this provision, in the event of impasse, the impasse procedures of the P.E.L.R.A. may be utilized. 18.09 Involuntary Reductions: Full-time Employees whose hours are involuntarily reduced shall receive pro-rata leave, vacation and holiday benefits. 18.10 Status Change: In the event an existing position is proposed to be reduced from full- time to part- time, the Employer will discuss such reduction with the Union prior to implementation. 18.11 Waiver: The parties mutually acknowledge that during the negotiations which resulted in this Agreement, each had the unlimited right and opportunity to make demands with respect to any term or condition of employment not removed by law from bargaining. All agreements and understandings arrived at by the parties are set forth in writing in this Agreement. The Employer and the Union each voluntarily waives the right to meet and negotiate regarding any and all terms and conditions of employment, whether or not referred to or covered by this Agreement, even though such terms or conditions may not have been within the knowledge or contemplation of either or both of the parties at the time that this contract was negotiated or executed. ARTICLE 19 DURATION 19.01 Terms and Reopening Negotiations: This Agreement shall remain in full force and effect for a period commencing January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2022 and thereafter pursuant to the P.E.L.R.A. If either party desires to modify or amend this Agreement commencing on January 1, 2021, it shall give written notice of such intent no later than 60 days before the expiration of the Contract. 19.02 Effect: This agreement constitutes the full and complete Agreement between the Employer and the exclusive representative. The provisions herein relating to terms and conditions of employment supersede any and all prior agreements, resolutions, practices, Employer policies, rules, or regulations concerning terms and conditions of employment inconsistent with these provisions. 19.03 Finality: Any matters relating to the current contract term, whether or not referred to in this Agreement, shall not be open for negotiation during the term of this Agreement except if mutually agreed by the parties. 19.04 Severability: The provisions of this Agreement shall be severable, and if any provision thereof or the application of any such provision under any circumstances is held invalid, it shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision thereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as follows: Office and Professional Employees City of Orono International Union, Local 12, AFL-CIO 277 Highway 36, Suite 301 Roseville, MN 55113 By: ______________________________ By: ____________________________ Business Agent Dennis Walsh, Mayor Dated: ___________________________ By: _____________________________ Compensation Plan Local 12 Employees Pay Grades and Steps 01-01-2021 through 12-31-2021 Grade Start Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Annual Hourly Annual Annual Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly 17.94 37,322.38 18.50 Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly 46,192.05 2 19.09 39,704.66 19.68 40,932.64 20.29 42,198.61 42,158.24 20.90 43,462.10 21.54 44,806.29 22.2138,476.68 19.07 39,666.69 19.66 40,893.49 20.271 22.92 47,666.27 23.63 49,140.48 3 20.31 42,239.01 20.94 20.92 43,503.72 21.56 44,849.19 22.23 46,236.28 52,277.1147,711.91 23.65 49,187.53 24.38 50,708.80 4 21.60 44,935.11 22.27 46,324.85 22.96 47,757.59 25.1343,545.37 21.58 44,892.14 22.25 46,280.55 22.94 25.94 53,945.53 26.74 55,613.94 5 22.98 47,803.31 23.69 23.67 49,234.63 24.40 50,757.35 25.16 52,327.16 59,163.7753,997.18 26.76 55,667.19 27.59 57,388.86 28.4449,281.76 24.43 50,805.95 25.18 6 24.45 50,854.59 25.21 52,427.41 25.99 54,048.88 52,377.26 25.96 29.35 61,051.98 30.26 62,940.19 7 26.01 54,100.62 26.81 26.79 55,720.50 27.62 57,443.81 28.47 59,220.42 66,957.6461,110.43 30.29 63,000.44 31.23 64,948.91 8 27.67 57,553.86 28.53 59,333.87 29.41 61,168.95 32.1955,773.83 27.64 57,498.80 28.50 59,277.12 29.38 33.22 69,094.59 34.25 71,231.54 9 29.44 61,227.51 30.35 30.32 63,060.77 31.26 65,011.11 32.22 67,021.76 75,778.2369,160.75 34.28 71,299.74 35.34 73,504.89 36.4363,121.14 31.29 65,073.35 32.25 10 31.32 65,135.65 32.28 67,150.15 33.28 69,226.96 67,085.93 33.25 37.59 78,196.68 38.76 80,615.14 11 33.31 69,293.24 34.34 34.31 71,368.00 35.37 73,575.26 36.47 75,850.78 85,760.7878,271.56 38.79 80,692.32 39.99 83,187.96 12 35.44 73,716.21 36.54 75,996.09 37.67 78,346.49 41.2371,436.33 35.41 73,645.71 36.50 75,923.41 37.63 42.55 88,497.83 43.86 91,234.8838.83 80,769.58 40.03 83,267.61 41.27 85,842.89 93,059.5739.61 82,384.97 40.83 84,932.96 42.10 87,559.75 42.0672,865.05 36.11 75,118.62 37.23 77,441.88 38.38 43.40 90,267.79 44.741236.15 75,190.53 37.27 77,516.01 38.42 79,913.42 68,427.65 33.92 38.35 79,760.62 39.53 82,227.44 11 33.98 70,679.10 35.03 35.00 72,795.36 36.08 75,046.77 37.20 77,367.80 87,476.0079,836.99 39.57 82,306.17 40.79 84,851.72 10 31.94 66,438.36 32.93 68,493.15 33.95 70,611.50 72,656.17 9 30.03 62,452.06 30.95 30.92 64,321.99 31.88 66,311.33 32.87 68,362.19 77,293.8070,543.97 34.96 72,725.73 36.05 74,974.98 37.1664,383.57 31.91 66,374.82 32.90 32.8356,889.31 28.20 58,648.78 29.07 60,462.66 29.97 33.88 70,476.49 34.93828.22 58,704.94 29.10 60,520.55 30.00 62,392.33 53,424.81 26.48 29.94 62,273.02 30.86 64,198.99 7 26.53 55,182.63 27.35 27.32 56,834.91 28.17 58,592.69 29.04 60,404.83 68,296.7962,332.64 30.89 64,260.45 31.85 66,247.89 6 24.94 51,871.68 25.71 53,475.96 26.50 55,129.86 56,726.22 5 23.44 48,759.38 24.17 24.14 50,219.32 24.89 51,772.49 25.66 53,373.70 60,347.0555,077.12 27.30 56,780.54 28.14 58,536.64 29.0150,267.40 24.91 51,822.06 25.69 25.6444,416.27 22.01 45,789.98 22.70 47,206.16 23.40 26.45 55,024.44 27.27422.04 45,833.81 22.72 47,251.35 23.42 48,712.74 1 23.37 48,619.59 24.10 50,123.29 3 20.71 43,083.79 21.35 21.33 44,373.79 21.99 45,746.18 22.67 47,161.01 53,322.6548,666.15 24.12 50,171.29 24.87 51,722.97 Annual Hourly 47,115.89 2 19.47 40,498.76 20.07 41,751.30 20.69 43,042.58 43,001.41 21.31 44,331.34 21.97 45,702.42 22.6539,246.22 19.45 40,460.02 20.05 41,711.36 20.67 Annual Hourly 18.30 38,068.83 18.87 Hourly Annual Hourly Compensation Plan Local 12 Employees Pay Grades and Steps 01-01-2022 through 06-30-2022 Grade Start Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Annual Hourly Annual Annual Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly 93,990.1740.00 83,208.82 41.24 85,782.29 42.52 88,435.35 42.4873,593.70 36.48 75,869.81 37.60 78,216.29 38.77 43.83 91,170.46 45.191236.51 75,942.44 37.64 78,291.17 38.80 80,712.56 69,111.92 34.25 38.73 80,558.22 39.93 83,049.72 11 34.32 71,385.89 35.38 35.35 73,523.32 36.44 75,797.24 37.57 78,141.48 88,350.7680,635.36 39.97 83,129.23 41.20 85,700.24 10 32.26 67,102.74 33.26 69,178.08 34.29 71,317.62 73,382.73 9 30.33 63,076.58 31.26 31.23 64,965.21 32.20 66,974.44 33.20 69,045.81 78,066.7471,249.41 35.31 73,452.99 36.41 75,724.73 37.5365,027.40 32.23 67,038.56 33.23 33.1657,458.20 28.48 59,235.27 29.36 61,067.29 30.27 34.22 71,181.25 35.28828.51 59,291.99 29.39 61,125.76 30.30 63,016.25 53,959.06 26.74 30.24 62,895.75 31.17 64,840.98 7 26.80 55,734.46 27.62 27.60 57,403.26 28.45 59,178.62 29.33 61,008.88 68,979.7662,955.97 31.20 64,903.05 32.17 66,910.37 6 25.19 52,390.40 25.97 54,010.72 26.77 55,681.16 57,293.48 5 23.68 49,246.97 24.41 24.39 50,721.51 25.14 52,290.22 25.92 53,907.44 60,950.5255,627.90 27.57 57,348.34 28.42 59,122.00 29.3050,770.07 25.16 52,340.29 25.94 25.8944,860.44 22.23 46,247.88 22.92 47,678.23 23.63 26.72 55,574.68 27.54422.26 46,292.15 22.94 47,723.87 23.65 49,199.87 1 23.61 49,105.79 24.34 50,624.53 3 20.92 43,514.63 21.57 21.55 44,817.53 22.21 46,203.64 22.90 47,632.62 53,855.8849,152.81 24.36 50,673.00 25.12 52,240.20 Annual Hourly 47,587.05 2 19.67 40,903.75 20.27 42,168.81 20.90 43,473.00 43,431.42 21.53 44,774.66 22.19 46,159.44 22.8839,638.68 19.65 40,864.62 20.25 42,128.48 20.88 Annual Hourly 18.49 38,449.52 19.06 Hourly Annual Hourly Compensation Plan Local 12 Employees Pay Grades and Steps 07-01-2022 through 12-31-2022 Grade Start Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Annual Hourly Annual Annual Step 5 Step 6 Step 7 Hourly Annual Hourly Annual Hourly AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to purchase body worn cameras, squad cameras, weapon mounted cameras as well as equipment and a data storage solution to support this program. 2. Background. The police department has been researching and testing products for more than a year. The police department has chosen Watch Guard as its vendor for the body worn cameras and squad camera. Viridian Weapons Technology (a local company) has been selected for the weapons mounted camera. Staff has consulted with several vendors and providers for a storage solution for the large amount of data from these cameras that will need to be stored and maintained. LOGIS has been selected to host the server and provide a storage solution. LOGIS has successfully provided a similar solution to nine other area police departments. LOGIS will design and build the server and storage environment for the video and audio data. LOGIS will host the server with up to 5TB of storage. LOGIS is the City’s current data storage and Records Management Systems provider. Once the equipment arrives, installation will begin to install new and remove existing squad cameras in all of our patrol vehicles. Streicher’s will complete the removal of the existing and installation of the Watch Guard squad cameras. Some minor improvements to the police department facility will be needed to accommodate the set up and implementation of this program. These include adding additional outlets, a circuit with breaker to accommodate battery charging station for the body-worn cameras and also HVAC improvements to the room that this sensitive equipment is going to be stored in. The police department has followed Minnesota law and League of MN Cities guidelines with adopting and establishing a Portable Audio/Video Recorders policy. The policy was approved at the February 8, 2020 City Council meeting. 3.Cost. The City is using the state contracted pricing for the purchasing of this equipment with Watch Guard, Viridian and Streicher’s. 4.Funding. This purchase will be funded with Justice and Treasury Funds. These funds are a result of state and federal drug forfeitures that the city has received from drug seizures. The current Treasury Fund balance is 177,000.00 Item No.: 9 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Authorization to Purchase Body, Squad and Weapon Mounted Cameras and Supporting Equipment and Software Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Vendor Equipment Quote Viridian Weapon Mounted Camera and holsters $22,148.00 Watch Guard Body Worn Cameras, Squad Cameras and Licensing $135,000.00 Initial / $8,000.00 Annually Streicher’s Removal and Installation of Squad Cameras $5500.00 LOGIS Network Server and Storage solution $8,500 Initial / $4,500 Annually A-1 Electric Outlets, circuit and breaker $850 Ditter Heating HVAC and Duct work $675.00 Total $173,498.00 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Correy Farniok Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the purchase of the items above regarding the implementation, use, networking and storage solution to the body worn, squad and weapon mounted camera systems for the Orono police department. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the purchase of body worn camera, squad cameras, and weapon mounted cameras, network server, storage solution and work related for this program as described. Exhibits A. Viridian Quote B. Watch Guard Quote C. LOGIS Quote D. A-1 Electric Quote E. Streicher’s Quote F. Ditter Heating Quote Prepared By: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of the council item is to gain council approval to appoint a new Parks and Golf Course Superintendent. 2. Background. The previous Parks Supervisor resigned in February. Throughout the month the City conducted a recruitment search for a qualified applicant for the position. 3. Position Scope. Parks and Golf Course Superintendent (Grade 10). The position is a full time position responsible for all of the City’s parks, trails, grounds and golf course as well as duties as the tree and weed inspector. 4. Recruitment. The selection process for the position involved advertising the position, application screening, and interviews. The selection committee consisted of the Acting City Administrator, Public Works Director, a Public Works Supervisor and the Parks Commission Chairman. 5. Recommended Candidate. The recommended candidate is Mr. Joey Brettingen. Joey is currently the Assistant Superintendent at the Hazeltine National Golf Club Golf Course. Joey has a Bachelor’s degree in Horticulture with an emphasis in Turfgrass Management. Joey has eight years of experience with last four in leadership roles. 6. Recommended Compensation. I recommended that Mr. Joey Brettingen be appointed to the position of Parks and Golf Course Superintendent effective March 27th, 2021. a. Salary. Starting salary of 69,284 / year (Grade 10, Step 3) b. Vacation. Starting vacation to be earned at a rate or 10 days (80 hours) per year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to motion to appoint Mr. Joey Brettingen as Parks and Golf Course Superintendent. Item No.: 10 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Golf Course and Parks Superintendent Appointment Presenter: Adam T. Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Prepared By: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the contract for the Tonkawa Phase II Forcemain Replacement Project (21-021) 2. Background. On November 23rd, 2020 Council approved the design and engineering of the Tonkawa Phase II Forcemain Replacement project. 3. Scope of Work. The projects consists of replacement by pipe bursting of 1105 feet of 6 inch forcemain that leads from Lift Station #28 on Park Lane to the end of the Phase I project on Tonkawa Road. 4. Cost. The city received seven bids. The Bid Summary is at Exhibit A. The low bid for $191,347.98 is from GM Contracting. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of NTE $ 19,500.00 for construction oversight. (Exhibit B) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering $ 24,800.00 Not to exceed Previously approved GM Contracting Construction $ 191,347.98 Pending award Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $ 19,500.00 Not to exceed TOTAL $235,647.98 5. Funding. Funding for the project will come from the Sewer Fund. Fund Amount Est. 2021 End of Year Fund Balance Sewer Funds $ 235,647.98 $ 1,662,915 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend award of the bid to GM Contracting the amount of $191,347.98. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to award the 2021 Streets project to GM Contracting for $ 191,347.98 and to authorize Bolton & Menk to perform construction oversight for a fee not to exceed $ 19,500.00. Reference A. Bid Tab B. Bolton and Menk Construction Services proposal Item No.: 11 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Tonkawa Phase II Forcemain Replacement Award Presenter: Adam Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Exhibit A-Bid Tab City Of Orono Tonkawa PH2 Forcemain Replacement Bid Date: 3 March 2021 Contractor Bid Amount GM Contracting $ 191,347.98 Pember Companies $ 235,795.00 Minder Construction $ 239,865.00 Geislinger and Sons $ 246,360.00 Widmer Construction $ 253,239.00 New Look Contracting $ 275,985.00 Northdale Construction Compnay $ 384,719.12 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\2021 Forcemain Improvements - Construction Services.docx March 3, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2021 Forcemain Improvements – Construction Services Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction services associated with the 2021 Forcemain Improvements Project. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and accurate information via newsletters and website updates as desired by the City. Construction Staking and Observation Construction staking will be provided along with full time construction observation. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction -related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Review of all materials testing • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction -related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the following: • Administering a pre-construction meeting 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 li nked to the City mapping system and the City’s GIS system will be updated. 2021 Forcemain Improvements Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\2021 Forcemain Improvements - Construction Services.docx Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not-to -exceed of $19,500 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: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain Council approval of seasonal and part time employees. 2. Background. The hourly pay is proposed to be $12.00-$14.00 for the Golf Course Clubhouse Attendants, Brush Site Attendants, and Sledding Attendants; $12.00-$16.00 for Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Employees, $10.00-$16.00 for Utilities Maintenance Workers; and $15.00-$20.00 for the Clubhouse Manager. The Clubhouse Manager will be a part time employee. All other employees will be seasonal and fall under the 6 month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA membership. 3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates. Name Position Wage ($/hr) Remarks Approved Feb 22nd Marie Jorland Clubhouse Manager $20.00 Returnee Kimberley Haug Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee Calvin Schmidt Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee Chad Stowell Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee Ron Steffenhagen Golf Course Maintenance $15.00 Returnee Mitchell Hall Golf Course Maintenance $16.00 Returnee Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Scott Prochnow Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Marshall Hambro Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Requesting Approval Wendy Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $14.00 Returnee Logan Reynalds Clubhouse Attendant $12.00 Returnee Lloyd Engler Golf Course Maintenance $12.00 Returnee 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employee as in the list above. Item No.: 12 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Appointment of 2021 Seasonal Employees Presenter: Adam Edwards City Engineer/Director of Public Works Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to construct a replacement deck in a slightly larger footprint. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 11, 2020 and considered to be complete on February 8, 2021. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on April 8, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicants are requesting variances in order to make an approximate 150 square foot expansion of their lakeside deck from the existing 226 square foot footprint to 379 square feet. The existing deck is situated as much as 9 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback on the southeast corner of the deck, 79.6 feet from the OWHL. The property’s hardcover currently exceeds 25%. For the Planning Commission’s review the applicants’ proposal inadvertently reflected an encroachment into 75-foot setback; the applicants have corrected this with the current, revised plan. The proposed hardcover removals offset the new hardcover resulting from the deck. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 6 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variances conditioned upon submittal of a revised deck plan which does not encroach into the 75-foot setback area prior to City Council review. The applicants have submitted the revised deck plan and survey. 5. Public Comment. Comments from the neighbors were received and are attached as Exhibit D. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval as revised. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. Public Comment E. PC Staff Report Item No.: 13 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000074 – Edward & Mary Caldwell, 746 Tonkawa Road, Variances – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey D. Proposed Deck Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Neighbor Comments G. Aerial Photos H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279 AND 78-1700 FILE NO. LA20-000074 WHEREAS, on December 11, 2020, Edward Caldwell (hereinafter the “Owner”), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 746 Tonkawa Road and legally described as: That part of Lot 11, lying Southeasterly of a line drawn parallel to and 25 feet Southeasterly, measured at right angles from the Northwesterly line thereof, extended, “Parten’s Point First Addition” Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Owner has made application to the City of Orono for a variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of a new lakeside deck lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line; and WHEREAS, the Owner has also made application to the City of Orono for a variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1700 in order to reduce the hardcover from 34.1% to 33.8% (5,240 square feet), in excess of the 25% Tier 1 limitation, in conjunction with construction of a new deck; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances as modified to remove the inadvertent 75-foot lake setback encroachment; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA20-000074. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B, Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.35 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 75 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance b. Hardcover Variance 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The requested hardcover variance (with reductions) and average lakeshore setback variance are in harmony with the Ordinance as the adjacent neighbors have indicated their views of the lake will not be impacted by the improvements, and new hardcover will be offset by removals. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” Regarding the average lakeshore setback and hardcover level variances, the deck project in the residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit portions of a deck lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable; the linear shoreline and location of the neighboring homes result in the existing non-conforming condition. The Owner has proposed hardcover removals to offset the new additions. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The location of the existing home, the orientation of the mostly straight shoreline, and location of the neighboring homes, driveway easement, and existing hardcover are conditions not created by the landowner; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit a new deck on the lakeside of the home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality. Further, the Owner’s proposed hardcover removals will offset the new hardcover resulting from the deck. 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 deck is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The location of the existing improvements/ home, the location of the neighboring homes in line with the Owner’s home along the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 shoreline, the existing driveway with the easement, and existing hardcover are conditions unique to the Property. 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The location of the existing improvements/home, the location of the neighboring homes in line with the subject home along the shoreline, the existing driveway with the easement, and existing hardcover are unique conditions affecting the Property. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The Owner has provided statements indicating that the granting of the variances are necessary for their enjoyment and preservation of their property rights. 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 will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The application of the average lakeshore setback on the Property severely limits the options for expanding and/or improving the home on the lake side; the granting of the requested variances are necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing home in relation to the neighboring homes. The existing hardcover exceeds permitted levels; the Owner’s proposed removals will result in a 47 square foot reduction. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow construction of a new lakeside deck approximately 9 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line as shown on the survey attached as Exhibit A; and variance from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 1700 in order to reduce the hardcover from 34.1% to 33.8% (5,240 square feet) in conjunction with construction of a new deck, 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 February 12, 2021, and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 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 Owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Di s t a n c e : an c e : an c e : Di s t a n c e : 2 0 . 2 2 0 2 0 2 72 0 .7 7 72 2 ft ft f ft D i s t a n c e : n c e D D i s t a c D i s t a D i D i D i s t a D D D i s s t a s t c e c e c e : c e : e c e c e D i s 9 . 1 9 9 . 1 9 9 1 9 9 9 . 1 9 9 9 1 9 9 9 f t f t f t f t f t f t f t ĂƚĞ͗ dŝĞƌϭ dŝĞƌϮ dŝĞƌϯ dŝĞƌϰ dŝĞƌϱ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ^͘&͘ ŝƚLJŽĨKƌŽŶŽ ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶtŽƌŬƐŚĞĞƚ WƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗ ϳϰϲdŽŶŬĂǁĂZŽĂĚ WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚLJ͗ ^ĂƚŚƌĞͲĞƌŐƋƵŝƐƚ ϮͬϴͬϮϬϮϭ /ŶƚŚĞĨŽůůŽǁŝŶŐƚĂďůĞ͕ŝĚĞŶƚŝĨLJĂůůŝƚĞŵƐŽĨĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌŽŶƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͕ŬĞLJĞĚďLJůĞƚƚĞƌƚŽĞƌƚŝĨŝĐĂƚĞŽĨ^ƵƌǀĞLJ;ƐƵƌǀĞLJ ŵƵƐƚĂĐĐŽŵƉĂŶLJƚŚŝƐĨŽƌŵͿ͘hƐĞĂƐŵĂŶLJůŝŶĞƐĂƐŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌLJƚŽĂĐĐƵƌĂƚĞůLJĚĞƉŝĐƚĞdžŝƐƚŝŶŐŚĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌƐƚĂƚƵƐŽĨƚŚĞƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJ͘&Žƌ dŝĞƌϭƉƌŽƉĞƌƚŝĞƐ͕/ĚĞŶƚŝĨLJĂŶLJĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐďLJůĞƚƚĞƌǁŚŝĐŚĂƌĞƐƉůŝƚĂƚƚŚĞϳϱΖƐĞƚďĂĐŬůŝŶĞĂŶĚĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞŚĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌƐƋƵĂƌĞĨŽŽƚĂŐĞ ƐĞƉĂƌĂƚĞůLJĨŽƌĞĂĐŚƉŽƌƚŝŽŶ͘ <ĞLJƚŽ^ƵƌǀĞLJ ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ/ƚĞŵ;ĞƐĐƌŝďĞͿ >ĞŶŐƚŚdžtŝĚƚŚ dŽƚĂů;^ƋƵĂƌĞ&ĞĞƚͿ ^:ŽďEƵŵďĞƌ͗ ϭϮϲϳϱͲϬϬϭ WƌĞƉĂƌĞĚďLJ͗ d^ ^ƚŽƌŵǁĂƚĞƌYƵĂůŝƚLJKǀĞƌůĂLJŝƐƚƌŝĐƚdŝĞƌ͗;ŝƌĐůĞKŶĞͿ ^ƚĞƉϭ͗ y/^d/E',ZKs Z ΘWZKWK^ < 'ĂƌĂŐĞ ϱϯϭ ŝƚ͘ƌŝǀĞǁĂLJ ϮϲϮϱ ; džĂŵƉůĞͿ ;'ĂƌĂŐĞͿ ;ϮϰΖdžϯϬΖͿ ;ϳϮϬ^͘&͘Ϳ ,ŽƵƐĞ ϭ͕ϱϱϰ & WĂǀĞƌƐ ϭϭϲ ' ^ƚŽŽƉ Ϯϳ ŽŶĐ͘^ƚĞƉƐ ϭϱϬ ŽŶĐ͘WĂĚ ϳϳ : < ,WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĞĐŬ ϯϳϵ / ZĞƚĂŝŶŝŶŐǁĂůůƐ ϴϭ E K > D Z ^ W Y s t d h ;ϭͿdŽƚĂů džŝƐƚŝŶŐ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ ϱ͕ϱϰϬ͘ϬϬ y z džĐůƵĚĂďůĞ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ;^ĞĞŝƚLJŽĚĞ^ĞĐϳϴͲϭϲϴϰͿ͗ ĞĐŬƌĞĚŝƚ ϭϬϬ y ZĞŵŽǀĞϱΖWĂƌŬŝŶŐƵŵƉŽƵƚ ϭϬϬ ;ϮͿdŽƚĂů džĐůƵĚĂďůĞ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ ϯϬϬ z ZĞŵŽǀĞŽŶĐ͘WĂĚͲ ϳϳ ZĞŵŽǀĞWĂǀĞƌ^ƚĞƉƐ Ϯϯ й dŚŝƐŝƐĂŶŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶƉĂĐŬĞƚƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ͘ ǀĞƌLJĞĨĨŽƌƚŚĂƐďĞĞŶŵĂĚĞƚŽŝŶƐƵƌĞƚŚĞĂĐĐƵƌĂĐLJŽĨƚŚĞŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ ĐŽŶƚƌĂŝŶĞĚŚĞƌĞŝŶ͖ŚŽǁĞǀĞƌ͕ŝĨĂŶLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶŝƐŶŽƚĐŽŶƐŝƐƚĞŶƚǁŝƚŚŝƚLJŽĚĞ͕ƚŚĞŽĚĞƉƌŽǀŝƐŝŽŶƐǁŝůůƉƌĞǀĂŝů͘ ;ϯͿEĞƚ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌ^ƵďƚƌĂĐƚůŝŶĞ;ϮͿĨƌŽŵůŝŶĞ;ϭͿ ϱ͕ϮϰϬ͘ϬϬ ;ϰͿdŽƚĂů>ŽƚƌĞĂ ϭϱ͕ϰϳϮ džŝƐƚŝŶŐ,ĂƌĚĐŽǀĞƌWĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŐĞ;ϯͿн;ϰͿ ϯϯ͘ϴϳй CALDWELL DECK UPDATED: 03/01/2021 TO COMPLY WITH 75' LAKESHORE SETBACK Deck Plan Scale 1/8" = 1'-0" Date: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 746 Tonkawa Road Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist 9/18/2020 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) SB Job Number: 12675-001 Prepared by: SDR Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle One) Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER B Garage 531 C Bit. Driveway 2625 (Example) (Garage) (24' x 30') (720 S.F.) A House 1,554 F Pavers 116 G Stoop 27 D Conc. Steps 150 E Conc. Pad 77 J K H Deck 226 I Retaining walls 81 N O L M R S P Q V W T U Z (1) Total Existing Hardcover 5,387.00 X Y Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): Deck Credit 100 (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 % This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contrained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]5,287.00 (4) Total Lot Area 15,472 Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)]34.17% Date: Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 746 Tonkawa Road Prepared By: Sathre-Bergquist 2/8/2021 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) SB Job Number: 12675-001 Prepared by: TS Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle One) Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER & PROPOSED DECK B Garage 531 C Bit. Driveway 2625 (Example) (Garage) (24' x 30') (720 S.F.) A House 1,554 F Pavers 116 G Stoop 27 D Conc. Steps 150 E Conc. Pad 77 J K H Proposed Deck 379 I Retaining walls 81 N O L M R S P Q V W T U Z (1) Total Existing Hardcover 5,540.00 X Y Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): Deck Credit 100 X Remove 5' Parking Bump out 100 (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 300 Y Remove Conc. Pad -E 77 Z Remove Paver Steps 23 % This is an information packet regarding Hardcover. Every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contrained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]5,240.00 (4) Total Lot Area 15,472 Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3)+(4)]33.87% MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ 1. LA20-000074 EDWARD CALDWELL, 746 TONKAWA ROAD, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Edward Caldwell, Applicant, was present. Curtis presented a summary packet of information. The Applicants are requesting hardcover, lake setback and average lakeshore setback (ALS) variances in order to construct a new, more functional, and larger lakeside deck. They are requesting the variances in order to expand their deck by approximately 150 square feet. The existing deck is situated partially lakeward of the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS); 79.6 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (OHL), and the property’s hardcover currently exceeds 25%. The new deck, shown in blue on screen, is proposed to be 73.8 feet from the lake and will encroach approximately 3 feet more into the ALS than the existing deck. The proposed survey showing the new deck was not submitted until last Monday; upon review it reflected the unintentional encroachment of the deck into the lake setback. Today Staff spoke with Mr. Caldwell regarding the recommendation in the Staff report for denial and he has agreed to reconfigure the deck so that it does not encroach into the 75- foot setback. Tonight, the Planning Commission should focus on the ALS and the hardcover variances as the Applicant is prepared to provide a new deck configuration. The property currently exceeds the hardcover limitation by approximately 1,400 square feet and in order to avoid a hardcover increase with the project, the Applicant is proposing to offset the new deck hardcover with reductions resulting in a total net decrease of 47 square feet. Included in the removals are a 77 square foot lakeside concrete patio, parking area, and paver steps indicated in red hashed areas on the survey. Staff finds due to the existing home location, the shared driveway easement with the neighbor to the north, and the location of the neighboring homes with respect to the lake, there may be practical difficulties supporting the additional minimal encroachment in to the ALS and the hardcover variance requested to allow construction of a slightly larger deck. Supportive comments have been received from neighbors on each side of the property. Staff recommends approval of an ALS variance and a hardcover variance with reductions as noted. Staff further recommends denial of the two variances resulting in the deck within the 75-foot setback which the Applicant has agreed to resolve. Plans for the deck should be reconfigured prior to City Council review so that it does not encroach into the 75-foot setback. Ressler asked what the elevation of the proposed deck is. Curtis replied it will come off the main floor of the rambler home; she does not know the actual height but showed a drawing on screen of the home and proposed deck. Ressler thinks it is about 7.5 feet. Edward Caldwell, 746 Tonkawa Road, approached the podium and said he has been an Orono resident for 29 years. He said the property was in disrepair when they bought it 29 years ago and they have made vast improvements to the house and the outside grounds. He noted they love living in Orono, and his wife is somewhat incapacitated due to medical reasons. Mr. Caldwell has been a caregiver for his wife for almost 3 years; his oldest daughter Angie came with him tonight and he has four daughters who all went to Orono High School. When the Orono Activity Center went in, his family purchased a brick that was sold to help finance the project which read “The Caldwell Family – Spartans Forever” and it showed Angie ’84, Amy ’85, Aundie ’87, and Anne ’92. His oldest daughter Angie was the first member of the girl’s golf team in 1984 to be chosen to go to State. Mr. Caldwell’s daughter Angie said from her perspective, her parents live on the lake and the family goes there for dinners and the kids come when everybody is in town. The reason they are trying to enlarge the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ deck a couple of feet is because the Caldwell’s have a small table and if everyone is seated around the glass table on the porch, one cannot get through the walkway to get down the stairs. It is such a small little area so they are hoping to add a couple more feet and noted her sister did the plans for it, so it is a more livable deck. Angie noted it is in such disrepair right now that something has to be done as it is not safe and needs to be improved to make it functional for her parents. They love sitting out there and it is a great view. Mr. Caldwell said his second daughter Amy is a Vice President for the Architecture Division of Hy-Vee and did the plans. Gettman asked if right now the deck depth is around 11 feet and the proposed deck is around 13. The Applicant replied yes. Gettman asked if they have looked at potentially moving the deck so the square footage would potentially allow for the table to go to the right. They would then have the ability to not have to navigate around the table to go to the stairs. The Applicant said it is on the right. Gettman noted he was flipping it and clarified to the left. Angie stated the doorway that comes out of the house is on the left and the grill is right in front of it next to the railing. When her father comes out to cook on the grill, he walks right out the door and it is a permanent grill which is hardwired so they could not put the table there. Frankly anywhere they put it along that area, it is still not wide enough to get around it. She said another thing that may need to be taken into consideration is on the house side of the deck, there is an asphalt roof part that comes out and takes up a little portion of the deck. Mr. Caldwell noted it takes up about a foot and they could probably remove that and possibly remove the permanent grill and replace that. Angie clarified it is still just a really narrow, tight area. Mr. Caldwell said moving the stairs to go back instead of down towards the lake will also help make room for a table and some chairs. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Karen Weathers, the Caldwell’s neighbor next door approached the podium and wants the Planning Commission to know they are supportive and it is a very narrow deck. She hopes the Planning Commission will approve it. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Ressler asked Curtis for a clarification, as it looks like the stairs that were mentioned are in compliance and that is not what is in question right now; generally, they are speaking about the lakeshore setback of 75 feet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ Curtis replied in the affirmative and said the side setback on this property is shown at 10 feet which is the district setback. However, the lot is narrower than the district standard so they have that flexibility. Although it is shown that there is a slight encroachment, that is not accurate; it meets the setback. Ressler said the rest they need to deliberate is whether or not the Planning Commission feels comfortable encroaching further in to the lakeshore setback inside the 75. He asked if he is reading it correctly that right now, they are at 79.6. Curtis replied yes that is correct. The existing deck is shown in the dotted rectangle within the proposed deck. Ressler said it undulates because of the shoreline. Curtis said the 75-foot setback does, yes. Libby said the idea that Orono has a standard for the setback always becomes more complicated when they have a meandering lakeshore. Being this already had an existing encroachment into the ALS, he does not see any practical difficulties involved in this, but there are practical matters of use that have been explained. He tends to agree with Staff, he thinks this is something that is workable, especially with the willingness to offset some of the hard surface issues. If Kirchner understands correctly, Staff’s recommendation is to approve average lakeshore and hardcover but denial of the variance within the proposed deck area, which would then be the extension or addition of the deck area. As discussed previously he always struggles to further an encroachment and go beyond it even further; if they are going at, to, or scaling back he is usually okay with it but struggles when adding additional encroachment, especially regarding the lakeshore. Ressler noted regarding the irregular shoreline, the policies generally call for that to not be a straight line but to follow the lakeshore. If he looks at it and draws a straight line, there is no place to measure based on these plans. He asked if the measurement is based on the closest of the movement of that shoreline. Curtis said that 75-foot measurement is the closest point to the lake, the red setback indicated. She said the Applicant’s surveyor provided an updated survey showing the 75-foot setback as a line that cuts across the property and said they plan to adjust the deck to conform to the 75-foot setback. Ressler asked if that is how the application is right now or if that will be amended. Curtis clarified they have not provided the updated plans but are willing to do so. Ressler said it appears that the Applicant has agreed to stay within that 75-foot setback, make the amendments to hardcover, and the City does not have a problem with the stairs. He noted they could entertain a motion to approve as applied with the amendment that the structure stays within the guidelines of the 75-foot lakeshore setback. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA20-000074, 746 Tonkawa Road as applied with the amendment that the structure does not encroach upon the 75-foot lakeshore setback. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/11/2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/08/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/08/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 February 2021 Subject: #LA20-000074, Edward & Mary Caldwell, 746 Tonkawa Road, Variances Public Hearing Background The applicants have lived on the property for nearly 30 years without changing the footprint or expanding the home. At this time they are requesting variances in order to make an approximate 150 square foot expansion of their lakeside deck from the existing 226 square foot footprint to 379 square feet. The existing deck is situated partially lakeward of the average lakeshore setback, 79.6 feet from the OWHL, and the property’s hardcover currently exceeds 25%. The new deck (in blue) is proposed to be 73.8 feet from the OHWL, and will encroach ±3 feet more into the average lakeshore setback than the existing deck. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified existing conditions, limited functional space as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that due to the existing conditions: the house location, the shared driveway easement, and location of the neighboring homes, there may be practical difficulty supporting the additional encroachment into the average lakeshore setback and the hardcover variance requested to allow construction Application Summary: The applicants are requesting hardcover, lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances in order to construct a new, larger lakeside deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval conditioned upon removal of the hardcover areas as proposed. FILE #LA20-000074 16 Feb 2021 Page 2 of 5 of a slightly larger deck. However, regarding the 75-foot lake setback staff does not find a supportable practical difficulty to permit a new encroachment or additional hardcover. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 & 78-1279 - Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Deck Proposed Deck Street/Rear 30’ +100’ No Change North Side *7.5’ 41’ 36’ South Side *7.5’ 9’ 10’ Lakeshore 75’ 79.6’ 73.8’ Average Lakeshore The existing deck is approximately 3.5’ lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The new deck is proposed to encroach approximately 6.8’ into the ALS; about 3 feet further. *Reference City Code Section 78-330(b)(1) Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 15,472 s.f. (0.35 acre) Allowed: 3,094 s.f. (20%) Existing: 2,112 (13.6%) Proposed: 2,112 s.f. (13.6%) No Change Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 15.472 s.f. 3,868 s.f. (25 %) 5,287 s.f. (34.1%) 77 s.f. w/in 75’ 5,240 s.f. (33.8%) A small, uncalculated portion of the new deck is w/in 75’ Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback and 75-foot Lake Setback Variances (Section 78-1279) The existing deck is situated approximately 3.5’ lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Due to the need to increase the depth of the deck to a more functional size, the new deck is proposed to encroach about 3 feet further. An approximate 6.8’ encroachment lakeward of the ALS. Unfortunately, due to the curvature of the shoreline, the increased depth of the proposed deck results in a new, 75-foot setback encroachment for a small portion of the deck. Although minor, staff recommends the deck be modified to avoid this 75-foot setback encroachment. Hardcover Variance (Sections 78-1680 & 78-1700) The property currently exceeds the hardcover limitation for a Tier 1 property by approximately 1,400 square feet. Hardcover removals in the driveway areas are difficult as there is a long standing shared driveway easement with the neighbor to the north and the applicants’ garage is side loading requiring more hardcover to navigate. In order to avoid a hardcover increase with FILE #LA20-000074 16 Feb 2021 Page 3 of 5 the project, the applicant is proposing to offset the new deck hardcover with reductions resulting in a net decrease of 47 square feet. Included in the removals are a 77 square foot lakeside concrete patio, parking area, and paver steps. As noted above, the new deck configuration results in new hardcover in the 75-foot setback. The deck plan should be modified so that it does not encroach into the 75-foot setback. Proposed Hardcover Removals: Removal of portion of driveway and paver steps Removal of 77 sf concrete pad 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 requested hardcover level (with reductions) and average lakeshore setback variances are in harmony with the Ordinance as the adjacent neighbors have indicated their views of the lake will not be impacted by the improvements, and new hardcover will be offset by removals. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Regarding the average lakeshore setback and hardcover level variances, the deck project in the residential FILE #LA20-000074 16 Feb 2021 Page 4 of 5 zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the new 75-foot setback encroachment and hardcover are not supported by the Comprehensive Plan guidance. 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 portions of a deck lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable; the linear shoreline and location of the neighboring homes result in the existing non-conforming condition. The applicants have proposed hardcover removals to offset the new additions. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The location of the existing home, the orientation of the mostly straight shoreline, and location of the neighboring homes, driveway easement, and existing hardcover are conditions not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit a new deck on the lakeside of the home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality. Further, the applicants’ proposed hardcover removals will offset the new hardcover resulting from the deck. However, the new hardcover and deck within the 75-foot setback would alter the character of the locality and are not supported. 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 deck is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the existing improvements/ home, the location of the neighboring homes in line with the applicants’ home along the shoreline, the existing driveway with the easement, and existing hardcover are conditions unique to this property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the existing improvements/ home, the location of the neighboring homes in line with the applicants’ home along the shoreline, the existing driveway with the easement, and existing hardcover are unique conditions affecting the subject Property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicants have provided statements indicating that the granting of the variances are necessary for their enjoyment and preservation of their property rights. FILE #LA20-000074 16 Feb 2021 Page 5 of 5 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variance will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application of the average lakeshore setback on this property severely limits the options for expanding and/or improving the home on the lake side; the granting of the requested variance is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing home in relation to the neighboring homes. The existing hardcover exceeds permitted levels; the applicants’ proposed removals will result in a 47 square foot reduction. 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 Two supportive comment letters from the neighbors on either side have been received and are attached as Exhibit F. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of an average lakeshore setback variance, and a hardcover variance with reductions as noted. Staff recommends denial of the two variances within the 75- foot setback. The deck should be reconfigured so that it does not encroach into the 75-foot setback. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Deck Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Neighbor Comments Exhibit G. Aerial Photos Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To consider a resolution vacating a portion of unimproved alley adjacent to private property at 1121 North Arm. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 13th, 2020 and considered complete on December 17th. The 60 day review period has been extended to April 16, 2021. 3. Background. The subject property, while used as a lakeshore property, is not lakeshore; a portion of a lot owned by the city blocks lake frontage along the south half of the lot, and an unimproved alley blocks lake frontage for the north half of the lot. In January, the City Council accepted the offer to purchase approximately 930 sq. ft. of land adjacent to 1121 North Arm to facilitate a boundary line adjustment, addressing the city lot issue. The purchase price was agreed to as $1.00. The applicant requests vacation of the unimproved alleyway. A portion (approximately 418 sq. ft.) of this platted alleyway is landward of the ordinary high water line. In the area to be vacated there are no improvements, the area does not provide access to the lake or other city property, and there is no perceived public use of the property. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 on a motion to approve the vacation. The members of the Commission were in agreement that given the lack of public benefit for the property and the desire to clean up the boundary line question, the vacation should be approved. 5. Public Comment. As required by State Statute, information on the proposed vacation was sent to the DNR for their comment prior to the Planning Commission public hearing. No comments were received. Staff fielded questions from a neighbor, but no comments were received in favor or opposition to the request. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. With approval of the vacation, staff will prepare a document facilitating the Boundary Line Adjustment for Councils consideration. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Survey C. Area Map D. Planning Commission minutes Item No.: 14 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA20-000075 – Brian and Anne Huisman, 1121 North Arm Drive, Vacation of Right of Way – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO E. Planning Commission staff report References City Council Staff Report & Exhibits 1/11/21 PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2/16/21 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION VACATING AN UNIMPROVED ALLEY WITHIN THE PLAT OF FOREST LAKE ADDITION TO SAGA HILL HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA FILE NO. LA20-000075 WHEREAS, the city of Orono is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, on December 13, 2020, Brian Huisman and Anne Huisman (“Applicant[s]”), made a complete application to vacate a 15 foot by 100 foot unimproved alley adjacent to their property at 1121 North Arm Drive, legally described: That part of the alley as dedicated by FOREST LAKE ADDITION TO SAGA HILL, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying easterly of the east line of Block 1,said plat FOREST LAKE ADDITIO TO SAGA HILL; and lying northerly of the western extension of the south line of Lot 5, Skarp and Lindquist’s Fernhill, Lake Minnetonka, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota; and lying southerly of the westerly extension of the north line of Lot 4, said plat Skarp and Linquist’s Fernhill, Lake Minnetonka (hereinafter the “alley”); WHEREAS, on December 17, 2020, notification of the vacation and request for comment was mailed to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources via certified mail, as required by Minnesota Statutes; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the vacation; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council finds the vacation as proposed is in keeping with the public interest and in consideration of the following findings: Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 1. The right of way was never improved or used and is no longer necessary 2. There are no drainage or utility improvements within the right of way 3. The city Council finds the area to be vacated has not apparent present or future benefit to the public 4. The vacation does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property, 5. The city does not intend to develop, improve, or use the subject right of way. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the vacation of the described 15 foot by 100 foot alley is hereby approved by the City Council of the City of Orono on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Co u n c i l E x h i b i t B Hennepin County Property Map Date: 12/17/2020 Comments: 1 inch = 50 feet PARCEL ID: 0711723140063 OWNER NAME: Brian Huisman & Anne Huisman PARCEL ADDRESS: 1121 North Arm Dr, Orono MN 55364 PARCEL AREA: 0.56 acres, 24,402 sq ft A-T-B: Torrens SALE PRICE: $1,050,000 SALE DATA: 01/2017 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies ASSESSED 2019, PAYABLE 2020 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,125,000 TAX TOTAL: $12,704.80 ASSESSED 2020, PAYABLE 2021 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,276,000 This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT © HENNEPIN COUNTY 2020 Council Exhibit C He nn e pin Cou n ty P ro perty Ma p Da te : 12 /17/2 020 Comm en ts: 1 inc h = 4 00 fee t PAR CEL ID: 07 117 23 140 06 3 OWN ER N AME: Br ian H uisman & Ann e H uis man PAR CEL AD DRESS: 1121 N or th Arm D r, Oro no MN 55 364 PAR CEL AR EA: 0.5 6 ac re s, 24,4 02 sq ft A-T-B: To rr ens SAL E PR ICE: $1,05 0,00 0 SAL E D ATA: 0 1/20 17 SAL E C OD E: Exclu de d Fro m Ra tio Stud ies ASSESSED 20 19 , PAYABLE 202 0 PROPERT Y TYPE: R es iden t ial Lake Sh ore H OM ESTEAD : N on -H ome stea d M AR KET VAL UE: $1,1 25,00 0 TAX TO TAL: $1 2,704 .80 ASSESSED 20 20 , PAYABLE 202 1 PRO PER TY TYPE: R eside ntial La ke Sh or e HO MESTEAD: No n-h ome ste ad MARKET VALU E: $1 ,2 76 ,0 00 This data (i) is fur nish ed 'A S IS' wit h no represent at ion as t o com ple ten ess or acc urac y ; (ii) is furnis hed w it h n o war rant y of an y k ind; an d (ii i) is not sui tab le for lega l, engi neering or surv ey ing purposes . Hen nepin County s hall not be l iable fo r a ny damage, in jury or los s re sul ting f rom this dat a. COP YRIG HT © H EN N EPIN COU N TY 20 2 0 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 2. LA20-000075 BRIAN HUISMAN, 1121 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VACATION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brian Huisman, Applicant, was not present due to a conflict. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart stated the property owner at 1121 North Arm Drive is requesting a vacation of an unimproved alley that is adjacent to their property. The alley is shown on a survey on screen. A portion of the alley to be vacated is hashed in; approximately 75% of the alley is underneath the surface of the water and only about 430 feet is above the surface of the water. The Applicant proposes to vacate the entire area and the reason for this process is that this lot is the owner’s property and they technically do not have lakeshore frontage. The City owns about an acre parcel as part of an original plat from 1880 and that forms the lakeshore in the area he indicated on screen. He said the alley associated with a separate plat forms the other portion of the lakeshore. The property owner is taxed on lakeshore and uses the property as lakeshore, but technically does not have lakeshore access and the owner is looking to clean up his title in that regard. Barnhart noted the process to vacate unimproved alleys is described in the City code. The Planning Commission and City Council have to determine there is no public access or public benefit to the property to be vacated. This alley, while it is lengthy around the boundary of that plat, does not connect to any other public land access to the lake. As the alley continues further north, it is owned privately by previous action so there is no City access being lost by this proposal. As part of the process and State statute, they are required to submit a public hearing notice to the DNR for their comment and have not received any comment for this application – the DNR’s 60- day review period expired the previous day. Barnhart said it is not uncommon not to get comments from the DNR; generally, their comments are against vacation, but the City did not receive any such comment for this application. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation of this alley only, the portion that is hashed in to facilitate lakeshore access for this parcel. Barnhart noted the Applicant is not present at the meeting due to a conflict and if the Planning Commission would rather speak with him before making a decision it would be appropriate to table action until Mr. Huisman can make it at the meeting. Staff does recommend approval even with Mr. Huisman’s absence. McCutcheon said is not clear if the alley really touches the land or if it is all underwater. In the Hennepin County picture, it does not look like it, although he is splitting hairs. Barnhart replied that is a question Staff had also. In looking at Hennepin County it looks like this alley is well into the lake and it really would not impact anything at all and why go through this charade. However, the survey is much more accurate. The County aerial photo has a disclaimer that it is not 100% accurate and is not used for surveys. City Staff does rely on the survey in this case and according to the survey, he pointed out the boundary of the water when the survey was done last year. There is a portion of the alley that is landward of the ordinary high-water line. McCutcheon asked about the land parcel the City owns to the south, as it seems like a weird piece of land. Barnhart stated it is a unique portion of the community in terms of platting of Forest Lake and there is a neighborhood platted in that area of lots and right-of-way and just old remnants from when the area was platted in 1880. Kirchner asked if the lot the City owns is between the alley and Applicant’s property. Council Exhibit D MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Barnhart replied in the affirmative and said the Applicant is also requesting a boundary line adjustment for a portion of the property that is City owned, which is typically an administrative action on part of the City Staff. They would basically move the boundary line from here down to here, so they would have lake frontage the width and breadth of their lot. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:26 p.m. Ressler said this seems to be pretty similar to some of the other vacations they have seen that the City Council seems to be in support of. He does not see anything unique that would drive the Planning Commission in a different direction. Barnhart agrees and noted this is actually different than the others; the others actually provide lake access from a public way to the lake. This one is parallel, essentially, to the shoreline and does not provide any connection and is a pretty cut-and-dried case from a Staff perspective. Ressler agrees and asked if any of the Commissioners are opposed. McCutcheon said it seems that they are righting a wrong as the Applicant is paying the taxes, it is right in front of their property and he thinks it makes good sense. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA20-000075, 1121 North Arm Drive, Vacation, as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. Date Application Received: December 13, 2020 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 17, 2020 60-Day Review Period Extended to: April 16, 2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: #LA20-75, Brian and Anne Huisman, 1121 North Arm, Request for Vacation Public Hearing Background In 1888, the Forest Lake Addition to Saga Hill was platted. While much of it is now under the surface of Forest Lake, these lots and platted rights of way remain on the record. This plat included an alley around the perimeter of the lots. A portion of this alley ‘encroaches’ onto the surface, adjacent to 1121 North Arm. The applicant owns the lot at 1121 North Arm Drive. This “lakeshore” property does not have actual lake frontage, as the lake frontage is owned by another party, or within a public alley right of way. The applicant has submitted applications for a Boundary Line Adjustment (BLA) and a vacation to address these issues. The adjacent parcel (PID 01-117-23-14-0016) is owned by the city. This parcel is about 0.99 acres, with about 930 sq. ft. above the Ordinary High Water Line. The City Council has agreed to sell this 930 sq. ft. to facilitate the BLA. The shoreline encroaches into the platted alley, requiring formal vacation. Since this alley leads to or terminates in a water of the state, the DNR must be provided 60 days to comment. 60 days expires on February 15, 2021. To date, no comments have been received. The DNR generally recommends against vacating such lands. Applicable Regulations: Section 78-9 provides instruction on the vacation of streets, alleys, and public grounds: Sec. 78-9. - Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds. Vacation of streets, alleys and public grounds shall follow the procedures set forth in this chapter; except that such Vacation shall require a petition by a majority of the Application Summary: The applicant is requesting vacation of unimproved platted right of way that terminates in the Forest Lake. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval to vacate the platted alley lakeward of 1121 North Arm. Council Exhibit E FILE # LA20-75 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 2 landowners abutting the property to be vacated, and a hearing preceded by two week s' published and posted notice, all as required by Minn. Stat. § 412.851. The council may vacate any publicly owned utility easement or boulevard reserve which is not being used for sewer, drainage, electric, telegraph, telephone, gas and steam purposes or for boulevard reserve purposes, in the same manner as vacation proceedings are conducted for streets, alleys and other public ways. A boulevard reserve means an easement established adjacent to a dedicated street for the purpose of establishing open space adjacent to the street and which area is designated on the recorded plat as boulevard reserve. Analysis: To recommend for vacation, it is appropriate to first determine that there is no public use for the property. A portion of the platted alley to be vacated lies on the lake bed (below the OHWL), and there is no public access to the portion above the ordinance high water line. The parcel is not included among the public lake access listed in the Comprehensive Plan, and there are no utility improvements in the property to be vacated. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the vacation request as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Survey of the property Exhibit C. Area Maps Exhibit D. Comment request - DNR Exhibit E. MN Statutes Exhibit F. Forest Lake Addition Plat Exhibit G. Mailing information AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a conditional use permit (CUP) to install a full bathroom in an accessory building. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on January 7, 2021 and considered to be complete on January 29th. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 30, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing installation of full bathroom facilities in a proposed 884 square foot pool house building. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. Note, an administrative boundary line adjustment is in process which will add a 1.5 acre piece of 2600 Sixth Avenue to the 1150 Pine View property. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested CUP conditioned upon the standard code-required covenants. 5. Public Comment. No comments from the neighbors were received regarding the proposal. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject to the owners signing the appropriate covenant. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits of 02/16/2021 A. Application B. Proposed Survey C. Proposed Plans and Elevations D. Property Owners List E. Plat Map Item No.: 15 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000004 – Stonewood LLC o/b/o David Wohlwend, 1150 Pine View Drive, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-418(6) FILE NO. LA21 -000004 WHEREAS, on January 7, 2021, David Wohlwend (hereinafter the “Applicant”) on behalf of the David L. Wohlwend Revocable Trust under agreement dated August 18, 2011, as amended, and the Megan E. Wohlwend Revocable Trust under agreement dated August 18, 2011, as amended (hereinafter collectively the “Owner”), applied for a conditional use permit pursuant to City Code for the property addressed 1150 Pine View Drive and legally described as: Lot 3, Block 1, Pine View, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418)6) to allow a full bathroom including a shower or bathtub within an accessory building pool house; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000004. 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 RR-1B Single Family Rural Residential Zoning District. 3. Applicant has applied for a Conditional Use Permit for Plumbing in an Accessory Building 4. In considering this application for conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed conditional use permit 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: The city finds that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed accessory building improvement including the plumbing fixtures are compliant with the zoning ordinance. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by a private septic system and private well. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed pool house building is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The pool building including plumbing is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the house on the property and the surrounding area. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed pool building is expected to be residential- looking in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the Property. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the pool house building which includes plumbing is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The pool house building will be situated in a conforming location and will not be visible when viewed from off the Property on the street side, and the views from the neighbors will be screened by existing vegetation and the physical separation. In the opinion of staff, additional screening or buffering is not necessary. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed pool house building with plumbing is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed building will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed building has been visually designed to conform to the residence on the property, and will not have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 16) The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory building with a shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 17) The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the applicants’ intended use of the accessory building. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-418(6) to allow plumbing including a bathtub or shower within an accessory building pool house, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, or the approvals will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. The property owners agree to the filing of a covenant in the title of the Property providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 6 ___________________________ David L. Wohlwend, Trustee STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 20___, by David L. Wohlwend, the Trustee of David L. Wohlwend Revocable Trust under agreement dated August 18, 2011, as amended. ____________________________________ Notary Public ______________________________ Megan E. W ohlwend, Trustee STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN This instrument was acknowledged before me this ___ day of ___________, 20___, by Megan E. Wohlwend, Trustee of Megan E. Wohlwend Revocable Trust under agreement dated August 18, 2011, as amended. ____________________________________ Notary Public 10 0 . 0 0 99 . 7 1 99 . 0 0 10 0 . 0 0 99 . 7 1 99 . 0 0 9 9 . 0 0 9 7 . 5 0 99 . 5 0 97 . 5 0 9 7 . 5 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 9 . 7 1 ST E P F T G S A S R E Q ' D . S T E P F T G S A S R E Q ' D . 10 0 . 0 0 99 . 7 1 9 9 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 9 . 7 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 9 . 0 0 9 9 . 5 0 W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 100.0099.7199.00 100.00 99.7199.00 99.00 97.50 99.5097.5097.50100.0099.71 STEP FTGS AS REQ'D.STEP FTGS AS REQ'D.100.00 99.71 99.00 100.00 99.71 100.00 99.00 99.50 W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ 3. LA21-000004 STONEWOOD LLC, 1150 PINE VIEW DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) John Daly with Stonewood LLC, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis said the Applicant is proposing to install a full bathroom within a proposed 884 square foot pool-house building. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is required due to the proposed shower within an accessory building. Additionally, if the survey looked a little odd, there is an administrative boundary line adjustment in process, so the property is changing shape but it does not affect the application before the Planning Commission. Curtis noted they are adding a portion of the neighboring property to their own. Staff has not received any public comments on the CUP request; Staff is recommending approval conditioned upon the property owners’ agreement to the filing of a restrictive covenant in the title of the property which addresses the plumbing and the use providing that the pool house will not be used for home occupation, used as a dwelling, rented, leased, or otherwise used as a dwelling under any circumstances. Ressler noted this seems very similar to many, many others that the Planning Commission has approved and really seems to be pulled in front of them because of the additional toilet and shower. Curtis clarified it is because of the shower. Ressler noted there is nothing exotic that he is not catching. Curtis replied no, it is very straightforward. John Daly with Stonewood LLC, 153 East Lake Street, said this is pretty procedural and the structure being built is a pool house and that is the intent with the shower. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m. Kirchner believes it has been summarized well and is very similar to many others the Planning Commission has approved. He does not see anything as an issue and the only reason it is before them is because of the indoor plumbing in an accessory structure. Staff is recommending the standard restrictive covenants. Beyond that he does not know there is much discussion to be had. Ressler agrees. Gettman asked regarding the Keller Road, is there the potential or concern that the road would be extended in some way to have that accessory building tied in. Curtis replied no, Keller Road is in Medina and there is no connection planned. Ressler thinks it is laid out that it cannot be leased, the City already has covenants about short-term leasing and all the bases seem to be covered. He asked if there was any opposition. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000004, 1150 Pine View Drive, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 01/07/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/29/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/30/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 February 2021 Subject: #LA21-000004, Stonewood LLC o/b/o David Wohlwend, 1150 Pine View Dr CUP Public Hearing Background The applicant wishes to install full bathroom facilities in a proposed 884 square foot pool house building. A conditional use permit is required due to the proposed shower. Additionally, an administrative boundary line adjustment is in process which will add a 1.5 acre piece of 2600 Sixth Avenue to the 1150 Pine View property. The proposed building location as it is shown partially under the existing power lines. Their surveyor has confirmed that he found no easement recorded against the property for the power lines. The builder and property owner have been advised to reach out to the power company to confirm. Applicable Regulations: Plumbing in the Accessory Building CUP (Section 78-418(6)) The proposed pool house building is permitted. The applicant’s request to install a bathroom with full bathing facilities requires a CUP. The building is a conforming size, and proposed in a conforming location. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install a full bathroom, including shower, in a new pool building. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA20-000059 19 Oct 2020 Page 2 of 4 Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; The proposed use is residential in nature and residential use is consistent with the CMP guiding for this neighborhood. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed accessory building improvement including the plumbing fixtures are compliant with the zoning ordinance. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; The proposed use will be adequately served by existing services and facilities. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by a private septic system and private well. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed pool house building is residential in character and its use is expected to be compatible with the surrounding area. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The pool building including plumbing is residential in visual character and is expected to be compatible with the house on the property and the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The architectural styling of the proposed pool building is expected to be residential- looking in character and consistent with that of the principal structure on the Property. FILE # LA20-000059 19 Oct 2020 Page 3 of 4 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The use of the pool house building which includes plumbing is not expected to have any adverse impacts. No information has been presented to indicate such. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The pool house building will be situated in a conforming location and will not be visible when viewed from off the Property on the street side, and the views from the neighbors will be screened by existing vegetation and the physical separation. In the opinion of staff, additional screening or buffering is not necessary. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed pool house building with plumbing is not expected to cause any of these undesirable impacts. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; It is anticipated that the proposed building will not generate any of these undesirable issues. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The proposed building has been visually designed to conform to the residence on the property, and will not have a negative environmental impact. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; Applicants are hereby advised of this requirement; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Further approval shall be granted only when the following criteria are met: 1. The council finds that the proposed use of the accessory building with a shower will not be detrimental to the residential character of the neighborhood. 2. The council finds that the plumbing fixtures proposed are in keeping with the applicants’ intended use of the accessory building. 3. The property owner agrees to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: a. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. b. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. c. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. FILE # LA20-000059 19 Oct 2020 Page 4 of 4 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 as allowed by the Zoning Code? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the approval, 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 Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the property owners’ agreement to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property addressing the plumbing, providing that the pool house will not be: 1. Used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the city or if allowed by this Code. 2. Used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained. 3. Rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Survey Exhibit C. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit D. Property Owners List Exhibit E. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances to permit a rooftop deck. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received and considered to be complete on January 18, 2021.Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 29, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. The existing nonconforming building on the property is currently undergoing a renovation as a home with a partial 2nd story addition. The applicant would like to expand the existing rooftop deck area more toward the edge of the building to expand the outdoor living space. Due to the location of the existing building, outdoor recreation/living space is quite limited; rear and side street setback variances are requested to permit the railings. The encroaching portions of the deck currently show black coated aluminum railing with cables. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16th, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested setback variances. 5. Public Comment. Neighbor acknowledgements forms were submitted; no written comments from the neighbors were received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 02/16/2021 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Survey D. Railing Detail & Layout E. Proposed Plans and Elevations for House remodel F. Photos of House Before Renovations G. Neighbor Acknowledgments H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map Item No.: 16 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000007 – Pillar Homes, 3220 Navarre Lane Variances – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-350 FILE NO. LA21 -000007 WHEREAS, on January 18, 2021, Pillar Homes (hereinafter the “Applicant”) on behalf of Station 7 LLC, the Owner, applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 3220 Navarre Ln and legally described as: Lot 64, Wallace’s Addition to the Village of Minnetonka Beach, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow installation of a rooftop railing 8.8 feet from the rear lot line where a 30 foot setback is required; and 14.2 feet from the side street lot line where a 15 foot setback is required on top of the existing building; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000007. 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-1C Single Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.14 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 34.1 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 2 and hardcover is limited to 30% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Rear Setback Variance b. Side Street Setback Variance 6. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed setback variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard lot has difficulties in its small size. The house location is nonconforming. The proposed volume “expansions” resulting from the railing are set in from the property lines as they are inset from the edges of the building. The encroachment does not increase the massing of the home. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variances proposed to improve a rooftop patio area on this nonconforming lot of record are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a. The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The request to permit installation of the rooftop railings on the home on the substandard lot is reasonable. 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 substandard lot size and location of the home are existing conditions. Therefore there is no available land with which to make the Property more conforming. The limited yard/open space availability is a condition not created by the owners. There should be consideration for variance approval for a minimal railing encroachment within the setbacks above the existing building. The house addition and renovation have been designed with an effort toward working within the existing building and required setbacks without sacrificing functionality; and c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The variances are requested in order to permit the creation of additional outdoor space with minimal impact to massing or additional encroachments into setbacks, which is reasonable. The project should not alter the character of the neighborhood. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as improvements to a residential home are allowed 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, depth, and unique configuration creates difficulties which do not apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. Prior to the renovation, the existing non-residential-looking building was out of character with the neighborhood. The current renovation and the proposed railing encroachments will make the building appear more residential in character. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The Property’s substandard size, depth, house location, in addition to the unique configuration creates difficulties which apply to very few properties in the City. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting setback variances to permit the rooftop railings is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the owner. The improvements will be on top of, and set inside the boundaries of the existing home and will not increase any setback nonconformities. The setback variances facilitate creation of additional outdoor living space within the property and preserve the property rights of the owner. 11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the setback variances for the rooftop railing 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 use of the Property has been established with the house. The expansion of corresponding improvements may be considered a convenience to the owners. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants variances from Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-350 to allow installation of a rooftop railing 8.8 feet from the rear lot line where a 30 foot setback is required; and 14.2 feet from the side street lot line where a 15 foot setback is required on top of the existing building, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the owners, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 obtained within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 2 4 ' - 0 " 1 6 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T 1 6 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " 1 2 ' - 0 " TO P O F S L A B TO P O F P A R A P E T TO P O F W A L L (E X I S T I N G ) TO P O F P A R A P E T 2 2 ' - 0 " SI D I N G N O T E S : -V E R T I C A L M E T A L S I D I N G W/ F U R R I N G S T R I P S P E R E L E V A T I O N -1 X C E D A R D O O R & W I N D O W T R I M (S T A I N E D ) -B R I C K T O M A T C H E X I S T I N G (P A I N T E D ) -L P L A P S I D I N G W / 5 " R E V E A L (S I T E F I N I S H E D ) EN T R Y O V E R H A N G -C A N T I L E V E R W / S T E E L SU P P O R T S -W R A P I N B L A C K M E T A L -T & G C E D A R C E I L I N G -R E C E S S E D L I G H T I N G CE D A R S I D I N G 3 ' - 0 " 8 ' - 0 " CE D A R F A C E D GA R A G E D O O R 30 2 2 BL A C K P A R A P E T AL U M I N U M C A B L E R A I L I N G 1 4 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T TO P O F W A L L (E X I S T I N G ) TO P O F P A R A P E T 4' - 0 " 48 ' - 1 1 " 6' - 8 " 3 ' - 0 " IS S U E D A T E A2 . 0 EL E V A T I O N 11 . 1 1 . 2 0 L E W I S R E S I D E N C E 3 2 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WD S 95 2 . 2 5 0 . 1 9 4 1 OV E R H E A D D O O R T O G A R A G E OV E R H E A D D O O R T O L I V I N G SI D I N G A T F R O N T O F G A R A G E EX T E R I O R L I G H T I N G CA B L E R A I L I N G Ra i l i n g Pe r s p e c t i v e f r o m N a v a r r e L a n e - s t r e e t l e v e l 24 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T 16 ' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 12 ' - 0 " TOP OF SLAB TOP OF PARAPET TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TOP OF PARAPET 22 ' - 0 " SIDING NOTES: -VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS PER ELEVATION -1X CEDAR DOOR & WINDOW TRIM (STAINED) -BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING (PAINTED) -LP LAP SIDING W/ 5" REVEAL (SITE FINISHED) ENTRY OVERHANG -CANTILEVER W/ STEEL SUPPORTS -WRAP IN BLACK METAL -T&G CEDAR CEILING -RECESSED LIGHTING CEDAR SIDING 3' - 0 " 8' - 0 " CEDAR FACED GARAGE DOOR 3 0 2 2 BLACK PARAPET ALUMINUM CABLE RAILING 14 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TOP OF PARAPET 4'-0" 48'-11" 6'-8" 3' - 0 " ISSUE DATE A2.0 ELEVATION 11.11.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 OVERHEAD DOOR TO GARAGE OVERHEAD DOOR TO LIVING SIDING AT FRONT OF GARAGE EXTERIOR LIGHTING CABLE RAILING CONTACT: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGNER: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO MAX WINDMILLER T. 952.250.1941 E. MAX@WINDMILLERDS.COM BUILDER PILLAR HOMES PRESIDENT: KC CHERMAK 1700 NIAGARA LN NORTH PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 763-475-1700 OFFICE E. KC@PILLARHOMES.COM OWNER MIKE LEWIS E. LEWDOG23@HOTMAIL.COM ISSUE DATE T1.0 TITLE 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1LEWIS R E S I D E N C E 3 2 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 A2.0 ELEVATIONS ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING INDEX TITLE SHEET A1.0 T1.0 FOUNDATION PLAN A2.1 9.1.20 A1.1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A1.2 UPPER LEVEL PLAN ELEVATIONS A3.0 BUILDING SECTIONS A3.1 BUILDING SECTION REVISED SET DATE: PERMIT SET DATE: 9.1.20 9.1.20 9.1.20 9.1.20 9.1.20 9.1.20 A4.0 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9.1.20 A4.1 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A5.0 SPECIFICATIONS S1.0 FOUNDATION STRUCTURAL 9.1.20 MAIN LEVEL STRUCTURAL UPPER LEVEL STRUCTURAL 9.1.20 9.1.20 S1.1 S1.2 S2.1 S2.2 S2.3 STRUCTURAL NOTES 9.1.20 9.1.20 9.1.20 STRUCTURAL DETAILS STRUCTURAL DETAILS 9.1.20 E1.0 FOUNDATION RCP E1.1 MAIN LEVEL RCP E1.2 UPPER LEVEL RCP KING BED 36'-0" 50 ' - 0 " UNEXCAVATED 3'-0" 8' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 8' - 0 " 4' - 3 3 / 4 " 8' - 0 " 50 " W I N D O W HE I G H T EG R E S S 1'-1" 18 ' - 9 3 / 4 " 28'-4 1/2" 14 ' - 3 3 / 4 " 3/4 BATH EG R E S S W.I.C. 14 ' - 1 1 / 2 " 8'-4" 8' - 9 " BEDROOM #1 BAR / MEDIA LIVING ROOM HALL UTILITY 25'-7 1/2" 14'-0" 5'-3" 18'- 0 " 8'- 0 " UP 4'-6 " 9'-0" X 8'-0" O.H. DOOR IN EXISTING LOCATION ENTRY WASHER/ DRYER 8'-1" 8' - 4 1 / 2 " 10 ' - 5 1 / 4 " TILE 36" VANITY 2'-6" 2'-8" 5'-3" 2' - 0 " 7' - 5 " 3' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 3' - 3 3 / 4 " 2' - 0 " 2' - 0 " 3 ' - 0 " 10" BENCH CONCRETE CARPET CONCRETE CONCRETE 511 S.F. CONCRETE 2' - 0 " 9' - 2 1 / 2 " 3'-0" EXISTING OPENING NEW FULL HEIGHT FOUNDATION WALL W/ REINFORCED CONC. FOOTINGS NEW FULL HEIGHT FOUNDATION WALL W/ REINFORCED CONC. FOOTINGS 3' - 0 " CONCRETE NEW CONC. SLAB SUMP & BOILER BELOW LANDING NEW PAD FOOTING SIZING & SPEC. BY ENGINEER NEW PAD FOOTING SIZING & SPEC. BY ENGINEER TOOL STORAGE 6' - 1 1 3 / 4 " CLOSET SHELVES 2'-6" 2'-4" 2' - 4 " 2'- 4 " 2' - 4 " FURN. PRESSURE WASHER TANK WATER HTR 10'-0"9'-2" M.O. +/- 4 1 ' - 4 " N E W F O U N D A T I O N W A L L STEP FOOTING & FOUNDATION WALL W/ GRADE LINE OF BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENT 2'-8" SE C R E T D O O R LINE OF ENTRY OVERHANG 7'-6" 4' - 0 " PERVIOUS PAVERS BY OWNER PATIO 1' - 9 " NEW FOUNDATION WALL EX I S T I N G F O U N D A T I O N W A L L TYPICAL NEW BELOW GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: -4" REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB VERIFY FINAL FINISH W/ OWNER -VAPOR BARRIER CONTINUOUS UNDER SLAB -2" RIGID INSULATION -5" COMPACTED CLASS 5 GRAVEL BACKFILL PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E SE T B A C K L I N E 7'- 6 " 7'- 1 0 1 / 4 " 5'-3 1/2"3'-4"5'-0" 4' - 9 " 2' - 8 " 3'-2"4'-2" 2' - 0 " 3' - 6 " 3' - 2 " 5' - 7 3 / 4 " 1' - 5 1 / 2 " 5' - 3 1 / 2 " 13'-6" 1 A3.0 2 A3.0 3 A3.0 7' - 7 " 24 ' - 0 " 3'-0 " 3'-0 " 7'-6 " NEW FOUNDATION WALL BE N C H W / H O O K S 2'-6 " 3' - 6 " 2'-6" 6' - 6 3 / 4 " BUILT-IN BENCH BUILT-IN BENCH NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE A1.0 LOWER LEVEL PLAN 9.24.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 36" REF. 36'-0" 50 ' - 0 " 72'-8" 34'-8" 5'-5"4'-2 1/2"5'-4"5'-0"2' - 0 " 4' - 2 1 / 2 " 4' - 2 1 / 2 " 4' - 2 1 / 2 " 4' - 2 1 / 2 " 7' - 1 1 / 2 " 4' - 0 " 5' - 1 0 " 1' - 4 " 8" GARAGE 14'-10 1/2" CEILING HEIGHT 13'-7 1/4" TO BOTTOM OF STEEL BEAM 15'-8" 15 ' - 6 " SH U F F L E B O A R D TV 15.75' X 8.86' 6' - 6 1 / 2 " 6' - 2 " 4' - 8 " 20'-4" KITCHEN MEDIA 9'-0" X 9'-0" O.H. DOOR ENTRY DN UP 4' - 8 " HI G H T O P S E A T I N G O N C A S T E R S 21'-0"15'-8" BENCH W/ HOOKS 9'-0" CEILING 11'-11" CEILING HT. 13'-8" CEILING HT. 36 " R A N G E ST O R A G E 4'- 5 " 3'-0 " 8'- 8 " 4'- 8 1 / 4 " 19 ' - 9 " 3/4 BATH LI N E O F L O F T A B O V E TV LIN E O F B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K EXISTING OPENING NEW DOOR 10'-0" X 13'-0" O.H. DOOR NEW OVERHEAD DOOR IN EXISTING LOCATION NEW ELEC. PANEL W/ 400 AMP SERVICE 30 " S I N K STEEL POST 2 X 12 FLOOR JOISTS TAP OPAQUE PRIVACY GLASS FI L L I N W I N D O W FILL IN DOOR 6'-1 " 2'-4" CONCRETE 2'-6" D.W. 6' - 5 " 2'-4 " 3'-2"2'-0" 5'-6 1/2" 2 ' - 8 " CONCRETE FLOOR CONCRETE FLOOR 17 ' - 0 " 6' - 6 " 4' - 6 " 8'-0" MATCH FLOOR HEIGHT OF GARAGE FU R R O U T W A L L W/ 2 X 8 S T U D S FI L L I N W I N D O W FILL IN WINDOW 2' - 8 " 36" H O P E N R A I L I N G 4'-2 " 10'- 4 " 9'-2 " 2 X 12 FLOOR JOISTS 3'-6" X 8'-0" 3' - 6 " X 8 ' - 0 " W/ S I D E L I T E 3' - 9 " X 8 ' - 0 " RE-USE REFURBISHED EXISTING WINDOW 11'-11" CEILING HT.13'-8" CEILING HT. 20'- 1 1 " C E I L I N G H T . 13'- 8 " C E I L I N G H T . 3 ' - 0 " X 8 ' - 0 " FILL IN WINDOW PRESSURE WASHER HOOK UP AIR COMPRESSOR CONNECTION (#1) AIR COMPRESSOR CONNECTION (#2) AIR COMPRESSOR CONNECTION (#3) 14'-8"9'-10" LINE OF ENTRY OVERHANG 6'-6" 4' - 0 " 3'-6" FI L L I N W I N D O W REFINISH EXISTING STRUCTURAL CONCRETE SLAB CONCRETE ENTRY STOOP PAVERSPAVERS DRIVEWAY #1 PERVIOUS PAVERS 10'-0"10'-0" DRIVEWAY #2 PERVIOUS PAVERS LANDSCAPE DESIGN BY OTHERS 7' - 0 " PROPERTY LINE PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E PR O P E R T Y L I N E 5'-6 " 1 A3.0 2 A3.0 3 A3.0 7' - 7 " 24 ' - 0 " 36 " H C O U N T E R W/ S T O R A G E B E L O W 2'-8 " NO HVAC IN THIS LOCATION U/C REF. U/C MICRO TR./REC. 3'-0 " X 5 ' - 6 " 5'-0 " X 6 ' - 0 " 5' - 0 " X 6 ' - 0 " NO H V A C I N TH I S L O C A T I O N PAINTED TRUSSES (BLACK) WOOD CEILING (STAINED) EXPOSED CEILING EXPOSED CEILING EXPOSED CEILING EXPOSED CEILING 2'- 4 " 5'- 0 " 2' - 0 " FL U S H B E A M NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE A1.1 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 9.22.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 50 ' - 0 " 15'-4" 11 ' - 0 " BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 20'-4" 1' - 1 1 1 / 2 " 7' - 4 " OP E N R A I L I N G 11 ' - 7 " 11'-2 3/4" 4'-1 " 4'-0" 8'- 0 " DN UP 4'- 0 " LIN E O F B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K ROOF TOP DECK 23 ' - 4 " 21 ' - 8 " 14'-0" 2'-0 " 2' - 0 " 2 ' - 0 " 2'-0 " 2' - 6 " 2'-6 " 5'-5"5'-5" 3'-9 1/2" 4'-2 " 6'-8 " STAINLESS FREE STANDING SINK HOSE BIB ROOF GARDEN 5' - 0 " RAISE ROOF FOR STAIRS TO DECK EG R E S S 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " EG R E S S 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " EG R E S S 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " EG R E S S 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " 3'-0" X 6'-8" INSULATED STEEL DOOR LINE OF BUILDING SETBACK LI N E O F B U I L D I N G S E T B A C K 1 A3.0 2 A3.0 3 A3.0 4'-2"8'-8"8'-8" 4'-6 " 7'-0 " 7'-0 " 3'-0 " X 3 ' - 0 " 3'-0 " X 3 ' - 0 " 3'-0 " X 3 ' - 0 " 17'- 8 " 3'-0 " X 3 ' - 0 " 3'-0" X 3'-0"3'-0" X 3'-0"3'-0" X 3'-0" EQ . EQ . EQ . EQ . 5' - 6 " 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE A1.2 LOFT LEVEL PLAN 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 50 ' - 0 " ROOF TOP DECK STAINLESS FREE STANDING SINK HOSE BIB ROOF GARDEN 3' - 0 " X 3 ' - 0 " SLOPE ROOF FOR DRAINAGE S L O P E R O O F F O R D R A I N A G E SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT SCUPPER & DOWNSPOUT SLOPE ROOF FOR DRAINAGE SC U P P E R & D O W N S P O U T SL O P E R O O F F O R D R A I N A G E SC U P P E R & D O W N S P O U T RUBBER MEMBRANE ROOF RUBBER MEMBRANE ROOF PA R A P E T W A L L PARAPET WALL PA R A P E T W A L L PARAPET WALL PA R A P E T W A L L PA R A P E T W A L L SL O P E R O O F F O R D R A I N A G E NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: METAL DRIP EDGE LOCKED SEAM EPDM MEMBRANE - TURN DOWN PAST BLOCKING EDGE SEALANT GUTTER CONTINUOUS OPENING FLASHING TO MATCH GUTTER WRAPPED OVER EDGE OF DECK SINGLE PLY CONTINUOUS MEMBRANE WRAPPED INTO SCUPPER SIDING PER ELEVATION 3/4" PLYWOOD PARAPET WALL DOWNSPOUT SHEET METAL SCUPPER SOLDERED/WELDED - SECURED TO WALL & DECK OR OPTIONAL WOOD BLOCKING MEMBRANE FLASHING SHEET ADHERED TO BACKER, MOP - OR COLD APPLIED BACKER INSULATION ISSUE DATE A1.3 ROOF PLAN 9.30.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 24 ' - 0 " 16 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T 16 ' - 0 " 9' - 0 " 12 ' - 1 0 " TOP OF SLAB TOP OF PARAPET FILL IN DOOR FILL IN WINDOW TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TOP OF PARAPET 22 ' - 0 " SIDING NOTES: -VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS PER ELEVATION -1X CEDAR DOOR & WINDOW TRIM (STAINED) -BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING (PAINTED) -LP LAP SIDING W/ 5" REVEAL (SITE FINISHED) ENTRY OVERHANG -CANTILEVER W/ STEEL SUPPORTS -WRAP IN BLACK METAL -T&G CEDAR CEILING -RECESSED LIGHTING 14 ' - 8 " E X I S T I N G P A R A P E T H E I G H T TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TOP OF PARAPET ISSUE DATE A2.0 ELEVATION 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 LOWER LEVEL TOP OF SLAB 14 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " MAIN LEVEL TOP OF SLAB CEILING HEIGHT PARAPET HEIGHT 1' - 9 1 / 2 " TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TOP OF PARAPET SIDING NOTES: -VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS PER ELEVATION -1X CEDAR DOOR & WINDOW TRIM (STAINED) -BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING (PAINTED) -LP LAP SIDING W/ 5" REVEAL (SITE FINISHED) 22 ' - 0 " LOWER LEVEL TOP OF SLAB 14 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 9' - 6 " MAIN LEVEL TOP OF SLAB CEILING HEIGHT (GARAGE) PARAPET HEIGHT 1' - 9 1 / 2 " PARAPET HEIGHT 7' - 4 " 4'-0" 4'-0" ISSUE DATE A2.1 ELEVATION 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 8' - 9 " 8' - 8 " 4'-6" 4'-6" 1'- 0 " TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION: -SEE STRUCTURAL DETAILS -SIDING: PER ELEVATION -BUILDING PAPER -1/2" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING -2 x 8 TIMBERSTRAND LSL FRAMING @ 16" O.C. -MIN. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSULATION -4 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER -1/2" INTERIOR GYP. BOARD SMOOTH FINISH PROVIDE PLYWOOD BACKING FOR TV MOUNT VERIFY STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL FUR OUT EXTERIOR WALL W/ 2X8 STUDS TO FRAME TV VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS TYPICAL NEW BELOW GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: -VAPOR BARRIER CONTINUOUS UNDER SLAB -2" RIGID INSULATION -5" COMPACTED CLASS 5 GRAVEL BACKFILL 9' - 6 " 9'-7" 9'-2" 6'-8" TOP OF PLATE TOP OF PARAPET VERIFY EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING 19 ' - 0 " RISERS: 7 3/4" HIGH TREADS: 11" DEEP RISERS: 7 5/8" HIGH TREADS: 11" DEEP 21 ' - 0 " 4' - 6 1 / 4 " 1'- 0 " STORAGE W/ ACCESS DOORS 2'-8" PLYWOOD PANELING WALL (VERIFY) 1'- 0 " TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION: -SIDING: PER ELEVATION -BUILDING PAPER -1/2" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING -2 x 8 TIMBERSTRAND LSL FRAMING @ 16" O.C. -MIN. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSULATION -4 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER -1/2" INTERIOR GYP. BOARD SMOOTH FINISH PROVIDE PLYWOOD BACKING FOR TV MOUNT VERIFY STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL FUR OUT EXTERIOR WALL W/ 2X8 STUDS TO FRAME TV VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS TYPICAL NEW BELOW GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: -VAPOR BARRIER CONTINUOUS UNDER SLAB -2" RIGID INSULATION -5" COMPACTED CLASS 5 GRAVEL BACKFILL TOP OF PLATE TOP OF PARAPET VERIFY EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING 19 ' - 0 " 8' - 1 " 1' - 0 " 11 ' - 1 1 " 3' - 8 " 44 " M A X . S I L L H T . 2 X 12 FLOOR JOISTS BEDROOM KITCHEN GAME ROOM LP LAP SIDING 5" REVEAL 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 6 " 1' - 2 " 13 ' - 8 " 10 ' - 7 " 1' - 4 " 1' - 0 " TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) TYPICAL WALL CONSTRUCTION: -SIDING: PER ELEVATION -BUILDING PAPER -1/2" EXTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING -2 x 8 TIMBERSTRAND LSL FRAMING @ 16" O.C. -MIN. R-21 FIBERGLASS INSULATION -4 MIL. POLY VAPOR BARRIER -1/2" INTERIOR GYP. BOARD SMOOTH FINISH NEW REINFORCED FOUNDATION WALL VERTICAL METAL SIDING W/ FURRING STRIPS TYPICAL NEW BELOW GRADE FOUNDATION CONSTRUCTION: -VAPOR BARRIER CONTINUOUS UNDER SLAB -2" RIGID INSULATION -5" COMPACTED CLASS 5 GRAVEL BACKFILL TOP OF PLATE TOP OF PARAPET NEW REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING 19 ' - 0 " KITCHEN 8" TOP OF WALL (EXISTING) VERIFY STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL TOP OF PLATE TOP OF PARAPET VERIFY EXISTING REINFORCED CONCRETE FOOTING 13 ' - 8 " EXPOSED GLU LAM BEAM ROOF TRUSSES PLYWOOD WALLS STEEL POST STEEL POST 10 ' - 5 " 1' - 6 " 3' - 7 " NOTE: WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR STRUCTURAL OR DIMENSIONAL ERRORS OR OMISSIONS. WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORKMANSHIP OF THE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR OWNER MUST VERIFY AND CHECK ALL NOTES, DETAILS, ELEVATIONS, SECTIONS AND FLOOR PLANS AND NOTIFY WINDMILLER DESIGN STUDIO, LLC. OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS FOR POSSIBLE CORRECTION PRIOR TO THE START OF CONSTRUCTION. GENERAL NOTES: 1. Important:DOOGLPHQVLRQVDUH*HQHUDOFRQWUDFWRUWRILHOGYHULI\DOO existing site conditions prior to commencement of construction. 2. All dimensions to framing & exterior sheathing unless otherwise noted. 3. All dimensions have precedence over scaled drawings. 4. All structural components & connections to be engineered by supplier. 5. All window headers to be 2- 2x10's unless otherwise noted. 6. All wood abutting concrete to be treated. 7. All angles to be 45 degrees unless otherwise noted. 8. General contractor to install all products per manufacturers' recommendations. 9. General contractor shall not commence work under this contract prior to submitting proof of insurance and approval of the owner. 10. General contractor and his subcontractors shall obtain all required permits before starting the work, and obtain sign-offs upon completion of the work. 11. General contractor shall provide all labor, materials and services necessary to complete the entire scope of work, and shall coordinate all trades, material delivery schedules, etc. to perform the job in the most expeditious manner. 12. General contractor shall be responsible for the security of all building materials and fixtures during construction and providing all necessary protection to existing occupied areas. 13. General contractor shall perform daily clean-up of the job site. 14. General contractor shall perform final clean-up of the site upon completion of the work. 15. General contractor to comply with all local, state and federal codes. 16. The prevailing building code is the Residential Building Code (RBC) 17. Construction should be performed to current state of Minnesota Building & energy codes and local industry standards and standard industry practices. 18. All windows & doors should be installed per manufacturers installation requirements and the Minnesota Lath and Plaster Bureau requirements. 19. All weather resistive barriers should be installed per IRC Sec. R703.2 as amended by the state of Minnesota rules section 1309.0707 20. Engineering- All HVAC, plumbing, electrical, soils and structural engineering and design shall be provided by the respective subcontractor/supplier of those systems and coordinated by the general contractor. Information herein shown in these regards is provided for clarification of the overall project's design intent only. 21. Product Information- Provide samples and shop drawings for all materials and fabricated items to the extent the owner has full understanding of the products and/or design of. 22. Specifications- Contractor shall disclose to the owner and coordinate all specifications of all aspects of the work that are not indicated in the drawings or pre-selected by the owner. Note: Verify girder or point loads with truss/joist supplier that are associated with structure not indicated on plans and cannot be supported on typical spread footing. Notify footing & foundation supplier prior to proceeding with any work. PLAN NOTES: GENERAL FRAMING INFORMATION: ALL WOOD FRAMING TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND THE NATIONAL DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS FOR WOOD CONSTRUCTION PUBLISHED BY THE NATIONAL FOREST PRODUCTS ASSOCIATION (NFPA) IMPORTANT:$//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&72572),(/'9(5,)<$// EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION. THESE PLANS INDICATED CONCEPTUAL TRUSS CONFIGURATIONS AND LOADING CONDITIONS. ALL FLOOR AND ROOF TRUSSES INDICATED ON THESE PLANS ARE TO BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY THE MANUFACTURER LICENSED TO PRACTICE WITHIN THE STATE OF THE PROJECT. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION VERIFY ALL POINT LOAD AND BEARING CONDITIONS AND COORDINATE POSTS AND BEARING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE BUILDER. NOTIFY ARCHITECT/ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES FROM THESE PLANS. FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR AND FURNISH ALL BLOCKING, STIFFENERS, BRACING, FASTENERS, HARDWARE, ETC. NECESSARY FOR INSTALLATION. ALL CONVENTIONAL LUMBER TO BE HEM-FIR #2 GRADE OR BETTER. MINIMUM LVL LUMBER PROPERTIES: Fb = 2,600 PSI Fv = 285 PSI E = 1,900,000 PSI UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE: EXTERIOR WALLS (INCLUDING GARAGE WALLS) TYPICALLY TO BE 2X6 CONSTRUCTION, INTERIOR WALLS TYPICALLY TO BE 2X4, INTERIOR WALL WITH POCKET DOORS TO BE 2X6 CONSTRUCTION. POCKET DOORS TO BE CUSTOM FABRICATED WITH "TIMBERSTRAND ENGINEERED FRAMING". CABINET WALLS AND BALLOON FRAMED WALLS SHALL BE FRAMED WITH "TIMBERSTRAND". PLAN DIMENSIONS ARE TYPICALLY TAKEN TO OUTSIDE OF WALL SHEATHING AT EXTERIOR WALLS AND TO CENTER LINES OF FACE OF STUD AT INTERIOR WALLS. COLUMN SIZES SHALL NOT EXCEED CRUSHING STRENGTH OF THE PLATES THEY BEAR ON- SIZE AS REQUIRED. UTILIZE SQUASH BLOCKING OR BEAR DIRECTLY ON FOUNDATION. USE PRESERVATIVE TREATED COLUMNS, BEAMS, PLATES, MISC. FRAMING MEMBERS AS REQUIRED BY CODE AND AS CALLED OUT IN PLANS. WHERE WOOD FRAMING SIZES ARE INDICATED. MANUFACTURER TO VERIFY GRADE AND SPACING REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN MINIMUM L/480 DEFLECTION. ALL FLOOR BEAMS TO BE SET FLUSH WITH FLOOR FRAMING UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE. ALL ROOF BEAMS TO BE DROPPED UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE DROPPED FLOOR BEAMS OR ROOF BEAMS SHALL BE 12" MAXIMUM DEPTH UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. SILL PLATES SHALL BE 2X6 MINIMUM. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL BE 1/2" MIN. DIAMETER (U.N.O.) CAST IN PLACE WITH 7" EMBED. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALL HAVE 2" DIA. X 0.125" THICK WASHERS TIGHTENED AND COUNTERSUNK 1/4" INTO THE TOP OF THE SILL PLATE. SPACING SHALL BE 48" O.C. WITH A MIN. OF TWO BOLTS PER PIECE WITH BOLT LOCATED NO MORE THAN 12" OR LESS THAN 4" FROM EACH END OF EACH PIECE. AT TILED FLOOR AREAS USE MUDSET METHOD AND DEPRESS FLOOR SHEATHING SO IT IS FLUSH WITH TOP OF FLOOR FRAMING (SHEATHING IN BETWEEN FRAMING MEMBERS) WINDOW DESIGNATIONS ON PLANS INDICATE FRAME WIDTH X HEIGHT. VERIFY ROUGH OPENING SIZES WITH WINDOW MANUFACTURER. AS A MINIMUM, UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE ON PLANS, PROVIDE DOUBLE STUD AT ALL HEADER AND LINTEL SUPPORTS (ONE FULL HEIGHT KING STUD AND ONE JACK STUD) SHEATHING: ALL EXTERIOR WALLS TO HAVE CONTINUOUS PLYWOOD WALL SHEATHING. EACH PANEL OF SHEATHING SHALL BE IDENTIFIED WITH THE APPROPRIATE GRADE - TRADEMARK OF THE AMERICAN PLYWOOD ASSOCIATION. PROVIDE 1/8" SPACE AT EDGES AND ENDS OF EACH SHEET OR AS REQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER. GRADE AND TYPE SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: ROOF SHEATHING: 40/20 APA RATED SHEATHING EXPOSURE 1 EXTERIOR WALL: 24/16 APA RATED SHEATHING EXPOSURE 1 FLOORS: 48/24 APA RATED SHEATHING EXPOSURE 1 (T&G) 5/8" MINIMUM ROOF SHEATHING TO BE ATTACHED WITH 0.113" DIAMETER NAILS AT 6" O.C.; EDGE, 12" O.C. FIELD. PROVIDE 6" O.C. NAILING TO ALL MEMBERS IN LINE WITH SHEAR WALLS. EDGE FASTENERS SHOULD BE PLACED 3/8" FROM PANEL EDGES AND ENDS OR AS REQUIRED BY THE MANUFACTURER. 3/4"MINIMUM FLOOR SHEATHING TO BE GLUED AND ATTACHED WITH 0.113" DIAMETER NAILS @ 6" O.C. EDGE, 12" O.C. FIELD. 1/2" MINIMUM PLYWOOD EXTERIOR WALL SHEATHING TO BE ATTACHED WITH 0.113" DIAMETER NAILS AT 6" OC.; EDGE, 12" O.C. FIELD UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON PLANS. INTERIOR SHEAR WALLS TO HAVE 5/8" GYPSUM SHEATHING BOTH SIDES OF WALL ATTACHED WITH 6d COOLER NAILS OR WALLBOARD NAILS AT 7" O.C. EDGE, 12" O.C. FIELD UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS. SPLICE ALL SHEATHING ON A COMMON MEMBER SO AS TO PROPERLY TRANSFER SHEAR FORDES. ALL SHEATHING NAILING TO BE COMMON WIRE OR GALVANIZED NAILS. CONCRETE WORK: DO NOT BEGIN CONCRETE WORK UNTIL ALL LOADING CONDITIONS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED BY GENERAL CONTRACTOR. ALL CONCRETE WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING CODES AND ORDINANCES. CONCRETE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL REQUIREMENTS. TYPICAL FULL HEIGHT FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL BE 8" MINIMUM CONCRETE REINFORCED WITH #4'S AT 24" O.C. EACH WAY AT 3/4" CLEAR OF INSIDE FACE. WALLS 10" OR THICKER SHALL HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF #4'S AT 12" O.C. EACH WAY AT 3" CLEAR FROM EXTERIOR FACE. PROVIDE DOWELS TO FOOTING TO MATCH MAIN VERTICAL WALL REINFORCEMENT, AND HOOK 12" INTO FOOTING AT 3" CLEAR OF BOTTOM. ISSUE DATE A3.0 BUILDING SECTIONS 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 D.W. 36" REF. 3' - 0 " 1' - 6 " 4' - 0 " 8' - 6 " 12 ' - 1 0 1 / 4 " 36" RANGE TV 15.75' X 8.86' 13 ' - 8 " 20 ' - 1 0 1 / 2 " 1' - 2 " 10 ' - 0 " 2' - 6 " 17'-0" 15'-9" 8' - 1 0 3 / 8 " 6' - 0 " 1' - 8 " MICRO REF. DWR REF. DWR TR / REC. 3' - 0 " ISSUE DATE A4.0 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9.22.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 UNEXCAVATED 3/4 BATHW.I.C. BEDROOM #1 BAR / MEDIA LIVING ROOM HALL UTILITY ENTRY PATIO B7 CONC. HEADER W/ (2) #4's AT BOTT., MIN. SL 4" CONC. SLAB W/ #4's @ 24" O.C. EACH WAY, MIN. W/ 2' X 2' WALL DOWELS @ 24" O.C. MIN. 8" THICKENED EDGE X 12" WIDE W/ (2) #4's @ BOTT., MIN.2 W3 10" CONC. FNON. WALL W/ #4's VERT. @ 18" O.C., AND #4's HOR. @ 24" O.C., MIN. (OFFSET TO INSIDE FACE, TYP). W4 10" CONC. FNON. WALL W/ #4's VERT. @ 24" O.C., EACH WAY, MIN. W5 10" CONC. FNON. WALL W/ #4's VERT. @ 18" O.C., AND #4's HOR. @ 24" O.C., MIN. (OFFSET TO OUTSIDE FACE, TYP). W6 CANT. RETAINING WALL, SEE DETAIL. F1 20" X 8" CONC. STRIP FTG. W/ (2) #4's CONT., MIN. F2 3'-0" X 3'-0" X 1'-0" CONC. PAD FTG. W/ (4) #4's EACH WAY, MIN. F3 3'-6" X 3'-6" X 1'-0" CONC. PAD FTG. W/ (4) #4's EACH WAY, MIN. F5 RETAINING WALL FOOTING, SEE DETAIL. B7 W5 F5 W6 F1 W3 F1 F2 W3 F1 2 SL F3 F2 M1 M2 *GROUT CORES ON EACH SIDE OF OPENING SOLID, IF VOID. W8 X 15 STEEL LINTEL W8 X 24 STEEL LINTEL M2 M1 M2 INVESTIGATE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF EXISTING LINTELS W4 F1 W4 F1 NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE S1.0 LOWER LEVEL STRUCTURAL PLAN 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 GARAGE KITCHEN MEDIA ENTRY 3/4 BATH DRIVEWAY #1 DRIVEWAY #2 S1 W16 X 31 STEEL BEAM S2 W12 X 26 STEEL BEAM H1 (2) L4 X 4 X 14 LINTEL W/ 18" CLOSURE PLATE C1 HSS 4 X 4 X 14 STEEL COLUMN J1 2 X12's @ 16" O.C., MIN. B4 (3) 2 X12 (FLUSH). B5 (2) 2 X10 [1J/1K]. B6 (2) 9 12" LVLs [2J/2K]. B2 B2 W2 C1 W1 B5 C1 B6 W1C1B1B1 H1 H1 B5 J1 T1 C1 C1 S1 S2 B1 T1 S1 T1 S1 S2 J2 B4J1 B4 1 POCKET INTO EXISTING. WALL. W/ 5" MIN. BRG.1 S1 T1 ROOF TRUSSES @ 2'-0" O.C. MIN. B1 (2) 2 X 8 [1J/1K] B2 (2) 2 X 8 [1J/2K] B3 (2) 1 3 4" X 7 14" LVLs [2J/1K] W1 2 X 6's @ 16" O.C., MIN. W/ 7 16" PLYWOOD SHEATHING FASTENED W/ 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C. ALONG EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT INT. SUPPORTS, MIN. (U.N.O.) W2 2 X 8's LSL STUDS @ 16" O.C., MIN. W/ 7 16" PLYWOOD SHEATHING FASTENED W/ 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C. ALONG EDGES (FULLY BLOCKED) AND 12" O.C. AT INT. SUPPORTS, MIN. (TALL WALL). BEAR J1 ON 2 X 4 WALL DO NOT POCKET INTO CMU WALL P2 GROUT CORES SOLID (IF VOID) AT CANOPY BRACKET LOCATIONS. CANOPY, BY OTHERS. P1 INSTALL 5 14" X 5 14" 1.8E PSL POST AT CANOPY BRACKET LOCATIONS. CANOPY, BY OTHERS. C2 HSS 3 X 3 X 14 STEEL COLUMN J2 2 X10's @ 16" O.C., MIN. J2 L1 2 X 10 LEDGER FASTEN TO VERT. STUDS @ 16" O.C., W/ (3) LEDGERLOKS (OR EQ.) MIN. L2 L3 (2) 2 X 10 (FLUSH) C9 X 13 STEEL CHANNEL W/ 2 X 10 BOLTED TO ITS SIDE FASTENED W/ 1 2" DIAMETER BOLTS @ 16" O.C. STAGGERED), MIN. P2 P2 L1 L1 L1 L2 L2 C2 C2 C2 L3 L3 L3 P1 P1 NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE S1.1 MAIN LEVEL STRUCTURAL PLAN 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 BEDROOM 2 BEDROOM 3 ROOF TOP DECK ROOF TRUSSES ROOF TRUSSES B1 B1 B1W1 T1 B3 B3 B1 T1 T1 W2 B2 W1 T1 ROOF TRUSSES @ 2'-0" O.C. MIN. B1 (2) 2 X 8 [1J/1K] B2 (2) 2 X 8 [1J/2K] B3 (2) 1 3 4" X 7 14" LVLs [2J/1K] W1 2 X 6's @ 16" O.C., MIN. W/ 7 16" PLYWOOD SHEATHING FASTENED W/ 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C. ALONG EDGES AND 12" O.C. AT INT. SUPPORTS, MIN. (U.N.O.) W2 2 X 8's LSL STUDS @ 16" O.C., MIN. W/ 7 16" PLYWOOD SHEATHING FASTENED W/ 8d NAILS @ 6" O.C. ALONG EDGES (FULLY BLOCKED) AND 12" O.C. AT INT. SUPPORTS, MIN. (TALL WALL). B2 B2 B2 W1 NOTES: $//',0(16,216$5(*(1(5$/&2175$&725 TO FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION -ALL DIMENSIONS TO FINISH FACE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED NEW STUD WALL NEW FOUNDATION WALL EXISTING STUD WALL EXISTING FOUNDATION WALL DRAWING KEY: ISSUE DATE S1.2 LOFT LEVEL STRUCTURAL PLAN 9.1.20 LE W I S R E S I D E N C E 32 2 0 N A V A R R E L A N E OR O N O , M N 5 5 3 9 1 WDS 9 5 2 .2 5 0 .1 9 4 1 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ 5. LA21-000007 PILLAR HOMES, 3220 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) K.C. Chermak of Pillar Homes, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis noted the home on this property is currently undergoing a renovation with a partial second story addition. There is a small conforming location on the property and that is where the addition has gone; as part of the project, the Applicant would like to extend their existing rooftop deck area. Currently they have a deck and the diagonal line on screen is the setback from the rear of the lot, they would like to expand the rooftop deck to allow for additional space. It is proposed to be a black aluminum metal railing. Due to the location of the home, rear and side street setback variances are requested. The home is located on a substandard lot and is situated almost entirely within all of the required yard setbacks. The new railing will be set in from the edge of the home slightly: 6 feet 8 inches from the edge of the Navarre Lane side of the building, 6 feet from the west building edge and 1 foot off the north side of the building. They are trying to maximize their outdoor living space, and massing impact to adjacent properties will likely be minimal as it is an open metal railing. The signed neighbor acknowledgement forms were received but no public comments have been submitted. Curtis spoke with a neighbor on the phone today that had questions and upon clarification she made no comment on the application. The lot’s size, lack of outdoor living space, and the existing structure size seem to support the requested variances of the practical difficulties on the lot. Staff is recommending approval of the setback variances to allow the railing to be installed within the setback areas. Ressler clarified they are not adding footprint, this is merely an extension of the existing structure and they are still staying a little over 6 feet from the edge of the existing structure on two sides. Curtis said that is correct and this portion of the building where they are within one foot of the edge of the building, they are conforming to an extent until they get over to the side. K.C. Chermak with Pillar Homes approached the podium and noted this is quite a project and he does not know if anyone has driven by the home. In the Staff report it is noted that the building has been here since 1940 and has been quite an eyesore; he said it has been a wonderful challenge to improve this site. He noted they could not believe how much fun they have had. Turning the building into a residence is pretty exciting; however, due to the unique situation here, they did ask the adjacent neighbors and both have signed and understand the improvements that are taking place. In their words, they are grateful that the site is being improved. In Mr. Chermak’s world, he believes they are asking for a vertical variance because the structure really does not go towards any of the other buildings or neighbors. As the remodel has gone and the access to this rooftop has been developed, to get some more outside space on this site because of the unique shape and setting, this is really the best use for the space in the request. He said it has been fabulous and will be quite a project when it is done. He welcomed questions. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:54 p.m. Ressler’s observations are that it is not lakeshore or waterfront, thank goodness for that as it is a bit easier to look at. He said it is always easier to consider these applications when they are not further encroaching structure rather than building up from existing. He does not see anything to note on this application that makes it appear there is any sort of variance requested to violate height restrictions. That is his initial reaction and he asked for further feedback from the Planning Commission. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ Bollis has no issues, the structure already exists within those setbacks and this seems to be a practical use for this lot to expand that outdoor space where they cannot into the yard. Ressler asked if anyone is opposed as applied. Erickson has a comment which is not directly related to the variance request – he expects to vote in favor – but as a side comment, in looking at the original, existing structure, it prominently shows an existing utility pole in front of the building, which is not a thing of beauty. Hopefully there is a plan to possibly eliminate that and perhaps go underground or use some other means of making it more attractive that would be wonderful. Ressler said reading the body language of the Applicant, yes, he is planning on burying that. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000007, 3220 NAVARRE LANE, VARIANCES as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 01/18/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/28/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/29/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 February 2021 Subject: #LA21-000007, Pillar Homes, 3220 Navarre Ln Variance Public Hearing Background The home is currently undergoing a renovation with a partial 2nd story addition. As part of the project the applicant would like to expand the existing rooftop deck to the edge of the building. The improvement includes black coated aluminum railing with cables, see exhibit D. Due to the location of the existing home, rear and side street setback variances are requested. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the lot’s size, the lack of outdoor living space, and the existing structure size as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. 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 agrees with the applicant’s analysis supporting the setback variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 - Setbacks: LR-1C Required Existing Proposed /Railing Front/Street 30’ 15.9’ house No change Rear 30’ 2.8’ house 8.8’ North Side *7.5’ 7.5’ 8.5’ Side Street 15’ 7.6’ 14.2’ *City Code Section 78-350(b)(1) Application Summary: The applicant is requesting setback variances in order to expand the rooftop patio over the existing building roof. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA21-000007 16 Feb 2021 Page 2 of 4 Section 78- 350 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 6,467 s.f. (0.14 acre) 34.1’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,467 s.f. (0.14 acre) Allowed: 1,293 s.f. (20%) Existing: 3,255 s.f. (50%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 2 6,467 s.f. 1,940 s.f. (30 %) 3,904 s.f. (60.3%) 3,907 s.f. (60.3%) Applicable Regulations: Rear Yard and Side Street Setback Variances (Code Section 78-350) The existing home is located on a substandard lot and is situated within all of the setbacks. The new railing will be set inside of the edge of building; 6 feet 8 inches from the edge of the Navarre Lane side of the building, 6 feet from the west building edge, and 1 foot off of the north side of the building. The applicant is proposing to use the existing flat roof area to maximize the outdoor living space. The massing impact to adjacent properties will likely be minimal as the expansion is proposed to be a metal railing inside the outer walls of the building. 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 setback variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The substandard lot has difficulties in its small size. The house location is nonconforming. FILE # LA21-000007 16 Feb 2021 Page 3 of 4 The proposed volume “expansions” resulting from the railing are set in from the property lines as they are inset from the edges of the building. The encroachment does not increase the massing of the home. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances proposed to improve a rooftop patio area on 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 installation of the rooftop railings on the home on the substandard lot is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The substandard lot size and location of the home are existing conditions. Therefore there is no available land with which to make the property more conforming. The limited yard/open space availability is a condition not created by the owners. There should be consideration for variance approval for a minimal railing encroachment within the setbacks above the existing building. The house addition and renovation have been designed with an effort toward working within the existing building and required setbacks without sacrificing functionality; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit the creation of additional outdoor space with minimal impact to massing or additional encroachments into setbacks, which is reasonable. The project should not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as 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 improvements to a residential home are allowed 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, depth, and unique configuration creates difficulties which do not apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. Prior to the renovation, the existing non- residential-looking building was out of character with the neighborhood. The current renovation and the proposed railing encroachments will make the building appear more residential in 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, depth, house location, in addition to the unique configuration creates difficulties which apply to very few properties in the City. FILE # LA21-000007 16 Feb 2021 Page 4 of 4 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting setback variances to permit the rooftop railings is necessary for the preservation of the property right of the owner. The improvements will be on top of, and set inside the boundaries of the existing home and will not increase any setback nonconformities. The setback variances facilitate creation of additional outdoor living space within the property and preserve the property rights of the owner. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the setback variances for the rooftop railing 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 use of the property has been established with the house. The expansion of corresponding improvements may be considered a convenience to the applicants. 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 variances. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments Signed Neighbor Acknowledgement forms have been received. No public comments. 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 variances? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey Exhibit D. Railing Detail & Layout Exhibit E. Proposed Plans and Elevations for House remodel Exhibit F. Photos of House Before Renovations Exhibit G. Neighbor Acknowledgments Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To adopt the resolution approving an Average Lake Shore Setback (ALS) variance. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. A completed application was received on January 19, 2021. The 60-Day review period will expire on March 20, 2021. 3. Background. During the review of the preliminary plat creating the subject lot, the Council supported the creation of a ‘new’ ALS, intending to protect the view of the neighbor to the north, at 770 Brown Road North. This new ALS is shown on the preliminary plat, but was not directly referenced in the Development Contract, or the Final Plat resolution. It is appropriate to confirm the Average Lakeshore setback for this lot via the variance process. The ALS line identified during preliminary plat review is line B on the annotated survey attached as Exhibit B. The ALS established by Ordinance is Line A. Since the preliminary plat was reviewed, the property owner at 770 Brown Rd N has added a deck, adjusting the ALS closer to the lake, Line C. The applicant proposes a variance to this line. The applicant states that practical difficulties include the extreme distance of the home at 770 Brown Rd N and the tributary (and its 75’ setback), which greatly impact buildable sites. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held the public hearing on February 16, 2021. Commissioners commented that the proposed house is setback 300+ feet from the lake and the location of the tributary limits options for a house in a conforming location. In general, the Commission agreed with the applicants suggested practical difficulties. Commissioners recommended approval 7-0. 5. Public Comment. Written statements from representatives of the neighboring improved lots have been received and are included in Exhibit F. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council adopt the resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Annotated Survey C. PC Minutes D. PC Staff report dated 2-16-21 E. Plans and Elevations F. Resident comments G. Narrative References Willow Bay Sanctuary file PC Exhibits 2/16/21 Item No.: 17 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-00008 – Brad Barinsky, 1825 Lakeside Trail, Variance for Average Lake Shore Setback – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 (6) FILE NO. LA21-000008 WHEREAS, on January 19, 2021, Brad Barinski o/b/o BJB trust (“Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 1825 Lakeside Trail and legally described as: Lot 4, Block 1, Willow Bay Sanctuary, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 (6) to allow construction of a structure lakeward of the Average Lake Shore Setback line; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000008. 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. Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 2. The Property is located in the LR-1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 3.52 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 210/ 200 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance: a. Average Lake Shore Setback 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 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 average lake shore setback is to preserve neighboring properties’ views of the lake. The proposed encroachment will not impact these views. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use of the lot for residential purposes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as is the preservation of lake views and Shoreland management. 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 placement of the house is a reasonable location given the intent of the ordinance to preserve views, and manage sensitive environmental concerns. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the neighboring house, the presence of a tributary, and the previous discussions of a ‘new’ ALS where not created by the land owner and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The encroachment into the ALS will not impact the character of the locality. 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 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 residential is a permitted use in the LR-1A zoning 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 tributary that runs along the north side of the lot, and the previous discussion regarding a ‘new’ ALS has been considered in previous lakeshore subdivisions. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applied ALS is based on the lot to the east, 770 Brown Road N, which is substantially distan7 from the subject property and the lake. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The tributary and its 75’ setback limit buildable sites consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 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 proposed encroachment is not anticipated to impair any health or safety goals of the city. 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 is permitting a buildable site that was intended to be approved as part of this subdivision. 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 (6) to allow construction lakeward of the Average Lakeshore setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated January 18, 2021 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Line B Line C Line A Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 2 6. LA21-000008 BRAD BARINSKY, 1825 LAKESIDE TRAIL, VARIANCE (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Brad Barinsky, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Barnhart said this property was platted in 2019 and during the process there was some discussion at the Planning Commission and City Council level to establish a new average lakeshore setback (ALS) line which they had done in the past when subdividing lakeshore property. The reason why they often do that is to preserve or protect the views of the neighboring properties; they do not know when the lakeshore lots of the new development would be platted so they identify a new ALS so that both the neighboring property owner and the sellers of the lots can have some understanding and some comfort of where the houses may be located. He said there was some discussion at the time of the preliminary plat for this project but that was never codified into the development agreement or into the resolution for the final plan. Technically, there is no “new” ALS; therefore, the ALS for this lot is the distance that the neighboring lot 770 Brown Road North is from the lake which is 343 feet. Per code, this is the ALS line and Barnhart has noted it as line A in the Staff Report and on this exhibit. The Applicant has designed the home based on his understanding of Line B, which was the “new” ALS identified during the preliminary plat which is based on 770 Brown Road North and 1925 Lakeside Trail to the south and west. Barnhart noted this property used to be addressed as 690 Brown Road which is the parent parcel for the subdivision. They developed the house based on Line B, but during the course of developing the plans, they recognized that the property 770 Brown Road North added a lakeside deck to their property which brought the ALS closer to the lake which is Line C. The Applicant proposed to apply his house to the new Line C. Barnhart noted onscreen a vacant parcel and the former 690 Brown Road which is now 1925 Lakeside Trail. Basically, the argument the Applicant is making: he is proposing to use this new adjusted ALS line and that can be done by variance because it is not written into the development documents. To satisfy the argument for a variance, the Applicant has noted there is a large tributary running right through the property, which was known during the project. This tributary requires a 75-foot setback, so basically his buildable pad is right here (noted on screen). Staff, in reviewing the history and the unique aspects of this parcel, does see a practical difficulty due to the tributary and its inherent setback and also the extreme distance that the neighboring lot is from the lake of 343 feet. The normal setback for a sewered property would be 75 feet off the lake, so Staff is supporting a variance request as proposed. He clarified Staff is recommending a variance so as not to encroach above or lakeward of Line C. Bollis asked how this affects Lot 5 when looking at a house to be built there. Barnhart replied assuming this house is built, he showed two points on screen and noted where Lot 5 would be. Their new ALS would be Line C. Bollis said it is approximately where it was supposed to be if it was recorded with the plat. Barnhart replied yes, perhaps 10 feet closer. McCutcheon noted this just shows how complicated this gets; the house of Lot 4 is fighting the tributary and these lots are so long, it is kind of a shame if they are stuffed up to the street. He said when they build a house on Lot 5, will they come to the Planning Commission and say “hey, this is kind of a small space.” Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 2 Barnhart said they might, but thinks they are marginally different than what was originally anticipated. He noted anyone could come forward with a variance but the practical difficulty is a little harder to prove in those situations. Based on the facts in looking at this one, the tributary is unique and they do not see a lot of those in a side yard situation. McCutcheon also mentioned the depth of the lot requires a relatively limited portion of the lot for development. Brad Barinsky, the owner of 1825 Lakeside Trail, approached the podium. He said Barnhart did a good job explaining the situation and some of the history and he thinks some may have been on the Planning Commission for the Willow Bay development approval. He is here for any questions and said regarding Bollis’ questions about Lot 5 or 1875 Lakeside Trail, they do have a survey that also shows that lot now is unbuildable without an ALS variance. Approval of Mr. Barinsky’s house position would make the code work for that lot as the line could be drawn directly across the property. It would be the same if a house was on another lot (noted on screen), the line could be drawn across Mr. Barinsky’s property connecting it to 770 and he would not be before the Planning Commission this evening. He noted there are a lot of moving parts, it is a really beautiful property and when he bought it he knew that was the area he would have to build the house in. He was not anticipating going any closer to the lake but just tried to readjust the history and draw the line across the properties based on the current situations of the neighbors next door. His house is actually 360 feet away from the lakeshore on his property, it is how they apply the code, the lakeshore meanders around the corner, and the line is drawn from 343 feet that goes to the neighboring property. Chair Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Chair Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:06 p.m. Ressler’s initial observations are the Planning Commission has been flexible in situations where the ALS is bringing the difficulty partly because of the other properties and vacant lot next door. He thinks the Applicant is doing what he can with what he has, which is hard to say when one is sitting 300 feet away from the lakeshore as it is. From what Ressler is seeing, and historically the Planning Commission has been generally flexible in situations like this one, he agrees with Staff’s recommendation. Gettman agrees with that. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000008, 1825 Lakeside Trail as proposed. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: January 19, 2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: January 19, 2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: March 20, 2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: #LA21-08, Brad Barinsky, 1825 Lakeside Trail, Variance for Average Lake Shore Setback Public Hearing Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the location of the neighboring homes, the character of the lakeshore with extended wetland area, the creek adjacent to the home site as practical difficulties limiting the development of the site and 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: Staff agrees with the applicant’s arguments for practical difficulty due to the tributary and extreme setback from the lake. Additionally, Staff recognizes extenuation circumstances support the variance. Background The property was created with the recent platting of Willow Bay Sanctuary. The final plat was approved in August, 2019 (Case LA19-33). A ‘new’ ALS was contemplated with the preliminary plat, which was approved in May of 2019 (case LA19-22). Average Lake Shore Setbacks (ALS) are based on the locations of homes on neighboring properties at the time a house permit is reviewed. Because the timing of improvements on lots are not known during platting, and a desire to give the neighboring property owners and the applicant and understanding of where homes could be built, the City Council has established an ALS based on the then current (preplat) condition. There was similar discussion and general agreement for the subject property during the preliminary plat, but the ALS was not formally incorporated into the final drawings or the Development Contract. In recent months, the City Council has departed from the practice in granting a new ALS, the remedy then is a variance. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) variance to permit the house to be lakeward of ALS. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. Council Exhibit D FILE # LA21-08 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 5 The annotated survey (Exhibit C) shows three Average Lake Shore lines. Line A is the city code established line, which since the lot the west is vacant, is based on the distance 770 Brown Rd N is from the lake, 343 feet. A variance is requested from this line. Line B is the original ‘new’ ALS contemplated for the development during the preliminary plat. This line is established based on 770 Brown Rd N and the home at 1925 Lakeside Trail. The owner of 770 Brown Rd N was the property owner most impacted by the proposed development. Line C is a revised ‘new’ ALS based on 1925 Lakeside Trail and recent improvements to 770 Brown Road North. Since the plat was contemplated, a new deck was added to 770 Brown Road N which brought the ALS 13-20 feet closer to the lake. The applicants propose using this line for their ALS. The applicant purchased his property and prepared plans based on the understood ALS, Line B on the survey. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 - Setbacks: LR-1A DISTRICT Required Existing Proposed Street 50 139.94 Side 30 30.8 North Side (Tributary) 75 78 Lakeshore 75’ 360 Average Lakeshore Approximately 69 feet at its maximum encroachment FILE # LA21-08 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 5 Section 78- 305 - Lot Area/Width: LR-1A DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200’ Actual 153,544 s.f. (3.52 acre) 210’ @ 75’ / 200’ @ OHWL Applicable Regulations: Section 78-1279 (6) Average lakeshore setback. No principal or accessory building shall be located closer to the Ordinary High Water Line (OHWL) than the average distance from the shoreline of existing principal buildings on adjacent lots; This does not apply to patios and other accessory structures less than 42 inches above existing grade, and/or stairways, lifts, landings, lockboxes, flagpoles and pump houses. Further, the average lakeshore setback shall apply only to classified lakes and shall not apply to tributaries. The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the principal buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots. a. In situations where improvement is proposed on a lot adjacent to a vacant lot or right-of-way, the average lake shore setback shall be equivalent to the setback of the most lakeward protrusion of the principal building on the immediately adjacent improved lakeshore lot. b. In situations where the average lake shore setback line bisects the principal building located on either adjacent lot, the next most adjacent lake side point of the bisected principal building shall be used for determining the average lakeshore setback. If the line continues to bisect the principal building, the next most lakeside point is to be used until the setback line does not bisect the principal building on an adjacent lot. 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 average lake shore setback is to preserve neighboring properties’ views of the lake. The proposed encroachment will not impact these views. FILE # LA21-08 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 5 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed use of the lot for residential purposes is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, as is the preservation of lake views and Shoreland management. 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 placement of the house is a reasonable location given the intent of the ordinance to preserve views, and manage sensitive environmental concerns. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the neighboring house, the presence of a tributary, and the previous discussions of a ‘new’ ALS where not created by the land owner and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The encroachment into the ALS will not impact the character of the locality. 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 residential is a permitted use in the LR-1A zoning 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 previous discussion regarding a ‘new’ ALS is reflected in lakeshore subdivisions. The fact that this new ALS was not recorded as part of any of the final documents is unique to the subject parcel. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The extreme distance for the proposed ALS, due to the improvements on the lot to the east, 770 Brown Road only apply to this lot because the neighboring lot to the west, 1875 Lakeside Trail, is vacant. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The tributary and its 75’ setback limit buildable sites consistent with the character of the neighborhood. 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 proposed encroachment is not anticipated to impair any health or safety goals of the city. 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 is permitting a buildable site that was intended to be approved as part of this subdivision. 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 FILE # LA21-08 February 16, 2021 Page 5 of 5 permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments To date, emails from the property owner’s representative at 770 Brown Road N, and 1925 Lakeside Trail (two lots to the west) have been received, both in support of the variance request. Nothing in opposition to the proposal has been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitig ate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey/Site Plan (Annotated) Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Narrative Exhibit F. Neighbor Comments Exhibit G. Area Map Exhibit H. Mailing Information W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 C o u n c i l E x h i b i t E W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 W A Y Z A T A , M N 5 5 3 9 1 2 7 5 E A S T L A K E S T R E E T F A X : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 2 2 2 P h o n e : 9 5 2 . 4 7 3 . 8 7 7 7 RE : W i l l o w B a y S a n c t u a r y L o t 4 / L o t 5 St i c k n e y , D a v i d J < D J S ti c k n e y @ C B B U R N E T . C O M > We d 1 / 1 3 / 2 0 2 1 7 : 3 2 P M To : B r a d B a r i n s k y < b b a r i n s k y @ h o t m ai l . c o m > ; B e n s o n , B r i a n K < B K B e n s on @ C B B U R N E T . C O M > Hi B r a d , My c l i e n t s a t 7 7 0 B r o w n R o a d N s u p p o r t a v a r i a n c e f o r t h e h o m e to b e l o c a t e d a s p r o p o s e d o n t h e s u r v e y p r o v i d e d . Th a n k y o u , Da v i d S t i c k n e y St i c k n e y R e a l E s t a t e | G W S t i c k n e y . c o m Co l d w e l l B a n k e r R e a l t y | 9 5 2 . 2 5 0 . 0 1 2 2 20 1 E . L a k e S t r e e t | W a y z a t a , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Fr o m : S Ɵ c k n e y , D a v i d J Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 2 1 1 2 : 3 7 P M To : B r a d B a r i n s k y < b b a r i n s k y @ h o t m a i l . c o m > ; B e n s o n , B r i a n K < B K B e n s on @ C B B U R N E T . C O M > Su b j e c t : R E : W i l l o w B a y S a n c t u a r y L o t 4 / L o t 5 Th a n k y o u , B r a d . I h a v e f o r w a r d e d t o m y c l i e n t s a n d w i l l l e t y o u k n o w w h e n I h e a r b a c k . Da v i d S t i c k n e y St i c k n e y R e a l E s t a t e | G W S t i c k n e y . c o m Co l d w e l l B a n k e r R e a l t y | 9 5 2 . 2 5 0 . 0 1 2 2 20 1 E . L a k e S t r e e t | W a y z a t a , M N 5 5 3 9 1 Fr o m : B r a d B a r i n s k y < bb a r i n s k y @ h o t m a i l . c o m > Se n t : W e d n e s d a y , J a n u a r y 1 3 , 2 0 2 1 1 2 : 3 1 P M To : S Ɵ c k n e y , D a v i d J < DJ S Ɵ c k n e y @ C B B U R N E T . C O M >; B e n s o n , B r i a n K < BK B e n s o n @ C B B U R N E T . C O M > Su b j e c t : R e : W i l l o w B a y S a n c t u a r y L o t 4 / L o t 5 Hi D a v i d , AƩ a c h e d i s a c o p y o f t h e s u r v e y we w i l l b e u s i n g f o r t h e v a r i a n ce a p p l i c a Ɵ o n . T h e h o u s e l o c a Ɵ o n is e s s e n Ɵ a l l y t h e s a m e a s o n t h e d o c u m e n t s I s e n t y o u b a c k i n D e c e m b e r . Pl e a s e r e v i e w w i t h y o u r c l i e n t s . I f t h e y a r e s Ɵ l l s u p p o r Ɵ v e o f th e p l a n s , y o u c a n r e p l y t o m e s t a Ɵ n g s o , a n d I ' l l i n c l u d e a c o py o f t h a t e m a i l w i t h t h e variance applicaƟon. Le t m e k n o w i f y o u h a v e a n y q u e s Ɵ o n s . Th a n k s . ‐B r a d 77 3 ‐ 2 5 1 ‐ 0 9 6 9 Fi r e f o x ht t p s : / / o u t l o o k . l i v e . c o m / m a i l / 0 / i n b o x / i d / A Q M k A D A w A T E 0 O T k A M C 0 1 Y m YwLWVhZjgt... 1 o f 4 1/18/2021, 12:33 PMCouncil Exhibit F Ho u s e L o c a t i o n L o t 4 W i l l o w B a y Ta r y n R e u t e r < t a r y n . r e u t e r @ g m a i l . c o m > Mo n 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 2 1 1 2 : 4 4 P M To : B r a d B a r i n s k y < B b a r i n s k y @ h o t m a i l . c o m > Mr . B a r i n s k y , We a r e t h e o w n e r s o f 1 9 2 5 L a k e s i de T r a i l a n d 1 9 7 5 L a k e s i d e T r a i l ( L o t s 6 & 7 ) . W e h a v e r e v i e w e d y o u r p r o p o s e d h o u s e l o c a t i o n fr o m t h e s u r v e y t h a t w a s p r o v i d e d a n d a r e in f u l l s u p p o r t o f a p p r o v i n g t h e va r i a n c e t o a l l o w t h a t p l a c e m e nt . I f y o u n e e d a n y t h i n g f u r t h e r f r o m u s p l e a s e l e t u s k n o w a n d w e w o u l d b e h a p p y t o a s s i s t . Lo o k i n g f o r w a r d t o t h e b u i l d s t a r t i n g i n t h e s p r i n g ! Be s t R e g a r d s , Ta r y n & V e n e s s a R e u t e r Fi r e f o x ht t p s : / / o u t l o o k . l i v e . c o m / m a i l / 0 / i n b o x / i d / A Q M k A D A w A T E 0 O T k A M C 0 1 Y m YwLWVhZjgt... 1 o f 1 1/18/2021, 12:48 PM Narrative Explanation of Variance Request I am the owner of the property at 1825 Lakeside Trail, Orono. I am looking to construct a home for my family on the property. For most other properties on Long Lake, this would not be a problem. However, there are several distinctive characteristics affecting my property that preclude building a home without a variance. Specifically, the character of the lake shoreline, the distance of the neighboring home (770 Brown Rd.) from the lake, the vacancy of the other neighboring property (1875 Lakeside Trail), and the creek that runs long the North side of my property, all combine to create practical difficulties in building a home on my property. During the approval of the Willow Bay Sanctuary development, there was discussion of setting an average lakeshore setback (ALS) line for my property and for 1875 Lakeside Trail, because these properties would not be buildable under a literal interpretation of the ALS rule. For some reason, this proposed ALS line (labeled on the attached survey as Expected ALS line as shown on the preliminary plat), was omitted from the final development agreement. This omission was only recently discovered, which necessitates my application for a variance. In the meantime, an addition has been added to the home at 770 Brown Rd. There is a line included on the attached survey label Expected ALS line per recent deck at 770, which illustrates how the addition at 770 Brown Rd affects the Expected ALS line from the preliminary plat. The location of my proposed home is conforming to this ALS line. The ALS requirement is intended to prevent any one property owner from building much closer to the lake than the adjacent homes, and thus negatively impacting the other property owners’ ability to enjoy the use of their property and the lake. For most properties on Long Lake this results in a reasonable setback. In this specific case, the ALS for my property is based solely on the adjacent home at 770 Brown Rd., which is 343 feet from the lake at its nearest point. The lake shoreline then curves in on the other adjacent property at the currently vacant 1875 Lakeside Trail. Thus, a verbatim interpretation of the average setback rule results in a line that cuts diagonally across my property. This ALS line renders the vast majority of my lot unbuildable when combined with the 75 foot setback from the creek that winds through the woods between my proposed home and 770 Brown Rd. Council Exhibit G The proposed location of my home does not negatively impact the views of the adjacent property owners. These are all large multiacre properties on which the homes are located substantial distances from the lake. The nearest home at 770 Brown Rd. is also separated from my proposed home location by 100+ feet of woods. In addition, the owners of 770 Brown Rd, 1875 Lakeside Trail, and 1925 Lakeside Trail (the nearest lake properties) are all in support of the proposed location of my home, as is indicated by the attached emails/letters. I respectfully request a variance to overcome the above discussed practical hardship so that I can build a home for my family on my property. Sincerely, Brad Barinsky 773-251-0969 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. This application is regarding an expansion of the delivery/takeout restaurant into adjacent space. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on January 21, 2021 and considered to be complete on February 2nd. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on April 3, 2021. 3. Background/ Summary. Lulu’s Pizzeria opened their takeout and delivery restaurant in May of 2020 in the previous D’Vinci’s space. Their website is https://pizzerialulu.com/. An adjacent tenant vacancy has provided them with an opportunity to expand. Restaurants are a conditional use in the B-1 district. A conditional use permit is required in order to expand the restaurant use into adjacent space. There is no dine-in service. This expansion will not only provide more kitchen work space, it will also add a new employee break and coat room, an office, a second restroom, and a small retail space. The customer entry will move to the street front, the existing west entrance off of the parking lot will serve as the delivery driver access. The restaurant is open, with peak times generally over the dinner hour. The adjacent businesses’ peak times are generally earlier in the day, impact to parking demand is seen as negligible. The staff report to the Planning Commission is attached as Exhibit D, and provides additional analysis. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested CUP. 5. Public Comment. No public comments have been received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits 02/16/2021 A. Application B. Narrative C. Floor Plans Item No.: 18 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA-000011 – Jason Fischer & Kara Honebrink, 3420 (3216) Shoreline Drive, CUP / Expand Lulu’s Pizzeria – Resolution Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO D. Site Plan / Parking Layout E. Aerial Photo F. City Code Sections G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-644 & 78-916 FILE NO. LA21 -000011 WHEREAS, on January 20, 2021, Kara Honebrink and Jason Fischer (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for a conditional use permit for restaurant use pursuant to the City Code for the unit addressed 3420 Shoreline Drive, which is a tenant space within the property addressed 3426 Shoreline Drive, and legally described as: Lot 23, except the West 15 fee thereof, Lots 24, 25, and 26, Block 6, Navarre Heights, Hennepin County, Minnesota, according to the plat thereof. Subject to an easement for driveway purposes over the W esterly 20 feet of the Southerly 90 feet of said Lot 23, as described in Book 2308 of Deeds, page 528. Together with an easement for drainage purposes as described in Book 2074 of Deeds, page 450. Together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto (the Property). (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit (hereinafter the “CUP”) pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-644 to allow the existing Lulu’s Pizza restaurant use to expand into adjacent tenant space; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the restaurant CUP; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested restaurant CUP as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000011. 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 B-1, Retail Sales Business District. 3. Applicant has applied for the following: a. Conditional Use Permit for restaurant use within a new tenant space. 4. In considering this application for the restaurant CUP, 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: On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city finds that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; A restaurant use in the B-1 zoning district is consistent with the CMP. This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The restaurant use is listed as a permitted conditional use in the B-1 district. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by City sewer and water. This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The use will not generate an excessive demand on public services. This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; a restaurant use has been in this building for many years. The proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; no change of character is called for, the use is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior building structure other than signage to identify customer entry locations. This criterion is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; the use is not expected to impair the use and or enjoyment of neighboring properties and should not negatively impact property values. This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Staff does not anticipate the need for screening. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the use shall comply with city and state codes, and shall not create a nuisance. This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; Parking for the takeout customers is provided by the adjacent private and City parking lots, as well as available on-street parking. Employees CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 will utilize the lower, north side parking area or the City parking lot. This criterion is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; There are not structure or building changes proposed. There should be no environmental or scenic impacts resulting from the restaurant expansion. This criterion is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The applicants are advised that all lighting shall conform to the City’s requirements; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The restaurant and associated expansion should not prove detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. This criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a restaurant CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-644 and 78-916 to allow the Applicants to expand the takeout and delivery restaurant, Lulu’s Pizzaria, into adjacent tenant space, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the CUP will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ 8. LA21-000011 JASON FISCHER AND KARA HONEBRINK, (3416) 3420 SHORELINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: MELANIE CURTIS) Jason Fischer, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Curtis said the Applicants are the owners of Lulu’s Pizzeria, a delivery and takeout restaurant in Navarre and are requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) in order to expand the existing restaurant into an adjacent vacant space in order to enlarge their kitchen and prep space and add some take-and-bake cooler space. There is no dine-in service at this restaurant; restaurants are conditional use in the B1 district and a conditional use is required to expand the restaurant into this new space. The expansion will also add a new employee breakroom, coatroom, office, and second restroom, in addition to a small retail space. The customer entry will move to the Shoreline Drive side and the existing western entrance off the parking lot will serve as the driver delivery access. City code states that restaurant use requires at least one parking space per 80 square feet of public restaurant space. The existing restaurant requires three spaces and with the proposed changes the existing public space will primarily be used for delivery ins and outs but may still be accessible to the public for takeout pickups, and there is a restroom available in that area that is a handicap area. The additional space requires 4 parking stalls for a total required of 7; the customers will park in the private lot to the west in 5 spaces or with available on street parking. Applicants have identified 5 parking stalls for customers and parking location in the rear of the building down the stairs in the back for employees and overflow. The lower-level parking lot and adjacent public parking lot will also provide additional overflow. The Applicant has provided a narrative regarding the parking which is in the packet, she has not received any public comments as of today. Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP to facilitate expansion of the restaurant into the adjacent vacant space as proposed. Bollis asked regarding the existing space they are taking over, what is dedicated to that space as it sits today. Curtis replied she does not know the conditions of the parking dedication as far as what is available on the private lot space. The Applicant has summarized who parks where and what is dedicated to whom. The City parking lot does not have specifically allocated spaces per uses. Bollis asked if that space is conforming as retail right now to the parking, or do they just not know. Curtis said she has no idea. If Ressler recalls, one thing to note about that space whether it is part of the property or not, there is adequate parking on the street, as well as some parking out back, and that is certainly helpful as part of the deliberation. Curtis said it is relatively unique that they have a small parking lot dedicated just to their use. Jason Fischer, Applicant, approached the podium. He addressed the question regarding parking and said there are 12 additional spaces behind the building and those are not specific to any one tenant in the building so it is parking available to essentially anyone. As Curtis mentioned, they also have the City lot behind that; therefore, they have 5 dedicated spaces for the existing business, street parking off Shoreline, and 12 additional spaces in the back of the building, and the City lot beyond that. Generally speaking, customers are in and out within a couple of minutes, they try to do curbside as much as possible for customer safety. Mr. Fischer said they are proposing to expand into the vacant space to add additional MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. __________________________________________________________________________________ capacity for cooking. Right now, in the existing space they only have 450 square feet and one pizza oven, which is not adequate for purposes right now during peak time, so they would like to add an additional pizza oven, and some additional cooler space. Libby asked Mr. Fischer if they are required to have any additional Department of Health licensing to prep the dough and do that on site or are they getting it from a third-party vendor. Mr. Fischer replied currently their dough is made off-site. Another reason they want to do this is that they would have a significant cost savings by making the dough in-house. Any construction done in the new space would be done under the guidelines of the Hennepin County Health Department; they have walked through the space and have their construction health guidelines that the new space would be inspected for. Mr. Fischer said they would follow all health department guidelines and would be inspected before they would start producing dough on that side. Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:42 p.m. Ressler asked if anyone has problems with this plan. Bollis likes it; he only brought up the parking because it was in the staff report. He feels like in looking at the new addition piece as retail, it falls under a different parking code requirement and it is actually less. He thinks the 5 spaces actually is conforming 100% with what they are asking for and he likes everything about it. Ressler said furthermore it is mitigated by having some public parking that seems to be well supporting the space that exists. It has been a successful business from everything he has observed and the space that is existing there makes it difficult to grow and sustain as that is how restaurants survive. He loves it, thinks it is great, and said they are always trying to create more vitality for that area. McCutcheon moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA21-000011 Jason Fischer And Kara Honebrink, (3416) 3420 Shoreline Drive, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 01/20/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/02/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/03/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 16 February 2021 Subject: #LA-000011, Jason Fischer & Kara Honebrink, 3420 (3216) Shoreline Drive, CUP – Expand Lulu’s Pizzeria Public Hearing Background Lulu’s Pizzeria opened their takeout and delivery restaurant in May of 2020 in the old D’Vinci’s space. Their website is https://pizzerialulu.com/. An adjacent tenant vacancy has provided them with an opportunity to expand their kitchen and prep spaces as well as add some “take and bake” cooler spaces. See Exhibit B for the applicants’ narrative and business details. Restaurants are a conditional use in the B-1 district. A conditional use permit is required in order to expand the restaurant use into adjacent space. Applicable Regulations: Restaurant Use (Code Section 78-644) The City Code separates restaurants into two separate categories. The different distinctions in the restaurant categories are not necessarily in line with contemporary restaurant models, including the proposal. The primary difference between the two categories is live entertainment and/or intoxicating liquor sales, neither of which are provided by the applicants’ establishment. The applicants’ restaurant provides takeout and delivery service with no dine in or seating opportunities. Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; A restaurant use in the B-1 zoning district is consistent with the CMP. This criterion is met. Application Summary: The applicants are requesting conditional use permit in order to expand the existing delivery/take out restaurant into adjacent vacant space. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE # LA21-000011 16 Feb 2021 Page 2 of 4 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The restaurant use is listed as a permitted conditional use in the B-1 district. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; The property is served by City sewer and water. This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; The use will not generate an excessive demand on public services. This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; a restaurant use has been in this building for many years. The proposed expansion is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; no change of character is called for, the use is compatible with the surrounding area. This criterion is met. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The applicant is not proposing any changes to the exterior building structure other than signage to identify customer entry locations. This criterion is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; the use is not expected to impair the use and or enjoyment of neighboring properties and should not negatively impact property values. This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; Staff does not anticipate the need for screening. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; the use shall comply with city and state codes, and shall not create a nuisance. This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; Parking for the takeout customers is provided by the adjacent private and City parking lots, as well as available on-street parking. Employees will utilize the lower, north side parking area or the City parking lot. This criterion is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; There are not structure or building changes proposed. There should be no environmental or scenic impacts resulting from the restaurant expansion. This criterion is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; The applicants are advised that all lighting shall conform to the City’s requirements; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. The restaurant and associated expansion should not prove detrimental to public health, safety or welfare. This criterion is met. FILE # LA21-000011 16 Feb 2021 Page 3 of 4 A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The applicant has been operating from the existing space since May of 2020. This expansion will not only provide more kitchen work space, it will also add a new employee break and coat room, an office, a second restroom, and a small retail space. The customer entry will move to the street front, the existing west entrance off of the parking lot will serve as the delivery driver access. The restaurant is open, and its peak times are generally over the dinner hour. The adjacent businesses peak times are generally earlier in the day. Parking: City Code 78-1516 states that a restaurant use is required at least one parking space per 80 square feet of public space. The existing restaurant has approximately 230 square feet of public space. With the changes, the existing public space will be primarily used for delivery ins and outs, but may still be accessible to the public for takeout pickups. The proposed new formal public space is approximately 270 square feet (total of 500) requiring 6.25 parking spaces. According to the ordinance, the proposal increases the parking demand by 4 spaces. Customers will primarily park in the private parking area to the west, or available on-street parking. The applicants have identified five parking stalls in the west parking lot for customers and parking located in the rear of the building for employees and overflow. The public parking lot adjacent also provides additional overflow. Comments from the applicants regarding parking: “Our delivery drivers do not have designated spaces. We will either have one or a maximum of two on any given shift. Generally, they park down below in either the city lot or in those 12 spaces that are private for the rest of the building. The 12 spaces for our building on [sic] 28 feet deep. So those are single spaces. Currently, the other businesses that share the business with us in the building are: 1) Lakeshore Interiors (Customer Entrance off Shoreline Dr - They keep a delivery van in back lot using one of -12 spaces). 2) Cookie Cups (Only Entrance is off of Shoreline Dr - They posted on their website that they are not open for walk-ins any longer) 3) Gallery Navarre closed the first of the year. They were in the lower level. 4) There is a gallery in a separate building that started offering art classes in our building. Their only entrance is on Shoreline Dr. 5) Lastly, there is a glass repair business on the lower level that apparently has closed or is in process of closing. The operated [sic] of this business did not park there but would occasionally have a customer park in front of his door. So, there is only one other business currently operating consisting during business hours. That is Lakeshore Interiors. The other businesses are either no longer operating or in the case of the art lessons, they are sporadic and by appointment.” FILE # LA21-000011 16 Feb 2021 Page 4 of 4 The expansion is not expected to increase odors or other undesirable impacts of the business. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the CUP? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the CUP to facilitate expansion of the restaurant into the adjacent vacant space as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Floor Plans Exhibit D. Site Plan / Parking Layout Exhibit E. Aerial Photo Exhibit F. City Code Sections Exhibit G. Property Owners List Exhibit H. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting 75’ lakeyard, average lakeshore and side yard setback variances for a 2nd story addition. 2. Background. The applicant is requesting to construct a 2nd story addition to the home, which is located on a substandard lot. The footprint of the home is not proposed to change. The existing home encroaches in the side yard setback roughly 1-foot in the northeast corner and roughly 1-foot into the 75’ lakeyard. The existing home sits roughly 10’ into the average lakeshore setback. There are no proposed changes to the existing home footprint or setbacks for the property. No hardcover or structural coverage increases are being proposed. 3. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was made complete on February 2, 2021. The 60- Day review period expires April 1, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the application and held a public hearing February 16, 2021. The Commission discussed the proposed addition in relation to the average lakeshore setback, 75’ lake yard setback and side yard setback. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance. 5. Public Comment. The southern neighbor at 1270 Spruce Place submitted a letter of support. 6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report E. Emails from Neighbors References PC Exhibits A. Application and Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Proposed Plans and Elevations E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Neighbor letter G. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 19 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000012 – Clairmont Design Build, 1260 Spruce Place, Variances – 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 78-330 and 78-1279 FILE NO. LA21-000012 WHEREAS, on February 2, 2021, Clairmon Design Build (“Applicant”), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 1260 Spruce Place and legally described as: Lot , Block 10, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of vacated Lake Street adjoining said Lot 1, Block 10, as shown on the survey attached to Notice of Vacation on Book 848 of Miscellaneous, Page 596, Document No. 3213583 filed in the office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-330 to allow a 2nd floor addition within the side yard setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 to allow a 2nd floor addition within the average lakeshore setback and within the 75 foot lakeyard setback; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021 the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council directed preparation of findings for approval of the variance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000012. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.26 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 51 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25 % according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. The existing conditions on the property has 39% hardcover with no proposed changes. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Side yard setback b. 75 foot lakeyard setback c. Average lakeshore setback 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. 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 small lot includes difficulties in lake frontage, small size, and width. The additions meant to be within existing improved areas. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to improve this nonconforming lot 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 for a 2nd story addition to the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the l frontage lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The encroachments proposed within the average lake setback, side yard, and lake yard appear to be reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The small lot size, existing home location with respect to the lake and setbacks, prevent a residential use consistent with the neighborhood ;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances requested for a 2nd story additions to the home which are designed to fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information 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-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which may apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 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 and width, home orientation, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which create a unique encroachments on the property for the existing home. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 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 variances do not merely serve as CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 a convenience to the applicant. The variances are necessary as the property has considerable 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 78-330 and 78-1279 to allow to allow a 2nd story addition within the side yard, 75 foot lake yard and average lakeshore setback, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated January 29, 2021 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this ______ day of ________________, 20__. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT 1 2 LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT 4 3 5 PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED 6 7 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & SECTION PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DELETED CONSTRUCTION R R SD/CO SD NOTE: MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT AS-BUILT PLAN NFH. * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ISSUE PLAN ISSUE RECORD EXISTING BOX / NEW FIXTURE HANG SHEET INDEX UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW SMOKE / CO DETECTOR 1. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES & SWITCHES TO BE VERIFIED AT ELECTRICAL WALKTHRU 2. FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL OUTLETS WITH HOMEOWNER, KITCHEN DESIGNER, INTERIOR DESIGNER PRIOR TO PLACING OR ALTERING CABINETS AT ISLAND OR CABINETRY IN GENERAL. 3. BUILD INSULATED BOXES AROUND RECESSED LIGHTS AND BATHROOM VENT FANS AT ATTIC AREAS TYPICAL. CONSTRUCT WITH 1" FOIL FACED RIGID INSULATION TAPE ALL EDGES AND TAPE CONTINUOUS WITH VAPOR BARRIER, INSULATE ABOVE BOXES TO R-38 MINIMUM. NEW TRIM ON EXISTING RECESSED LIGHTNT. STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY R T C N. E. N. N. EXISTING RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE N. NEW RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE N. REDEVICE EXISTING LIGHT SWITCH NEW OUTLET EXISTING OUTLET NEW LIGHT SWITCH THERMOSTAT NEW UNDER CABINET LIGHTING E. N. CABLE JACK PHONE JACK/DATA SMOKE DETECTOR E. N. EXISTING FIXTURE NEW BOX & FIXTURE INSTALL NEW BATH FAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS USB NEW USB OUTLET REDEVICE EXISTING OUTLET R. GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE: EXISTING DOORS ARE DRAWN WITH A 45 DEGREE SWING. NEW DOORS ARE DRAWN WITH A 90 DEGREE SWING. THIS EXCLUDES BI-FOLD & POCKET DOORS WHICH WILL THEN BE LABELED AS NEW WHERE APPLICABLE. ELECTRICAL, HVAC & PLUMBING LOCATIONS ARE FOR REPRESENTATION ONLY AND ARE TO BE SITE VERIFIED FOR CODE PURPOSES BY THE RESPECTIVE TRADE PARTNERS ALL DIMENSION STRINGS ARE TAKEN FROM FINISHED DRYWALL NOT FRAMING NEW WINDOWS - SEE CUT SHEETS FOR R.O. SPEC KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN CONCEPT PLAN MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED BID PLAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & SECTION PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY DATE 1 DESCRIPTION AS-BUILT PLAN 3 1-04-21 SHEETS 2 1,2 5 * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ISSUE 4 PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN CONCEPT PLAN1-07-21 1,2,3,4 BID PLAN1-15-21 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 WH 12'-11" 1 7 '-2 " 5'-5"2'-3"13'-9 1/4" 1 8 '-0 " 9'-7" 6 '-2 1 /2 " 4 '-4 " 2 '-9 1 /2 " 1 '-1 3 /4 " 7 '-1 0 " 6'-0" P A N E L + S U B W D LAUNDRY MECHANICAL UP 11 LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 1 XXXXXXXXXX SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 01 / 15 / 2021 01'2'3'6'9' KEY 4'-5 1/2" 1 0 '-3 1 /2 " 2 2 '-1 1 1 /4 " 8 '-5 3 /4 " 12'-5"8'-4 1/2"17'-10 1/4" 8 '-7 3 /4 " 13'-4 1/2"25'-5 3/4" 1 7 '-1 1 /2 " 3 3 '-2 3 /4 " 39'-4 3/4" 3 5 '-2 " PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX 11 MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW KITCHEN DINING LIVING ROOM FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM 2 + LOFT BEDROOM 3 UP DN DN F O Y E R H A L L W A Y BATH ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 2 01 / 15 / 2021 01'2'3'6'9' KEY A R R R R RR 1 '-1 1 1 /2 " 7 '-0 " 1 2 '-9 1 /4 " 3 '-0 " 1 '-4 " 7 '-0 1 /4 " 1 3 /4 " 2'-8 1/2"7'-0"17'-7 1/2"2'-6 1/2"7'-0"2'-6 1/4" 13'-4 1/2"25'-5 3/4" 1 7 '-1 1 /2 " 3 3 '-2 3 /4 " 39'-4 3/4" 3 5 '-2 " PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX 11 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" DINING LIVING ROOM FAMILY ROOM UP DN DNFOYER BEDROOM 2 + LOFT BEDROOM 3 HALLWAY BATH F R I D G E G A S R A N G E V E N T E D H O O D D W M I C R O2 7 2 7 1 7 1 7 3 7 3 7 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 1 5 1 5 1 6 1 6 2 6 2 6 2 5 2 5 3 6 3 6 ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 3 01 / 15 / 2021 2668 2 6 6 8 2868 4 0 6 8 2 6 6 8 2 6 6 8 4 0 6 8 2468 2668 R4 R4 R 3 3 R R 3 3 8'-4"2'-3"7'-5 1/2"3'-0"17'-7 1/4" 8 '-6 " 8 '-7 1 /2 " 7'-8"2'-0"15'-2 3/4" 6 '-0 " 2 '-6 " 4'-3" 13'-4 1/2" MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 5 BEDROOM 4 + LOFT LAUNDRY HALLWAY B A T H 2 M A S T E R B A T H WIC OPEN BELOW DN 11 UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 7 4 7 5 7 5 7 6 7 6 7 ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 4 01 / 15 / 2021 11 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 22 REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 5 01 / 15 / 2021 8 '-0 " 8 '-0 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-0 " 2'-0" 2 X 10 X 16 O.C. (EXISTING) 3/4" SUBFLOOR ADD CONTINUOUS SOLID BLOCKING 12" CINDER BLOCK WALL (EXISTING) ORIGINAL WALL ASSEMBLY 7 ' - 0 " ORIGINAL CONCRETE FLOOR GRADE EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING MAIN FLOOR FLOOR TRUSS 24" O.C. 2 X 6 X 16 O.C. O R I G I N A L H O U S E 2 N D F L O O R A D D I T I O N 6 12 OVERHANG RAFTER CLOSED CELL FOAM ARCH. GRAGE SHINGLE TIMBERLINE "CHARCOAL" FLASHING AS REQ. ICE & WATERSHIELD TO 6' 1/2" OSB ROOF DECK 2 X 8 RAFTER 7.5" CLOSED CELL FOAM 1/2" DRYWALL DOUBLE TOP PLATE 2 X 6 WALL FRAMING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP URBAN ALUMINUM SIDING R-19 FG BATT INSULATION 4 MILL VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" DRYWALL T&G OAK FLOOR REQ. 3/4 T&G PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR 14" FLOOR TRUSS EXISTING FAMILY ROOM CEILING ADJACENT ROOF LINE 33 SECTION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 11 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 22 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 6 01 / 15 / 2021 1"3'-0"1"2'-0"3'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 12'-2" 8 '-0 " 3 '-0 " 1 '-6 " 3 '-3 " 2 '-3 " HOOD VENT RANGE FRIDGE 11 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1'-6 1/8"2'-0"3'-0"2'-0"1'-6" 10'-0 1/8" 3 '-0 "DISHWASHERTRASH RECYCLE MICROWAVE 22 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 3/4"1'-5"2'-0"1'-9"2'-0"1'-5"1 7/8" 8'-10 5/8" 3 '-0 " 44 MASTER BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6" 10'-0" 3 '-0 " 33 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 '-0 " 1 '-3 " 8'-10 5/8" 6'-0 1/8"2'-6" 36" NICHE CENTERED 55 MASTER BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 8'-10 5/8" 1"2'-3"1'-8"2'-3"2'-6"1 5/8" 66 MAIN BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 7 01 / 15 / 2021 CERTIFICATE Made For: Mr. Rick Severson Clairmont Design + 1260 Spruce Place Orono, MN 55364 NOTES: Build SURVEYOR RELIED UPON SURVEY BY ROY J. HANSEN, RLS 6274, DATED JANUARY 18, 1978, AND FOUND IRONS, TO DETERMINE BOUNDARY LOCATION ALONG SPRUCE STREET. ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' INVERT ELEVATION AT SEWER STUB LOCATION=928.22 ---- (FROM RECORD DRAWINGS), FIELD VERIFY ' ' ' ,>--... ' OF SURVEY \J :"• C fo,-;; r,; I 0,,.,,. I ·0 "/ ,.., ~ ....__ ....__ ~ ~ ~ 945.01 0 , :> .. \ -~ BENCHMARK MANHOLE COVER RIM=945.21 NAVD88 INVERT=927.41 ----,, 'f: (RECORD DRAWINGS), FIELD VERIFY AS MH COVER FROZEN ',,,--_'J ~ BASIS OF BEARINGS: HENNEPIN COUNTY COORDINATES SITE ADDRESS: 1260 SPRUCE PLACE, ORONO MN, 55364 0 • ---947--- x 945.23 ® NOTES: DENOTES 12 INCH COMMON SPIKE SET WITH WASHER STAMPED RLS 16464 OR AS NOTED. DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND SIZE, TYPE, & R.L.S. AS NOTED. DENOTES EXISTING DRAINAGE DIRECTION DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE COVER -G -DENOTES GAS LINE -SS -DENOTES SANITARY SEWER [gJ DENOTES GAS METER DENOTES ELECTRIC METER DENOTES WOOD FENCE DENOTES POWER POLE -OHW-DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRES DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE LAKE & LAND SURVEYING JOB NO. 2021.009 RP '$ ',, (<\ \ \ / ''---94 7--------,:;,.6 ·93 -✓✓-✓✓ \ '---FE=948.55 EXISTING HOUSE ADDRESS: 1270 ----SLAB=947.78 AREAS FE=937.93-- ' ' ,---EDGE OF ICE AS OF ,/ JANUARY 18, 2021 X 941.58 X 941.64 '·--BOULDER RETAINING WALL r ""\ I -\ / I I" ' I-< f--I/ I' ,- f-- L_ '' I I I \ L _ V L _,., TOTAL LOT AREA: 11,558 SQ. FT. OR 0.26 ACRES NET AREA ABOVE OHW: 11,447 SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 3896 SQ. FT. TOTAL LOT AREA PERCENTAGE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 4515/11,558 = 0.39 x 100 = NET AREA PERCENTAGE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: 4515/11,447 = 0.39 x 100 = 39% 39% SCALE Legal Description: (Warranty Deed) Lot 1, Block 10, Saga Hill Revised, Hennepin County, Minnesota, together with that part of vacated Lake Street adjoining said Lot 1, Block 10, as shown on the survey attached to Notice of Vacation in Book 848 of Miscellaneous, Page 596, Document No. 3213583 filed in the office of the Register of Deeds, Hennepin County, Minnesota 1 inch = 20 ft. I certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision, and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ~ Jonathan L. Faraci Rev. January 29, 2021 January 18, 2021 Registered Land Surveyor & Registered Engineer Minnesota Registration No. 16464 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT 1 2 LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT 4 3 5 PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED 6 7 PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & SECTION PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY EXISTING CONSTRUCTION DELETED CONSTRUCTION R R SD/CO SD NOTE: MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT AS-BUILT PLAN NFH. * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ISSUE PLAN ISSUE RECORD EXISTING BOX / NEW FIXTURE HANG SHEET INDEX UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" NEW SMOKE / CO DETECTOR 1. ALL ELECTRICAL FIXTURES & SWITCHES TO BE VERIFIED AT ELECTRICAL WALKTHRU 2. FIELD VERIFY LOCATION OF ELECTRICAL OUTLETS WITH HOMEOWNER, KITCHEN DESIGNER, INTERIOR DESIGNER PRIOR TO PLACING OR ALTERING CABINETS AT ISLAND OR CABINETRY IN GENERAL. 3. BUILD INSULATED BOXES AROUND RECESSED LIGHTS AND BATHROOM VENT FANS AT ATTIC AREAS TYPICAL. CONSTRUCT WITH 1" FOIL FACED RIGID INSULATION TAPE ALL EDGES AND TAPE CONTINUOUS WITH VAPOR BARRIER, INSULATE ABOVE BOXES TO R-38 MINIMUM. NEW TRIM ON EXISTING RECESSED LIGHTNT. STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY R T C N. E. N. N. EXISTING RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE N. NEW RECESSED LIGHT FIXTURE N. REDEVICE EXISTING LIGHT SWITCH NEW OUTLET EXISTING OUTLET NEW LIGHT SWITCH THERMOSTAT NEW UNDER CABINET LIGHTING E. N. CABLE JACK PHONE JACK/DATA SMOKE DETECTOR E. N. EXISTING FIXTURE NEW BOX & FIXTURE INSTALL NEW BATH FAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS USB NEW USB OUTLET REDEVICE EXISTING OUTLET R. GENERAL NOTES: TOTAL PROJECT SQUARE FOOTAGE: EXISTING DOORS ARE DRAWN WITH A 45 DEGREE SWING. NEW DOORS ARE DRAWN WITH A 90 DEGREE SWING. THIS EXCLUDES BI-FOLD & POCKET DOORS WHICH WILL THEN BE LABELED AS NEW WHERE APPLICABLE. ELECTRICAL, HVAC & PLUMBING LOCATIONS ARE FOR REPRESENTATION ONLY AND ARE TO BE SITE VERIFIED FOR CODE PURPOSES BY THE RESPECTIVE TRADE PARTNERS ALL DIMENSION STRINGS ARE TAKEN FROM FINISHED DRYWALL NOT FRAMING NEW WINDOWS - SEE CUT SHEETS FOR R.O. SPEC KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN CONCEPT PLAN MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED BID PLAN PROPOSED EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS & SECTION PROPOSED INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 0 1'2'3'6'9' KEY DATE 1 DESCRIPTION AS-BUILT PLAN 3 1-04-21 SHEETS 2 1,2 5 * FOR CURRENT INFORMATION REFER TO LATEST PLAN ISSUE ISSUE 4 PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW UP DN DN CONCEPT PLAN1-07-21 1,2,3,4 BID PLAN1-15-21 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 WH 12'-11" 1 7 '-2 " 5'-5"2'-3"13'-9 1/4" 1 8 '-0 " 9'-7" 6 '-2 1 /2 " 4 '-4 " 2 '-9 1 /2 " 1 '-1 3 /4 " 7 '-1 0 " 6'-0" P A N E L + S U B W D LAUNDRY MECHANICAL UP 11 LOWER LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 1 XXXXXXXXXX SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 01 / 15 / 2021 01'2'3'6'9' KEY 4'-5 1/2" 1 0 '-3 1 /2 " 2 2 '-1 1 1 /4 " 8 '-5 3 /4 " 12'-5"8'-4 1/2"17'-10 1/4" 8 '-7 3 /4 " 13'-4 1/2"25'-5 3/4" 1 7 '-1 1 /2 " 3 3 '-2 3 /4 " 39'-4 3/4" 3 5 '-2 " PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX 11 MAIN LEVEL AS BUILT SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" DW KITCHEN DINING LIVING ROOM FAMILY ROOM BEDROOM 2 + LOFT BEDROOM 3 UP DN DN F O Y E R H A L L W A Y BATH ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 2 01 / 15 / 2021 01'2'3'6'9' KEY A R R R R RR 1 '-1 1 1 /2 " 7 '-0 " 1 2 '-9 1 /4 " 3 '-0 " 1 '-4 " 7 '-0 1 /4 " 1 3 /4 " 2'-8 1/2"7'-0"17'-7 1/2"2'-6 1/2"7'-0"2'-6 1/4" 13'-4 1/2"25'-5 3/4" 1 7 '-1 1 /2 " 3 3 '-2 3 /4 " 39'-4 3/4" 3 5 '-2 " PLAN ISSUE RECORD SHEET INDEX 11 MAIN LEVEL PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" STANDARD ELECTRICAL KEY KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" DINING LIVING ROOM FAMILY ROOM UP DN DNFOYER BEDROOM 2 + LOFT BEDROOM 3 HALLWAY BATH F R I D G E G A S R A N G E V E N T E D H O O D D W M I C R O2 7 2 7 1 7 1 7 3 7 3 7 EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING EXISTING 1 5 1 5 1 6 1 6 2 6 2 6 2 5 2 5 3 6 3 6 ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 3 01 / 15 / 2021 2668 2 6 6 8 2868 4 0 6 8 2 6 6 8 2 6 6 8 4 0 6 8 2468 2668 R4 R4 R 3 3 R R 3 3 8'-4"2'-3"7'-5 1/2"3'-0"17'-7 1/4" 8 '-6 " 8 '-7 1 /2 " 7'-8"2'-0"15'-2 3/4" 6 '-0 " 2 '-6 " 4'-3" 13'-4 1/2" MASTER BEDROOM BEDROOM 5 BEDROOM 4 + LOFT LAUNDRY HALLWAY B A T H 2 M A S T E R B A T H WIC OPEN BELOW DN 11 UPPER LEVEL PROPOSED SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 4 7 4 7 5 7 5 7 6 7 6 7 ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 4 01 / 15 / 2021 11 FRONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 22 REAR ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 5 01 / 15 / 2021 8 '-0 " 8 '-0 " 1 '-2 " 8 '-0 " 2'-0" 2 X 10 X 16 O.C. (EXISTING) 3/4" SUBFLOOR ADD CONTINUOUS SOLID BLOCKING 12" CINDER BLOCK WALL (EXISTING) ORIGINAL WALL ASSEMBLY 7 ' - 0 " ORIGINAL CONCRETE FLOOR GRADE EXISTING BASEMENT EXISTING MAIN FLOOR FLOOR TRUSS 24" O.C. 2 X 6 X 16 O.C. O R I G I N A L H O U S E 2 N D F L O O R A D D I T I O N 6 12 OVERHANG RAFTER CLOSED CELL FOAM ARCH. GRAGE SHINGLE TIMBERLINE "CHARCOAL" FLASHING AS REQ. ICE & WATERSHIELD TO 6' 1/2" OSB ROOF DECK 2 X 8 RAFTER 7.5" CLOSED CELL FOAM 1/2" DRYWALL DOUBLE TOP PLATE 2 X 6 WALL FRAMING TYVEK HOUSE WRAP URBAN ALUMINUM SIDING R-19 FG BATT INSULATION 4 MILL VAPOR BARRIER 1/2" DRYWALL T&G OAK FLOOR REQ. 3/4 T&G PLYWOOD SUBFLOOR 14" FLOOR TRUSS EXISTING FAMILY ROOM CEILING ADJACENT ROOF LINE 33 SECTION SCALE: 3/8" = 1'-0" 11 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 22 SIDE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 6 01 / 15 / 2021 1"3'-0"1"2'-0"3'-0"2'-0"2'-0" 12'-2" 8 '-0 " 3 '-0 " 1 '-6 " 3 '-3 " 2 '-3 " HOOD VENT RANGE FRIDGE 11 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1'-6 1/8"2'-0"3'-0"2'-0"1'-6" 10'-0 1/8" 3 '-0 "DISHWASHERTRASH RECYCLE MICROWAVE 22 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 1 3/4"1'-5"2'-0"1'-9"2'-0"1'-5"1 7/8" 8'-10 5/8" 3 '-0 " 44 MASTER BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 2'-6"2'-6"2'-6"2'-6" 10'-0" 3 '-0 " 33 KITCHEN ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 '-0 " 1 '-3 " 8'-10 5/8" 6'-0 1/8"2'-6" 36" NICHE CENTERED 55 MASTER BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" 8'-10 5/8" 1"2'-3"1'-8"2'-3"2'-6"1 5/8" 66 MAIN BATH ELEVATION SCALE: 1/2" = 1'-0" ORIGINATION DATE 12 / 27 / 2020 REVISION DATE D A T E : As-Built C L I E N T : 1 2 6 0 S p r u c e P l a c e O r o n o , M N 5 5 3 6 4 A n d e r s o n /P e r e z E l l i e & R o b P R O J E C T : U p p e r L e v e l A d d i t i o n C L I E N T I N I T I A L S : SHEET NO. 7 01 / 15 / 2021 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 9. LA21-000012 CLAIRMONT DESIGN BUILD, 1260 SPRUCE PLACE, VARIANCES (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Rick Severson of Clairmont Design Build, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is looking to construct a second story addition to an existing home which is located on a substandard lot. The footprint of the home is not proposed to change; the existing home encroaches in the side yard setback, 75-foot lake yard setback, and the average lakeshore setback. The proposed improvements are all vertical and the property is currently over in hardcover and there are no proposed changes to the existing footprint or the setbacks to the property. The red shown on screen is the footprint of the existing home, so the white is identified as that proposed second story. The Applicant identified the substandard lot and existing home location as the practical difficulty for supporting the request. Staff finds there are a number of property characteristics making improvements to this lot challenging. The substandard lot is 50 feet wide and ¼ of an acre, where 1 acre and 140 wide are the standard, leaving little area for modest expansions. The existing home footprint currently has a 6.5-foot side yard setback in the northeast; she noted the setback on screen where the current home sit 6.5 feet and 7.5 feet is required. The existing house footprint is also roughly a foot into the 75-foot lake yard setback at 74.3 feet, and the property abuts an unimproved right-of-way to the north. The average lakeshore setback (ALS) is established solely by the house to the south which is set 83 feet back from the ordinary high-water level (OHL), making the existing house footprint encroach approximately 11 feet into that ALS. She said the proposed second story addition encroaches in those three ways, and are all vertical encroachments. These are practical difficulties to support the requested variances. The southern neighbor at 1270 Spruce submitted a letter of support included in the packet. Staff is recommending approval. Gettman asked if Staff has any picture of the neighboring houses and how they sit on the lots. Oakden showed an aerial photo with some neighbors, but does not have any street views. Libby is not seeing in any dimensions or illustrations what the maximum two peak roof height is with the added addition. Oakden believes she did an analysis on height and they were not proposing to be above the 30 feet. Ressler noted there was a change in the last few years as to how they measure that 30 feet and asked if that is true. Oakden stated they clarified the building height definition and they now measure from the midpoint of a gabled roof. They used to take into account some windows on the second story and do a midpoint from there. Rick Severson with Clairmont Design Build approached the podium. He noted it is not on the drawing but the height at the maximum is 23 feet 4 inches. Going back to the aerial photo, the lay of the land is the lot to the south is the highest, 1260 is midway, and then it drops again. The roofline on the south lot is substantially higher than the 23 feet 4 inches at the highest point, and it is from the main floor not from grade. However, grade in this house is very close to the main floor. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:52 p.m. Ressler stated they already had one of these, and the previous one was not adding as much for structure, but reusing the existing structure. By definition this is not the same, however, in looking at this historically the Planning Commission has not been opposed when one is building on the existing envelope that is already there. Gettman noted it has been the line of sight they have had concern with. Ressler said that is correct. Kirchner said it is a great summary and he agrees with that. McCutcheon moved, Bollis seconded, to approve La21-000012, 1260 Spruce Place, Variances. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 01/20/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/02/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/01/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Planner Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: LA21-000012, Clairmont Design Build, 1260 Spruce Place, Variances Public Hearing Background The applicant is requesting to construct a 2nd story addition to the home, which is located on a substandard lot. The footprint of the home is not proposed to change. The existing home encroaches in the side yard setback roughly 1-foot in the northeast corner and roughly 1-foot into the 75’ lakeyard. The existing home sits roughly 10’ into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed improvement are all vertical to allow a 2nd story addition. There are no proposed changes to the existing home footprint or setbacks for the property. No hardcover or structural coverage is being proposed. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot and existing home location 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 there are a number of property characteristics making improvement of the lot challenging. The property is substandard in area and width; only 50 feet wide, leaving little area for modest expansions. The existing home is located within the 75’ lakeyard, 7.5’ side yard setback and within the average lakeshore setback so the 2nd story addition continues these limited encroachments. These are all practical difficulties that support the requested variances. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Street 30’ 83’ No change. Side (North) 7.5’ 6.5’ No change. Side (South) 7.5’ 10’ No change. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting 75’ lakeyard, average lakeshore and side yard setback variances for a 2nd story addition. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA21-000012 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Lakeshore 75’ 74.3’ No change. Average Lakeshore 83.4’ per southern neighbor 74.3’ (Not Met) Section 78-330 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) 140’ Actual 11,558 s.f. (0.26 acre) 57’ @ 75’ / 51’ @ OHWL Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: No proposed changes Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: No proposed changes. Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-330) Side yard Setback The existing house footprint currently has a 6.5’ setback in the northeast corner where 7.5 is required. The application for a 2nd story addition would create a new vertical encroachment within this existing encroachment. No new footprint setbacks are proposed. Variance (78-1279) 75- Lake Setback and Average Lakeshore Setback The existing house footprint has roughly a 1-foot encroachment within the 75’ lakeyard setback at 74.3’. This property abuts an un-improvement right of way to the north and a property with a home that sits 83.4’ from the OHWL to the south. The property to the south establishes the average lakeshore setback. The existing house footprint encroached into this setback roughly 11 feet. The proposed 2nd story addition with have vertical encroachments into this setback. No new footprint encroachments are proposed. 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: LA21-000012 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 4 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 small lot includes difficulties in lake frontage, small size, and width. The additions meant to be within existing improved areas. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to improve this nonconforming lot 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 for a 2nd story addition to the home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the setbacks, appears to be somewhat reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the l frontage lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties. The encroachments proposed within the average lake setback, side yard, and lake yard appear to be reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The small lot size, existing home location with respect to the lake and setbacks, prevent a residential use consistent with the neighborhood ;and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances requested for a 2nd story additions to the home which are 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-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which may apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. 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 and width, home orientation, and adjacent properties creates difficulties which create a unique encroachments on the property for the existing home. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting the requested variances are necessary for the preservation of the property right of the applicant. 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 LA21-000012 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 4 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 variances do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. The variances are necessary as the property has considerable 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 The southern neighbor at 1270 Spruce Place submitted a letter of support. (Exhibit F) Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the 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 Planning Staff recommends approval. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application and Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Neighbor letter Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map From: Sandra Bolich <s.bolich@mchsi.com> Date: Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 11:57 AM Subject: 1260 Spruce Place To: <rick@clairmontbuilders.com> Hello, My name is Sandy Bolich. I live at 1270 Spruce Place. I'm writing this letter to inform the council that I am in favor of the expansion/remodel of the Anderson house. The Anderson family has been in the house for many years and are very established in the neighborhood. I approve of the project and will not stand in the way. Thank you, Sandy AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By RJO 1. Purpose. The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a day nursery. 2. Background. The application is requesting a conditional use permit to utilize the property for a day nursery, “Children’s Workshop”. The proposed business will occupy the entire building. Other than signage, no changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. The application is proposing to fence-in the rear of the building to establish the required, dedicated play area. This will remove some existing parking spaces. Available parking remaining meets the minimum requirements. An administrative site plan review is required, which will be completed prior to issuance of a building permit, to ensure conformity with the Conditional Use Permit. Any conditions required by the MCWD must be met before a building permit can be issued. 3. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on January 20, 2021. The 60-Day review period expires March 19, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2021. Following the public hearing the Planning Commission voted 7 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested CUP. 5. Public Comment The neighbors at 2160 and 2073 Wayzata Blvd has submitted a signed acknowledgements. The property drive lane accesses through City of Long Lake. They submitted an email stating they have no comments regarding this application. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval subject meeting all MCWD requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt or amend the approval resolution. Exhibits A. DRAFT Resolution B. Proposed Plans C. DRAFT PC Minutes D. PC Staff Report References PC Exhibits A. Application B. Narrative C. Existing & Proposed Plans D. Letters/Comments submitted E. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 20 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000013 – Bob Johnston, 2190 Wayzata Blvd, Conditional Use Permit – Resolution Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-644 FILE NO. LA21-000013 WHEREAS, on January 20, 2021, Bob Johnson o/b/o Children’s Workshop (“Applicants”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 2190 Wayzata Blvd and legally described as: Block 1 Lot 1 Sugar Woods 2nd Addition (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a conditional use permit to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-644 to allow a day nursery in the B-1 Zoning District; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, 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 February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested conditional use permit as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000013. 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 B-1 Zoning District. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property contains 0.94 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 146 feet. 4. The Property is exempt from the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following Conditional Use Permit: a. Conditional Use Permit for a day nursery 6. The Orono City Council requires certain standards for Day Nurseries; these standards are met. 7. In considering this application for conditional use permit, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed application upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; the use is listed as a permitted conditional use within the B-1 zoning district. This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; the use is listed as a permitted conditional use within the B-1 zoning district. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The building is currently vacant. It directly abuts a greenhouse with outdoor storage to the west and a gas station to the east. The property is surrounded by commercial uses in the area including service and retail uses, another daycare and senior living located in the same corridor. There is a residential development to the north of the parcel. This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This criterion is met. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This criterion is met. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The applicant is proposing a 72” tall perimeter fence along the rear of the of the property. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; This criterion is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; This criterion is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; This criterion is met. and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-644 to allow a day nursery subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 3. The conditional use permit granted by this resolution runs with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a commencing day nursery operations within one year of the date of Council approval, or the conditional use permit will expire on that date (March 8, 2022). 4. All MCWD must be met before a building permit can be issued CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 4 5. Additionally, the conditional use permit shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor EX I S T I N G BU I L D I N G FO O T P R I N T 10 , 8 8 0 S F EX I S T I N G PA R K I N G LO T PR O P E R T Y L I N E WA Y Z A T A B L V D W P E D E S T R I A N T R A I L 1 2 0 ' - 0 " R . O . W . 11 13 EX I S T . C U R B A N D G U T T E R , T Y P . EX I S T . S I D E W A L K , T Y P . O .H. O .H. EX I S T I N G S I T E A C C E S S EX I S T . A C C E S S EA S E M E N T EX I S T . S T R I P I N G , T Y P . EX I S T . A S P H A L T P A V I N G PR O P O S E D O U T D O O R PL A Y A R E A 9, 6 0 0 S F PR O P O S E D O U T D O O R P L A Y A R E A : -C O N T I N U O U S 7 2 " T A L L P E R I M E T E R F E N C E -F I N A L P R O G R A M / L A Y O U T T B D B U T I N C L U D E S : PL A Y G R O U N D E Q U I P M E N T , G A R D E N ( S ) , T U R F AN D E X I S T I N G H A R D S C A P E ( A S I N D I C A T E D ) AP P R O X I M A T E A R E A B R E A K D O W N - 7, 7 0 0 S F S O F T S C A P E + 1 , 9 0 0 S F E X I S T I N G H A R D S C A P E 9, 6 0 0 S F T O T A L P L A Y A R E A S H O U L D E R S H O U L D E R EX I S T . T R E E , T Y P EX I S T . E L E C . TR A N S F O R M E R PR O P O S E D L O C A T I O N O F T R A S H EN C L O S U R E ; A S S E M B L Y S H A L L B E 7 2 " TA L L M I N . & O P A Q U E EX T E N D C O N C . S I D E W A L K RE M O V E 2 , 7 2 0 ± S F O F E X I S T . AS P H A L T W I T H C U R B A N D G U T T E R (A S I N D I C A T E D ) PE D E S T R I A N G A T E SE R V I C E G A T E PE D E S T R I A N C U R B C U T SO U T H EN T R Y EA S T EN T R Y NO T E : SE E E X T E R I O R B U I L D I N G E L E V A T I O N S FO R L O C A T I O N S O F E X I S T I N G W A L L - MO U N T E D E X T E R I O R L I G H T I N G . PR O P O S E D C O N C . L A N D I N G AT D O O R , T Y P . ZONING / SITE INFORMATION PARCEL ID:3411823210033 ADDRESS:2190 WAYZATA BLVD W ORONO, MINNESOTA 55356 PARCEL AREA: 0.94 ACRES; 41,084 SF YEAR BUILT: 1999 PROPERTY TYPE:COMMERCIAL-PREFERRED PRIMARY ZONING: B-1 RETAIL SALES OVERLAY ZONING: NONE PROPOSED USE: MONTESSORI SCHOOL (~DAY NURSERY SEC. 78-644(7)).BUILDING HEIGHT & AREA: -EXISTING (NO CHANGE)-10,880± SF - 1 S T O R Y ( 1 6 - 0 " ± T A L L ) PARKING:EXISTING PARKING: 39 EXISTING PARKING STALLS REQUIRED PARKING: 24 PARKING STALLS = 4 + ((10,880 - 1 , 0 0 0 ) / 5 0 0 ) PROVIDED PARKING: 24 PARKING STALLS (AS SHOWN)IMPERVIOUS SURFACE:EXISTING (NO CHANGE)EXISTING BUILDING: 10,880± SF EXISTING SIDEWALKS: 460± SF EXISTING ASPHALT PARKING (TO REMAIN): 12,985± SF PROPOSED MODIFICATION REMOVED ASPHALT PAR KING: 2,720± SF NEW CONCRETE SIDEWALK: 400± SF EXISTING IMPERVIOUS TOTAL: 27,045± SF PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS TOTAL: 24,725± SF IMPERVIOUS NET REDUCTION OF 2,320± SF Project number:Checked By:Drawn By:Copyright HjS Architecture 2021. All rights reserved.The above designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and analyses are the explicit property of the Architect, and no part shall be copied, sold or used in connection with any project other than that for which they have been prepared without the written permission of the Architect.Revision:Date:Description:PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/20/21 HjS Architecture T: 612-406-7900 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Email: hans@hjsarchitecture.com 1304 University Avenue NE, #305 Web: www.hjsarchitecture.com 00 1/20/21 CUP APPLICATION 1/20/2021 1:01:38 PM A100 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLANHjS#Children's Workshop RRG2190 Wayzata Blvd.Long Lake, MN 55356 HjS 1" = 3 0 ' - 0 " A1 0 0 1 AR C H I T E C T U R A L S I T E P L A N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A200 A2 0 0 A2 0 0 1 A2 0 0 4 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 A CB 766 SFNIDO ROOM 108 17 2 S F SP R I N K L E R RM 12 7 80 1 S F TO D D L E R RM 10 9 92 4 S F PR E S C H O O L 11 3 18 2 S F BU S I N E S S OF F I C E 10 5 255 SFMEETING104111 SFH.O.S. OFFICE 10357 SFVEST.100182 SFRECEPTION102 30 5 S F KI T C H E N 11 5 T. 11 2 97 7 S F PR E S C H O O L 12 1 T O Y S T O R A G E 87 5 S F MO V E M E N T RO O M 12 5 97 6 S F PR E S C H O O L 12 3 93 5 S F TO D D L E R RM 11 1 C O A T S / S T O R A G E C O A T S / S T O R A G E T. 11 0 357 SFLOBBY101 70 2 S F HA L L 12 4 UN I S E X 11 7 UN I S E X 11 8 RO O F AC C E S S 11 9 55 S F VE S T I B U L E 12 0 T. 12 4 T. 12 2 T. 11 4 SOUTH ENTRY LA U N D R Y 11 6 CO A T S / C U B B I E S C O A T S / C U B B I E S GL A S S O V E R H E A D D O O R OU T D O O R P L A Y S P A C E 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 4 ' - 0 " 2 0 ' - 1 0 " 24' - 11"21' - 0" 27 ' - 6 " 25 ' - 4 " 27 6 S F ST A F F RO O M 10 6 CO T S T O R A G E 5' - 6 " W O R K S P A C E 3 - C O M P S I N K RE F R I G E R A T O R ST O R A G E S H E L V E S C O U N T E R T O P / S I N K S CO A T S / C U B B I E S 17 2 S F QU I E T RO O M 12 6 38 ' - 4 " CRIBSCHANGINGKITCHEN / EATING TIOLETING S T O R A G E CO A T S / CA R S E A T S NURSING S I N K S & C O U N T E R S I N K S & C O U N T E R SI N K S & C O U N T E R SI N K S & C O U N T E R 3 8 ' - 8 " 3 5 ' - 5 " 38 ' - 4 " STORAGE S T A F F K I T C H E N E T T E STOR.108B 6 ' - 0 " EX I S T . EL E C . EA S T EN T R Y 34 ' - 0 " 34 ' - 0 " 34 ' - 0 " 34' - 0" 13 6 ' - 0 " V E R . 4 0 ' - 0 " 4 0 ' - 0 " 8 0 ' - 0 " V E R . PROPOSED CONC. LANDING, AT NEW DOOR TYP.EXISTING CURB AND GUTTER, TYP.EXISTING CONC. SIDEWALK Project number:Checked By:Drawn By:Copyright HjS Architecture 2021. All rights reserved.The above designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and analyses are the explicit property of the Architect, and no part shall be copied, sold or used in connection with any project other than that for which they have been prepared without the written permission of the Architect.Revision:Date:Description:PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/20/21 HjS Architecture T: 612-406-7900 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Email: hans@hjsarchitecture.com 1304 University Avenue NE, #305 Web: www.hjsarchitecture.com 00 1/20/21 CUP APPLICATION 1/20/2021 1:01:05 PM A101 FLOOR PLANHjS#Children's Workshop HjS2190 Wayzata Blvd.Long Lake, MN 55356 RRG 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A1 0 1 1 LE V E L 1 F I T P L A N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LEVEL 1 100' -0"1 2 3 4 5 EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHOWN GRAY FOR CLARITY EXISTING MASONRY FACADE, TYP.EXISTING ALUM. WDW, TYP.APPROX. LINE OF GRADE, V.I.F.EXISTING DOWN SPOUTS, TYP. SE E P L A N EA S T E N T R Y NE W A L U M . D O O R W/ F U L L L I T E NE W A L U M . D O O R W/ F U L L L I T E NE W A L U M . D O O R W/ F U L L L I T E EX I S T I N G W A L L - M O U N T E D EX T E R I O R L I G H T I N G , T Y P LEVEL 1 100' -0" A C B EX I S T I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N SH O W N G R A Y F O R C L A R I T Y EX I S T I N G M A S O N R Y F A C A D E , T Y P . SE C T I O N A L D O O R ( G L A S S ) AP P R O X . L I N E O F G R A D E , V . I . F . NE W A L U M . D O O R W/ F U L L L I T E EX I S T I N G W A L L - M O U N T E D EX T E R I O R L I G H T I N G , T Y P LE V E L 1 10 0 ' - 0" A C B EX I S T I N G C O N S T R U C T I O N SH O W N G R A Y F O R C L A R I T Y EX I S T I N G M A S O N R Y F A C A D E , T Y P . EX I S T I N G A L U M . W D W , T Y P . AP P R O X . L I N E O F G R A D E , V . I . F . EX I S T I N G W A L L - M O U N T E D EX T E R I O R L I G H T I N G , T Y P SE E P L A N WE S T E N T R Y T Y P . 1 5 ' - 8 " V I F . 2 0 ' - 6 " V I F . LEVEL 1 100' -0" 1 2 3 4 5 NE W A L U M . D O O R W/ F U L L L I T E EXISTING CONSTRUCTION SHOWN GRAY FOR CLARITY EXISTING MASONRY FACADE, TYP.EXISTING ALUM. WDW, TYP.APPROX. LINE OF GRADE, V.I.F.EXISTING DOWN SPOUTS, TYP. EX I S T I N G W A L L - M O U N T E D EX T E R I O R L I G H T I N G , T Y P AP P R O X . L O C A T I O N O F E X I S T I N G E L E C . TR A N S F O R M E R , S E E S I T E P L A N Project number:Checked By:Drawn By:Copyright HjS Architecture 2021. All rights reserved.The above designs, drawings, specifications, reports, and analyses are the explicit property of the Architect, and no part shall be copied, sold or used in connection with any project other than that for which they have been prepared without the written permission of the Architect.Revision:Date:Description:PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1/20/21 HjS Architecture T: 612-406-7900 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55413 Email: hans@hjsarchitecture.com 1304 University Avenue NE, #305 Web: www.hjsarchitecture.com 00 1/20/21 CUP APPLICATION 1/20/2021 12:44:28 PM A200 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSHjS#Children's Workshop RRG2190 Wayzata Blvd.Long Lake, MN 55356 HjS 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A2 0 0 1 EA S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A2 0 0 2 NO R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A2 0 0 3 SO U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " A2 0 0 4 WE S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 10. LA21-000013 BOB JOHNSTON, 2190 WAYZATA BLVD W, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Bob Johnston, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. The Applicant is requesting a CUP to allow a day nursery and Planning Staff recommends approval. The Application is requesting a CUP to utilize the property for a day nursery for a children’s workshop, which is the City Code words for a daycare center. The proposed business will occupy the entire building. Other than signage there are no proposed changes to the exterior of the building. The application proposes a fence in the rear of the building to establish the required dedicated play area. This will remove some existing parking space and the available parking remaining meets the minimal requirements outlined by City code. The building is currently vacant and directly abuts a greenhouse with outdoor storage to the west, and commercial businesses and gas stations to the east. There is a residential development to the north of the parcel and the Applicant is proposing a 72-inch-tall perimeter fence along the rear property line. An administrative site plan review is required and will be done prior to issuance of a building permit and to ensure conformity to the CUP. Setbacks and structural building coverage have no proposed changes. With the B1 zoning district, day nurseries are listed as a CUP needing the outdoor play space requirement. The day nursery would operate 7:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday with no weekend use; they currently have 54 students enrolled with capacity of 110 students. The business is operating with 13 staff members but could potentially have 21 on rotating shifts. Day nurseries generate traffic at peak times during morning and evening rush hours – access to the site is a single drive to Wayzata Boulevard which goes through the City of Long Lake. The County has installed turn lanes to support this intersection within Wayzata Boulevard. Multiple neighbors at 2160 and 2173 Wayzata Boulevard have signed acknowledgement forms included in the packet. The City of Long Lake was notified of the CUP because of the access lane that cuts through their city and they have no additional comments regarding this application. Items to consider: does the Planning Commission find it necessary to impose any conditions in order to mitigate any impacts for the proposal, or are there other concerns. Ressler clarified there is adequate parking off a busy road and that seems like a good spot for something like this. He said there are no plans of changing or reducing some of the parking spaces besides what is noted for the outdoor play area and asked if that is correct. Oakden replied that is correct. Ressler said part of the Staff recommendation includes a site study that would include the parking spaces being adequate. Oakden said correct, that was reviewed and an analysis is included in the packet. Ressler stated it is supported as applied. Oakden said yes, they are meeting the minimum standard of 24 spaces. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Bob Johnston, 9348 Quinn Road in Bloomington, is a commercial broker representing the interest and filed the application on behalf of Children’s Workshop. Children’s Workshop is currently leasing space in an office property in Plymouth and as a tenant of many years there, they have obvious limitations. Mr. Johnston stated they look at this building with excitement for the future and become their own landlord and grow their business. Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:00 p.m. Ressler noted it is a daycare facility and that is needed, it is a vacant building, parking is adequate, ingress and egress is adequate. McCutcheon said it is a pandemic and there will be more kids. He said in all seriousness, he thinks it would be a great asset to the community. Ressler agreed and asked if there is any opposition. Libby does not have opposition but reading the licensing and the accreditations and the fact that this is a vetted organization it seems that it would be a sensible proposal for them to become their own landlord. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000013, 2190 Wayzata Blvd W, Conditional Use Permit. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 01/20/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/20/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/19/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: LA21-000013, Bob Johnston, 2190 Wayzata Blvd, Conditional Use Permit, Public Hearing Background The application is requesting a conditional use permit to utilize the property for a day nursery, Children’s Workshop. The proposed business will occupy the entire building. Other than signage, no changes to the exterior of the building are proposed. The application is proposing to fence in the rear of the building to establish the required, dedicated play area. This will remove some existing parking spaces. The available parking remaining meets the minimum requirements. An administrative site plan review is required, which will be completed prior to issuance of a building permit, to ensure conformity with the Conditional Use Permit. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-646 - Setbacks: DISTRICT B-1 Required Existing Proposed Front 35’ 73’ No proposed changes Rear 35’ 54’ No proposed changes Side (West) 15’ 15’ No proposed changes Side (East) 15’ 50’ No proposed changes Section 78-646 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT B-1 Lot Area Lot Width Required 20,000 s.f. (0.48 acres) 100’ Actual 41,084 s.f. (0.94 acre) 146’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 41,084 s.f. (0.94 acre) Allowed: 8,216 s.f. (20%) Existing: 10,800 s.f. (26%)- Proposed: 10,800 s.f. (26%)- No Changes Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: The property is exempt within the Shoreland Overlay District. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to allow a day nursery. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. LA21-000013 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Applicable Regulations: The B-1 zoning district, in section 78-644 lists permissible Conditional Use Permits: Day nurseries, provided not less than 50 square feet of outside play area per pupil is available and fenced. Section 78-1 defines day nurseries: Nursery, day, means a use where care is provided for pay for three or more children under kindergarten age for periods of four hours or more per day. The application is proposing 9,600 square feet for total outdoor fenced-in play area. This would allow for 192 children to be enrolled based on the amount of outdoor space. Children’s Workshop currently has 54 students enrolled, which they stated is roughly 48% enrollment with an enrollment of 110 children is anticipated. This meets the condition for the day nursery. 78-1516 Off Street Parking: Day nurseries, four, plus one for each 500 square feet in excess of 1,000 square feet of floor space in the principal structure. The site currently has 39 existing parking stalls. Following the parking requirements the site will require 24 total stalls, 4 stalls + ((10,088-1,000)/500). The submitted site plan meets this criteria. 2 of the spots are dedicated to handicap parking. This will be reviewed by the building official as part of the meeting all ADA standards before any building permits are issued. Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; the use is listed as a permitted conditional use within the B-1 zoning district. This criterion is met. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; the use is listed as a permitted conditional use within the B-1 zoning district. This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; This criterion is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The building is currently vacant. It directly abuts a greenhouse with outdoor storage to the west and a gas station to the east. The property is surrounded by commercial uses in the area including service and retail uses, another daycare and senior living located in the same corridor. There is a residential development to the north of the parcel. This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This criterion is met. LA21-000013 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 4 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; This criterion is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; This criterion is met. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The applicant is proposing a 72” tall perimeter fence along the rear of the of the property. This criterion is met. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; This criterion is met. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; This criterion is met. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; This criterion is met. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; This criterion is met. and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This criterion is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The application is proposing a day nursery use which will operate 7:30am – 6:00 pm, Monday- Friday with no weekend use. The applicant currently has 54 student enrolled with full capacity at 110 children. The business is operating with 13 staff members and could have up to 21 staff on rotating shifts. Day nurseries generate traffic at peak times, during the morning and evening rush hours. Access to the site is via a single driveway off of Wayzata Blvd. This driveway lines up with Brimhall Ave. in Long Lake. The County has installed turn lanes to support this intersection. Public Comments The neighbors at 2160 and 2073 Wayzata Blvd has submitted a signed acknowledgements. The property drive lane accesses through City of Long Lake. They submitted an email stating they have no comments regarding this application. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate any impacts created by the proposal? 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? LA21-000013 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 4 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends the approval List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Plans Exhibit D. Letters/Comments submitted Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: MLU Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to provide the Council year to date General Fund Budget Information. 2. Background. Section 1-9 of Policy 1 – Operating Budget of the City’s Financial Management Policies require a quarterly financial report to the City Council. Information in this report should be considered preliminary and will not be final until the completion of the City’s annual audit in May. Revenue information with the exception of interest should have only minor changes, if any, between now and the final numbers. Investment interest is allocated based on average fund balances and will change as final year-end adjusting entries are made. Expenditures will change as year-end journal entries are entered and any late arriving 2020 invoices are processed. Any changes should be relatively minor in comparison to the overall budget. 3. Staff Recommendation. This is for informational purposes only and no action is required. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED No action is required. Exhibits A. Fourth Quarter Budget Memo Item No.: 21 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Fourth Quarter Financial Report Presenter: Maggie Ung Acting Finance Director Agenda Section: Finance Director Report To: Mayor and Council From: Maggie Ung, Acting Finance Director Subject: Budget Update Date: March 8, 2021 Attachments: 1. Revenue Summary 2. Revenue Detail 3. Revenue Graph 4. Expenditure Summary 5. Expenditure Detail 6. 4th Quarter Vendor Listing 7. YTD Top 100 Paid Vendor Listing The fourth quarter 2020 budget to actual comparisons are included with this memo. Both detailed and summary data is being presented for review. The amounts being presented should be considered preliminary numbers and may change as staff prepares for the 2020 audit. It is anticipated that any changes will be minor in relation to the overall budget. Although some adjustments have been made, both revenue and expenditure statement should be view as non- adjusted. Also included are the 2020 vendor listings. General Fund Revenues At 101.14% of revenues, the City’s total revenue collect is slightly over budget, which continues the trend of ending the year over budget. Once investment earnings are allocated to the various city funds, revenue will increase by approximately $70,000. In the total, General Fund Revenues will exceed budget by approximately $170,000. Property tax revenues, which accounts for 51% of the revenue budget, are at 99.12% of budget compared to the previous year of 99.86%. For Other Government Revenue, the City is at 131% compared to 159.78% in 2019. The main variances are the receipt of Cares Act funding, and a reduction in the Towards Zero Death grant funds received not that the City is not administering the grant. The Golf Course Revenue is also exceeding budget at 203.06% compared to 102.74% in 2019. COVID-19 also play a large role in this revenue item as many indoor social gatherings were advised against and therefore, there has been an uptick in individuals taking to outdoor activities, such as golfing. For the last few years at year end, Licenses and Permits have exceeded budget. Due to COVID- 19 this year, the City has collected 93.78% of the budgeted revenue compared to 141.56% in 2019. One factor for this decrease is due to less developments occurring within the city. Another likely factor is COVID-19 and having government mandated shutdowns throughout the year. Budget Update Page 2 Charges for Service is under budget at 98.04% compared to exceeding budget in 2019 at 108.27%. In 2020, police special service was halted due to COVID-19 social distancing guidelines preventing private events from being held. Plan check and site exam fee revenues similarly fell under budget. General Fund Expenditures At 98.86%, the overall expenditure amounts are on target for the year. Many of the departments are below budget due to reduction and turnover in staffing. The Police department is $300,000 under budget due to decrease in overtime worked along with no longer administering the Towards Zero death Grant. The biggest item that was over budget was Special Projects department, due to the purchase of land for future projects. Central Services and Public Works department is slightly over budget in order to keep the common areas clean and maintaining social distancing. These expenses were offset with the CARES Act grant. Another department over budget is the Golf Course. The overage is due to course maintenance and bank fees being higher than budgeted. On the revenue side, course revenues have exceeded budget and offsets any overage in expenditures. General Fund Summary In summary, the overall General Fund budget looks good with revenue exceeding budget and expenditure falling slightly under budget. The projected positive variance for the General Fund is $224,000. Ad j u s t e d So u r c e D e c 31 B u d g e t P e r c e n t D e c 31 B u d g e t P e r c e n t Ta x e s 4, 3 8 4 , 0 3 8 4, 3 9 0 , 0 0 0 99 . 8 6 % 4 , 6 4 7 , 5 1 5 4, 6 8 9 , 0 0 0 99.12% Li c e n s e s & Pe r m i t s 70 3 , 1 9 2 49 6 , 7 5 0 14 1 . 5 6 % 4 9 9 , 0 9 9 53 2 , 2 0 0 93.78% Ot h e r Go v e r n m e n t a l 43 1 , 7 5 3 27 0 , 2 2 0 15 9 . 7 8 % 5 2 2 , 9 9 9 39 8 , 0 0 0 131.41% Ch a r g e s fo r Se r v i c e 3, 2 9 3 , 3 4 1 3, 0 4 1 , 9 0 0 10 8 . 2 7 % 3 , 0 9 8 , 7 5 8 3, 1 6 0 , 7 0 0 98.04% Fi n e s 85 , 8 0 9 80 , 1 0 0 10 7 . 1 3 % 4 0 , 8 1 2 75 , 1 0 0 54.34% Mi s c e l l a n e o u s 2, 2 5 0 2, 0 0 0 11 2 . 5 0 % 1 , 5 2 0 2, 0 0 0 76.00% Go l f Co u r s e 18 0 , 8 3 1 17 6 , 0 0 0 10 2 . 7 4 % 3 5 7 , 3 9 2 17 6 , 0 0 0 203.06% In t e r e s t 97 , 0 0 3 96 , 4 1 0 10 0 . 6 2 % 65 5 77 , 1 0 0 0.85% Ot h e r So u r c e s & Tr a n s f e r s 6 8 , 8 1 1 23 , 9 0 0 28 7 . 9 1 % 7 8 , 5 7 8 33 , 1 0 0 237.40% 9, 2 4 7 , 0 2 9 8, 5 7 7 , 2 8 0 10 7 . 8 1 % 9 , 2 4 7 , 3 2 7 9, 1 4 3 , 2 0 0 101.14% 20 1 9 20 2 0 Ci t y of Or o n o Ge n e r a l Fu n d Re v e n u e Su m m a r y wi t h Co m p a r i s o n to Bu d g e t Fo r Th e 12 Mo n t h s En d i n g De c e m b e r 31 , 20 1 9 ‐ 20 At t a c h m e n t 1 - R e v e n u e S u m m a r y CITY OF ORONO REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:09PM PAGE: 1 TAXES 101-31010 CURRENT AD VALOREM TAXES 4,565,199.31 4,565,199.31 4,679,000.00 113,800.69 97.6 101-31020 DELINQUENT AD VALOREM TAXES 20,892.92 20,892.92 10,000.00 ( 10,892.92) 208.9 101-31040 FISCAL DISPARITIES 40,494.26 40,494.26 .00 ( 40,494.26) .0 101-31050 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX 20,221.24 20,221.24 .00 ( 20,221.24) .0 101-31060 FORFEITED TAX SALE APPORTIONMT 20.89 20.89 .00 ( 20.89) .0 101-31070 RENT CREDIT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-31900 PENALTIES AND INTEREST-TAXES 686.02 686.02 .00 ( 686.02) .0 TOTAL TAXES 4,647,514.64 4,647,514.64 4,689,000.00 41,485.36 99.1 LICENSES & PERMITS 101-32100 BUSINESS LICENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-32110 BEER & LIQUOR LICENSES 6,600.00 6,600.00 7,100.00 500.00 93.0 101-32120 CIGARETTE LICENSES 1,375.00 1,375.00 500.00 ( 875.00) 275.0 101-32130 COMMERCIAL DOCK LICENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-32140 SET UP LICENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-32150 SEPTIC LICENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-32170 GARBAGE HAULERS LICENSES 1,110.00 1,110.00 1,100.00 ( 10.00) 100.9 101-32180 OTHER BUSINESS LICENSE/PERMIT 6,335.00 6,335.00 10,000.00 3,665.00 63.4 101-32230 RENTAL LICENSES 1,800.00 1,800.00 4,000.00 2,200.00 45.0 101-32240 DOG LICENSES 450.00 450.00 .00 ( 450.00) .0 101-32510 BUILDING PERMITS 358,982.10 358,982.10 425,000.00 66,017.90 84.5 101-32520 ZONING PERMIT 2,350.00 2,350.00 1,500.00 ( 850.00) 156.7 101-32530 MECHANICAL/SEPTIC/OTHER 93,790.96 93,790.96 55,000.00 ( 38,790.96) 170.5 101-32590 PLUMBING PERMIT 26,306.12 26,306.12 28,000.00 1,693.88 94.0 TOTAL LICENSES & PERMITS 499,099.18 499,099.18 532,200.00 33,100.82 93.8 OTHER GOVERNMENTS 101-33220 FEDERAL GRANT-EMRGNCY PREP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33390 FEDERAL GRANT-OTHER 610,407.00 610,407.00 .00 ( 610,407.00) .0 101-33410 HACA AID .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33415 MARKET VALUE CREDIT 321.04 321.04 .00 ( 321.04) .0 101-33420 POLICE STATE AID 252,027.66 252,027.66 230,000.00 ( 22,027.66) 109.6 101-33430 POLICE TRAINING REIMBURSEMENT 28,076.35 28,076.35 23,000.00 ( 5,076.35) 122.1 101-33440 MUNICIPAL STATE AID-STREETS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33450 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AID .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33460 PERA STATE AID .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33490 STATE GRANT-OTHER 6,649.11 6,649.11 145,000.00 138,350.89 4.6 101-33610 COUNTY GRANT-RECYCLING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33690 COUNTY GRANT-OTHER ( 6,260.00) ( 6,260.00).00 6,260.00 .0 101-33800 OTHER GRANTS/AIDS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-33890 GRANTS/AIDS FROM OTHER GOVTS 5,000.00 5,000.00 .00 ( 5,000.00) .0 TOTAL OTHER GOVERNMENTS 896,221.16 896,221.16 398,000.00 ( 498,221.16) 225.2 Attachment 2 - Revenue Detail CITY OF ORONO REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:09PM PAGE: 2 CHARGES FOR SERVICES 101-34200 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES FOR SVC 286,000.00 286,000.00 283,500.00 ( 2,500.00) 100.9 101-34210 GENERAL TAXABLE SALES/SERVICE 268.24 268.24 2,000.00 1,731.76 13.4 101-34220 ASSESSMENTS SEARCHES 40.00 40.00 200.00 160.00 20.0 101-34230 FILING FEES-ELECTIONS/PLATS 4.00 4.00 3,000.00 2,996.00 .1 101-34240 ZONING DISCLOSURE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-34410 PLAN CHECK/SITE EXAM FEES 169,196.34 169,196.34 200,000.00 30,803.66 84.6 101-34420 COND USE-VARIANCE-DEV FEES 17,325.00 17,325.00 19,000.00 1,675.00 91.2 101-34430 ENGINEERING & LEGAL FEES 42,706.22 42,706.22 45,000.00 2,293.78 94.9 101-34440 BLDG PERMITS-MAIL IN FEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-34450 ON-SITE SEPTIC PROGRAM FEES 46,700.71 46,700.71 45,800.00 ( 900.71) 102.0 101-34460 COOP AGREEMENT-INSPECTION 18,990.98 18,990.98 15,000.00 ( 3,990.98) 126.6 101-34610 COOP AGREEMENT-POLICE 2,417,012.00 2,417,012.00 2,428,000.00 10,988.00 99.6 101-34620 COOP AGREEMENT-ANIMAL CONTROL .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-34630 POLICE SPECIAL SERVICES 71,911.40 71,911.40 100,000.00 28,088.60 71.9 101-34640 FALSE ALARM FEES 200.00 200.00 1,000.00 800.00 20.0 101-34650 POLICE REPORTS 1,055.93 1,055.93 900.00 ( 155.93) 117.3 101-34670 POLICE RESERVE RECEIPTS 24,790.00 24,790.00 .00 ( 24,790.00) .0 101-34680 EXPLORERS PROGRAM 60.00 60.00 .00 ( 60.00) .0 101-34781 OFF LEASH ANNUAL PASS .00 .00 15,000.00 15,000.00 .0 101-34783 PARK RESERVATIONS 270.00 270.00 .00 ( 270.00) .0 101-34810 COOP AGREEMENT-PUBLIC WORKS 2,227.33 2,227.33 1,500.00 ( 727.33) 148.5 101-34815 INTERDEPARTMENTAL SERVICES-PW .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-34820 RECYCLING PROGRAM FEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-34830 BRUSH SITE FEES .00 .00 800.00 800.00 .0 TOTAL CHARGES FOR SERVICES 3,098,758.15 3,098,758.15 3,160,700.00 61,941.85 98.0 FINES 101-35104 OTHER FINES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-35105 ADMIN CITATIONS 3,342.68 3,342.68 .00 ( 3,342.68) .0 101-35400 COURT FINES 37,469.46 37,469.46 75,000.00 37,530.54 50.0 101-35410 DRUG TASK FORCE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-35420 DOG IMPOUND FEES .00 .00 100.00 100.00 .0 101-35620 ADMINISTRATIVE 30% SHARE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL FINES 40,812.14 40,812.14 75,100.00 34,287.86 54.3 Attachment 2 - Revenue Detail CITY OF ORONO REVENUES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD DECEMBER 31, 20 BUDGET UNEARNED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:09PM PAGE: 3 MISCELLANEOUS 101-37699 UTILITY PENALTIES 1,520.00 1,520.00 2,000.00 480.00 76.0 101-37910 GREEN FEES 249,880.24 249,880.24 110,000.00 ( 139,880.24) 227.2 101-37920 RENTAL-GOLF CARTS & CLUB 86,279.86 86,279.86 48,000.00 ( 38,279.86) 179.8 101-37930 BEER SALES 12,126.89 12,126.89 10,000.00 ( 2,126.89) 121.3 101-37935 POP SALES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-37940 CONCESSIONS-TAXABLE 5,163.29 5,163.29 5,000.00 ( 163.29) 103.3 101-37950 CONCESSIONS-NONTAXABLE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-37960 GOLF BALL SALES 1,833.28 1,833.28 1,000.00 ( 833.28) 183.3 101-37970 PRO SHOP-TAXABLE 1,253.07 1,253.07 2,000.00 746.93 62.7 101-37980 PRO SHOP-NONTAXABLE 854.97 854.97 .00 ( 854.97) .0 101-37985 GOLF COURSE PRINTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-37990 OTHER GOLF COURSE RECEIPTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-37999 CASH OVER/SHORT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL MISCELLANEOUS 358,911.60 358,911.60 178,000.00 ( 180,911.60) 201.6 OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS IN 101-39310 INTEREST ON INVESTMENTS .00 .00 76,600.00 76,600.00 .0 101-39315 INVESTMENT DISCOUNTS/PREMIUMS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-39350 INTEREST-NOW ACCOUNT 655.19 655.19 500.00 ( 155.19) 131.0 101-39610 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 1,327.68 1,327.68 4,700.00 3,372.32 28.3 101-39615 CONVENIENCE FEE 2,636.38 2,636.38 .00 ( 2,636.38) .0 101-39620 RENT INCOME 4,950.00 4,950.00 5,400.00 450.00 91.7 101-39630 CONTRIBUTIONS & DONATIONS 17,200.00 17,200.00 .00 ( 17,200.00) .0 101-39640 REFUNDS & REIMBURSEMENTS 12,652.53 12,652.53 3,000.00 ( 9,652.53) 421.8 101-39650 PAYMENTS IN LIEU OF TAXES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-39670 SALE OF LAND .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-39680 SALE OF EQUIPMENT 39,811.19 39,811.19 20,000.00 ( 19,811.19) 199.1 101-39920 RESIDUAL EQUITY TRANSFERS IN .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-39999 CASH OVER/SHORT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL OTHER SOURCES & TRANSFERS IN 79,232.97 79,232.97 110,200.00 30,967.03 71.9 TOTAL FUND REVENUE 9,620,549.84 9,620,549.84 9,143,200.00 ( 477,349.84) 105.2 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES 9,620,549.84 9,620,549.84 9,143,200.00 ( 477,349.84) 105.2 Attachment 2 - Revenue Detail Ci t y of Or o n o YT D Re v e n u e 12 ‐31 ‐20 2 0 0% 20 % 40 % 60 % 80 % 10 0 % 12 0 % Q1 20 1 6 Q1 20 1 7 Q1 20 1 8 Q1 20 1 9 Q1 20 2 0 Q2 20 1 6 Q2 20 1 7 Q2 20 1 8 Q2 20 1 9 Q2 20 2 0 Q3 20 1 6 Q3 20 1 7 Q3 20 1 8 Q3 20 1 9 Q3 20 2 0 YE 20 1 6 YE 2017YE 2018 EYE2019YE2020 C o m p a r i s o n T o B u d g e t 20 2 0 Re v e n u e Co m p a r i s o n s Attachment 3 - Revenue Graph 12 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 9 12 / 3 1 / 2 0 2 0 Ad j u s t e d De p a r t m e n t D e c 31 B u d g e t P e r c e n t D e c 31 B u d g e t B a l a n c e P e r c e n t Ma y o r & Co u n c i l 3 3 , 9 4 8 34 , 0 3 0 99 . 7 6 % 3 5 , 5 9 3 34 , 5 0 0 (1 , 0 9 3 ) 103.17% Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n 3 9 4 , 9 4 2 43 4 , 4 7 0 90 . 9 0 % 3 9 4 , 5 2 8 42 6 , 8 0 0 32 , 2 7 2 92.44% El e c t i o n s 2 , 8 9 0 7, 1 6 0 40 . 3 6 % 5 3 , 4 0 7 69 , 5 0 0 16 , 0 9 3 76.85% As s e s s i n g 1 9 4 , 7 5 0 18 5 , 0 0 0 10 5 . 2 7 % 2 0 3 , 0 0 0 20 3 , 0 0 0 0 100.00% Fi n a n c e De p a r t m e n t 2 3 9 , 6 8 6 27 3 , 0 5 0 87 . 7 8 % 2 1 4 , 0 1 4 27 6 , 1 0 0 62 , 0 8 6 77.51% La w / L e g a l Se r v i c e s 1 0 5 , 9 5 5 12 9 , 0 0 0 82 . 1 4 % 1 0 5 , 4 4 5 13 4 , 0 0 0 28 , 5 5 5 78.69% Ce n t r a l Se r v i c e s 29 0 , 2 2 1 29 4 , 8 9 0 98 . 4 2 % 3 2 9 , 3 8 5 31 5 , 1 0 0 (1 4 , 2 8 5 ) 104.53% Hu m a n Se r v i c e s 9, 5 0 0 12 , 4 0 0 76 . 6 1 % 9 , 5 0 0 12 , 4 0 0 2, 9 0 0 76.61% P ol i c e De p a r t m e n t 4 , 6 1 1 , 4 5 0 4, 5 1 9 , 1 7 0 10 2 . 0 4 % 4 , 5 7 2 , 9 4 7 4, 8 7 3 , 8 0 0 30 0 , 8 5 3 93.83% Fi r e Pr o t e c t i o n 40 2 , 1 9 2 40 2 , 1 0 0 10 0 . 0 2 % 4 3 3 , 9 5 4 43 3 , 9 0 0 (54) 100.01% Bu i l d i n g & Zo n i n g 67 1 , 3 9 4 69 5 , 9 1 0 96 . 4 8 % 6 7 0 , 0 2 8 71 3 , 3 0 0 43 , 2 7 2 93.93% En g i n e e r i n g 23 , 5 8 8 20 , 0 0 0 11 7 . 9 4 % 2 0 , 9 9 6 20 , 0 0 0 (9 9 6 ) 104.98% Pu b l i c Wo r k s 58 2 , 0 6 1 51 3 , 1 8 0 11 3 . 4 2 % 6 5 6 , 5 8 8 60 8 , 8 0 0 (4 7 , 7 8 8 ) 107.85% Pa r k s 18 9 , 2 5 3 21 8 , 4 4 0 86 . 6 4 % 2 4 1 , 4 5 1 23 0 , 0 0 0 (1 1 , 4 5 1 ) 104.98% Go l f 24 7 , 1 5 3 21 2 , 7 3 0 11 6 . 1 8 % 2 6 0 , 0 6 0 22 0 , 4 0 0 (3 9 , 6 6 0 ) 117.99% Br u s h Si t e 5 , 8 2 0 ‐ 0. 00 % 1 6 , 5 6 0 13 , 1 0 0 (3 , 4 6 0 ) 126.41% Sp e c i a l Se r v i c e s 13 4 , 9 8 1 12 5 , 7 5 0 10 7 . 3 4 % 6 2 , 2 3 3 12 8 , 5 0 0 66 , 2 6 7 48.43% Sp e c i a l Pr o j e c t s 33 , 4 0 5 10 0 , 0 0 0 33 . 4 1 % 3 4 3 , 6 6 5 30 , 0 0 0 (3 1 3 , 6 6 5 ) 1145.55% Tr a n s f e r to Ot h e r Fu n d s 1 , 1 2 1 , 3 3 9 40 0 , 0 0 0 28 0 . 3 3 % 4 0 0 , 0 0 0 40 0 , 0 0 0 ‐ 100.00% 9, 2 9 4 , 5 2 7 8, 5 7 7 , 2 8 0 10 8 . 3 6 % 9 , 0 2 3 , 3 5 6 9, 1 4 3 , 2 0 0 11 9 , 8 4 4 98.69% 20 1 9 20 2 0 Ci t y of Or o n o Ge n e r a l Fu n d Ex p e n d i t u r e Su m m a r y wi t h Co m p a r i s o n to Bu d g e t Fo r Th e 12 M on t h s En d i n g De c e m b er 31 , 20 1 9 ‐ 20 At t a c h m e n t 4 - E x p e n d i t u r e S u m m a r y CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 1 MAYOR & COUNCIL 101-41110-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 18,200.01 18,200.01 18,200.00 ( .01) 100.0 101-41110-122 FICA 1,392.24 1,392.24 1,400.00 7.76 99.5 101-41110-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 100.00 100.00 100.00 .00 100.0 101-41110-301 AUDITING AND ACCT'G SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41110-313 IT SERVICES 800.00 800.00 800.00 .00 100.0 101-41110-433 MEMBERSHIPS 12,541.00 12,541.00 12,500.00 ( 41.00) 100.3 101-41110-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 382.98 382.98 300.00 ( 82.98) 127.7 101-41110-439 MEETING EXPENSES 2,177.24 2,177.24 1,200.00 ( 977.24) 181.4 101-41110-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL MAYOR & COUNCIL 35,593.47 35,593.47 34,500.00 ( 1,093.47) 103.2 ADMINISTRATION 101-41300-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 267,409.34 267,409.34 285,800.00 18,390.66 93.6 101-41300-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 18.34 18.34 1,300.00 1,281.66 1.4 101-41300-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41300-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 11,899.10 11,899.10 10,500.00 ( 1,399.10) 113.3 101-41300-111 OTHER .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41300-121 PERA 20,251.06 20,251.06 21,500.00 1,248.94 94.2 101-41300-122 FICA 20,248.24 20,248.24 22,800.00 2,551.76 88.8 101-41300-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 52,899.22 52,899.22 57,600.00 4,700.78 91.8 101-41300-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41300-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41300-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 100.0 101-41300-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS 126.10 126.10 300.00 173.90 42.0 101-41300-313 IT SERVICES 6,500.00 6,500.00 6,500.00 .00 100.0 101-41300-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6,509.50 6,509.50 6,000.00 ( 509.50) 108.5 101-41300-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 158.97 158.97 3,500.00 3,341.03 4.5 101-41300-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 1,135.20 1,135.20 .00 ( 1,135.20) .0 101-41300-433 MEMBERSHIPS 1,502.19 1,502.19 1,500.00 ( 2.19) 100.2 101-41300-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT .00 .00 4,000.00 4,000.00 .0 101-41300-439 MEETING EXPENSES 1,284.62 1,284.62 500.00 ( 784.62) 256.9 101-41300-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 2,586.10 2,586.10 3,000.00 413.90 86.2 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 394,527.98 394,527.98 426,800.00 32,272.02 92.4 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 2 ELECTIONS 101-41410-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 13,723.44 13,723.44 18,000.00 4,276.56 76.2 101-41410-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 101-41410-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 20,976.64 20,976.64 31,300.00 10,323.36 67.0 101-41410-121 PERA 528.63 528.63 1,400.00 871.37 37.8 101-41410-122 FICA 738.99 738.99 1,500.00 761.01 49.3 101-41410-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 1,432.52 1,432.52 4,600.00 3,167.48 31.1 101-41410-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41410-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 400.00 400.00 400.00 .00 100.0 101-41410-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41410-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 4,689.46 4,689.46 2,500.00 ( 2,189.46) 187.6 101-41410-240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP 4,089.13 4,089.13 900.00 ( 3,189.13) 454.4 101-41410-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,077.85 4,077.85 500.00 ( 3,577.85) 815.6 101-41410-322 POSTAGE .00 .00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .0 101-41410-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 321.58 321.58 500.00 178.42 64.3 101-41410-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 306.94 306.94 400.00 93.06 76.7 101-41410-412 BUILDING RENTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41410-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41410-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 42.98 42.98 500.00 457.02 8.6 101-41410-439 MEETING EXPENSES 1,093.35 1,093.35 2,800.00 1,706.65 39.1 101-41410-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 985.87 985.87 2,200.00 1,214.13 44.8 TOTAL ELECTIONS 53,407.38 53,407.38 69,500.00 16,092.62 76.9 FINANCE DEPARTMENT 101-41500-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 143,324.91 143,324.91 169,300.00 25,975.09 84.7 101-41500-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME .00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0 101-41500-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES .00 .00 31,800.00 31,800.00 .0 101-41500-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 93.00 93.00 .00 ( 93.00) .0 101-41500-121 PERA 11,049.65 11,049.65 15,100.00 4,050.35 73.2 101-41500-122 FICA 10,653.13 10,653.13 15,400.00 4,746.87 69.2 101-41500-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 28,026.70 28,026.70 32,400.00 4,373.30 86.5 101-41500-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41500-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41500-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .00 100.0 101-41500-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41500-301 AUDITING AND ACCT'G SERVICES 10,462.50 10,462.50 .00 ( 10,462.50) .0 101-41500-313 IT SERVICES 5,000.00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .00 100.0 101-41500-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 168.79 168.79 1,500.00 1,331.21 11.3 101-41500-433 MEMBERSHIPS 489.00 489.00 400.00 ( 89.00) 122.3 101-41500-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 3,246.15 3,246.15 3,500.00 253.85 92.8 TOTAL FINANCE DEPARTMENT 214,013.83 214,013.83 276,100.00 62,086.17 77.5 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 3 ASSESSING 101-41550-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41550-302 ASSESSING SERVICES 116,666.67 116,666.67 203,000.00 86,333.33 57.5 TOTAL ASSESSING 116,666.67 116,666.67 203,000.00 86,333.33 57.5 LAW/LEGAL SERVICES 101-41600-305 LEGAL-RETAINER .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41600-306 LEGAL-PROSECUTION 34,275.08 34,275.08 40,000.00 5,724.92 85.7 101-41600-307 LEGAL-CONSULTING 66,419.60 66,419.60 80,000.00 13,580.40 83.0 101-41600-308 CODE ENFORCEMENT 1,617.00 1,617.00 2,000.00 383.00 80.9 101-41600-309 JAIL CHARGES 3,133.60 3,133.60 12,000.00 8,866.40 26.1 TOTAL LAW/LEGAL SERVICES 105,445.28 105,445.28 134,000.00 28,554.72 78.7 HUMAN SERVICES 101-41800-490 CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVIC ORG'S 9,500.00 9,500.00 12,400.00 2,900.00 76.6 TOTAL HUMAN SERVICES 9,500.00 9,500.00 12,400.00 2,900.00 76.6 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 4 CENTRAL SERVICES 101-41900-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 7,063.50 7,063.50 .00 ( 7,063.50) .0 101-41900-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 700.00 700.00 .00 ( 700.00) .0 101-41900-121 PERA .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-122 FICA 1,109.71 1,109.71 .00 ( 1,109.71) .0 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10,465.74 10,465.74 12,000.00 1,534.26 87.2 101-41900-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 10,201.04 10,201.04 1,000.00 ( 9,201.04) 1020.1 101-41900-223 BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT. SUPPLIES 6,738.06 6,738.06 3,500.00 ( 3,238.06) 192.5 101-41900-301 AUDITING AND ACCT'G SERVICES 24,000.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-310 LOGIS-APPLICATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-311 DATA PROCESSING COMMUNICATION .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-312 BANK FEES 14,621.37 14,621.37 23,000.00 8,378.63 63.6 101-41900-313 IT SERVICES 50,000.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 29,377.93 29,377.93 15,000.00 ( 14,377.93) 195.9 101-41900-321 TELEPHONE 15,568.71 15,568.71 12,000.00 ( 3,568.71) 129.7 101-41900-322 POSTAGE 5,638.32 5,638.32 6,000.00 361.68 94.0 101-41900-329 INTERNET/OTHER COMMUNICATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 21,335.13 21,335.13 22,000.00 664.87 97.0 101-41900-361 GENERAL LIABILITY INS 10,200.00 10,200.00 10,200.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-362 UMBRELLA LIABILITY INS 15,100.00 15,100.00 15,100.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-363 BONDS INSURANCE 700.00 700.00 700.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-364 MONEYS & SECURITIES INS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-365 BOILER & MACHINERY INS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-366 PROPERTY INSURANCE 14,100.00 14,100.00 14,100.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-367 EQUIPMENT FLOATERS INS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-368 AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE 4,700.00 4,700.00 4,700.00 .00 100.0 101-41900-370 INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 27,619.71 27,619.71 33,300.00 5,680.29 82.9 101-41900-382 WATER UTILITIES 7,765.96 7,765.96 4,000.00 ( 3,765.96) 194.2 101-41900-401 REPAIRS/MAINT-OFFICE EQUIP 362.59 362.59 500.00 137.41 72.5 101-41900-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP 2,994.51 2,994.51 3,000.00 5.49 99.8 101-41900-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 32,669.57 32,669.57 40,000.00 7,330.43 81.7 101-41900-407 JANITORIAL SERVICES 8,281.01 8,281.01 19,000.00 10,718.99 43.6 101-41900-413 OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0 101-41900-416 SOFTWARE LICENSING 473.00 473.00 .00 ( 473.00) .0 101-41900-440 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-441 LICENSES & TAXES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 7,599.59 7,599.59 500.00 ( 7,099.59) 1519.9 101-41900-512 SPEC ASSMTS ON LAND & INT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-41900-750 INTEREST ON SPECIAL ASSMNTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL CENTRAL SERVICES 329,385.45 329,385.45 315,100.00 ( 14,285.45) 104.5 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 5 POLICE DEPARTMENT 101-42110-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 2,625,954.34 2,625,954.34 2,676,300.00 50,345.66 98.1 101-42110-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 29,098.40 29,098.40 50,000.00 20,901.60 58.2 101-42110-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 75,251.81 75,251.81 60,000.00 ( 15,251.81) 125.4 101-42110-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-121 PERA 446,425.05 446,425.05 459,300.00 12,874.95 97.2 101-42110-122 FICA 51,486.84 51,486.84 54,000.00 2,513.16 95.4 101-42110-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 379,114.59 379,114.59 418,500.00 39,385.41 90.6 101-42110-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS 249.75 249.75 .00 ( 249.75) .0 101-42110-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 150,000.00 150,000.00 150,000.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 4,654.59 4,654.59 5,000.00 345.41 93.1 101-42110-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS 444.76 444.76 1,000.00 555.24 44.5 101-42110-212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 72,732.52 72,732.52 100,000.00 27,267.48 72.7 101-42110-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 6,910.43 6,910.43 16,500.00 9,589.57 41.9 101-42110-223 BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT. SUPPLIES 10.76 10.76 1,000.00 989.24 1.1 101-42110-226 CLOTHING & PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 31,578.81 31,578.81 27,000.00 ( 4,578.81) 117.0 101-42110-228 TRAINING SUPPLIES 5,745.81 5,745.81 16,000.00 10,254.19 35.9 101-42110-229 EXPLORERS PROGRAM EXPENSES 100.00 100.00 4,000.00 3,900.00 2.5 101-42110-240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP 7,682.17 7,682.17 5,000.00 ( 2,682.17) 153.6 101-42110-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-307 LEGAL-CONSULTING 7,807.49 7,807.49 8,000.00 192.51 97.6 101-42110-310 LOGIS-APPLICATIONS 87,660.00 87,660.00 112,500.00 24,840.00 77.9 101-42110-311 DATA PROCESSING COMMUNICATION 9,455.15 9,455.15 6,000.00 ( 3,455.15) 157.6 101-42110-313 IT SERVICES 80,000.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-317 ANIMAL CARE 1,210.85 1,210.85 3,000.00 1,789.15 40.4 101-42110-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19,563.97 19,563.97 14,500.00 ( 5,063.97) 134.9 101-42110-321 TELEPHONE 25,304.64 25,304.64 24,000.00 ( 1,304.64) 105.4 101-42110-322 POSTAGE 436.30 436.30 800.00 363.70 54.5 101-42110-329 INTERNET/OTHER COMMUNICATIONS 32.22 32.22 .00 ( 32.22) .0 101-42110-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 153.99 153.99 300.00 146.01 51.3 101-42110-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 175.00 175.00 .00 ( 175.00) .0 101-42110-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 1,676.96 1,676.96 1,500.00 ( 176.96) 111.8 101-42110-361 GENERAL LIABILITY INS 57,400.00 57,400.00 57,400.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-362 UMBRELLA LIABILITY INS 24,900.00 24,900.00 24,900.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-366 PROPERTY INSURANCE 1,100.00 1,100.00 1,100.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-367 EQUIPMENT FLOATERS INS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-368 AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE 18,700.00 18,700.00 18,700.00 .00 100.0 101-42110-370 INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-379 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 16,274.90 16,274.90 20,000.00 3,725.10 81.4 101-42110-382 WATER UTILITIES 3,904.38 3,904.38 3,000.00 ( 904.38) 130.2 101-42110-401 REPAIRS/MAINT-OFFICE EQUIP 378.99 378.99 1,000.00 621.01 37.9 101-42110-402 REPAIRS/MAINT-AUTO EQUIP 27,021.07 27,021.07 40,000.00 12,978.93 67.6 101-42110-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP 2,691.19 2,691.19 7,000.00 4,308.81 38.5 101-42110-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 23,659.62 23,659.62 7,500.00 ( 16,159.62) 315.5 101-42110-407 JANITORIAL SERVICES 6,875.15 6,875.15 15,500.00 8,624.85 44.4 101-42110-413 OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0 101-42110-414 EDP/COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP RENT 27,859.28 27,859.28 26,000.00 ( 1,859.28) 107.2 101-42110-416 SOFTWARE LICENSING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-433 MEMBERSHIPS 4,216.20 4,216.20 5,500.00 1,283.80 76.7 101-42110-436 TOWING CHARGES 1,558.62 1,558.62 .00 ( 1,558.62) .0 101-42110-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 21,003.55 21,003.55 38,000.00 16,996.45 55.3 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 6 101-42110-438 DISTRIBUTION TO OTHER GOVMNTS .00 .00 119,500.00 119,500.00 .0 101-42110-439 MEETING EXPENSES 1,228.66 1,228.66 2,200.00 971.34 55.9 101-42110-440 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-441 LICENSES & TAXES 241.75 241.75 1,300.00 1,058.25 18.6 101-42110-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 578.57 578.57 3,000.00 2,421.43 19.3 101-42110-520 BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-550 AUTOMOTIVE EQUIPMENT 160,727.81 160,727.81 164,000.00 3,272.19 98.0 101-42110-560 FURNITURE AND FIXTURES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-570 OFFICE EQUIP AND FURNISHINGS 10,433.91 10,433.91 .00 ( 10,433.91) .0 101-42110-575 IT HARDWARE & APPLICATIONS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42110-580 OTHER EQUIPMENT 41,275.68 41,275.68 21,000.00 ( 20,275.68) 196.6 TOTAL POLICE DEPARTMENT 4,572,946.53 4,572,946.53 4,873,800.00 300,853.47 93.8 FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 101-42260-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42260-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 39.99 39.99 .00 ( 39.99) .0 101-42260-318 FIRE SERVICES 433,914.00 433,914.00 433,900.00 ( 14.00) 100.0 101-42260-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42260-381 GAS & ELECTRIC .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42260-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL FIRE PROTECTION SERVICES 433,953.99 433,953.99 433,900.00 ( 53.99) 100.0 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 7 BUILDING & ZONING 101-42400-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 400,899.31 400,899.31 415,400.00 14,500.69 96.5 101-42400-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME .00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0 101-42400-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-121 PERA 29,395.96 29,395.96 31,200.00 1,804.04 94.2 101-42400-122 FICA 29,123.40 29,123.40 31,800.00 2,676.60 91.6 101-42400-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 57,930.00 57,930.00 68,300.00 10,370.00 84.8 101-42400-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 2,600.00 2,600.00 2,600.00 .00 100.0 101-42400-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS 407.52 407.52 500.00 92.48 81.5 101-42400-212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS .00 .00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .0 101-42400-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 361.23 361.23 3,000.00 2,638.77 12.0 101-42400-226 CLOTHING & PERSONAL EQUIPMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 5,000.00 5,000.00 .0 101-42400-305 GIS/MAPPING .00 .00 3,000.00 3,000.00 .0 101-42400-307 LEGAL-CONSULTING 16,867.09 16,867.09 15,000.00 ( 1,867.09) 112.5 101-42400-310 INSPECTION SERVICES 100,139.75 100,139.75 90,000.00 ( 10,139.75) 111.3 101-42400-312 BANK FEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-313 IT SERVICES 23,800.00 23,800.00 23,800.00 .00 100.0 101-42400-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 4,497.50 4,497.50 10,000.00 5,502.50 45.0 101-42400-321 TELEPHONE 962.24 962.24 500.00 ( 462.24) 192.5 101-42400-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 336.95 336.95 2,000.00 1,663.05 16.9 101-42400-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 637.15 637.15 500.00 ( 137.15) 127.4 101-42400-402 REPAIRS/MAINT-AUTO EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-416 SOFTWARE LICENSING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-42400-433 MEMBERSHIPS 1,007.00 1,007.00 1,600.00 593.00 62.9 101-42400-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 241.00 241.00 7,400.00 7,159.00 3.3 101-42400-439 MEETING EXPENSES 82.35 82.35 .00 ( 82.35) .0 101-42400-441 LICENSES & TAXES 739.64 739.64 .00 ( 739.64) .0 TOTAL BUILDING & ZONING 670,028.09 670,028.09 713,300.00 43,271.91 93.9 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 8 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 101-43000-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 226,485.55 226,485.55 191,000.00 ( 35,485.55) 118.6 101-43000-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 7,732.69 7,732.69 11,000.00 3,267.31 70.3 101-43000-121 PERA 16,020.65 16,020.65 15,200.00 ( 820.65) 105.4 101-43000-122 FICA 16,226.35 16,226.35 15,400.00 ( 826.35) 105.4 101-43000-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 37,871.03 37,871.03 44,200.00 6,328.97 85.7 101-43000-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS 1,204.00 1,204.00 .00 ( 1,204.00) .0 101-43000-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 16,400.00 16,400.00 16,400.00 .00 100.0 101-43000-208 BOOKS & PERIODICALS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 46.17 46.17 .00 ( 46.17) .0 101-43000-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 1,059.23 1,059.23 .00 ( 1,059.23) .0 101-43000-222 VEHICLE EQUIPMENT & PARTS .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-224 STREET MAINT. MATERIALS/SUPPLY 83,787.17 83,787.17 54,000.00 ( 29,787.17) 155.2 101-43000-226 CLOTHING & PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 7,605.93 7,605.93 7,400.00 ( 205.93) 102.8 101-43000-240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP 904.34 904.34 3,000.00 2,095.66 30.1 101-43000-304 PW ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 800.00 800.00 .0 101-43000-305 GIS/MAPPING .00 .00 800.00 800.00 .0 101-43000-313 IT SERVICES 3,500.00 3,500.00 3,500.00 .00 100.0 101-43000-314 FLEET SERVICES 91,700.00 91,700.00 91,700.00 .00 100.0 101-43000-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 167.00 167.00 .00 ( 167.00) .0 101-43000-321 TELEPHONE 420.12 420.12 1,700.00 1,279.88 24.7 101-43000-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES .00 .00 200.00 200.00 .0 101-43000-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 225.00 225.00 .00 ( 225.00) .0 101-43000-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 4,067.57 4,067.57 2,700.00 ( 1,367.57) 150.7 101-43000-386 STREET LIGHTING 23,708.10 23,708.10 29,000.00 5,291.90 81.8 101-43000-402 REPAIRS/MAINT-AUTO EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP 228.22 228.22 .00 ( 228.22) .0 101-43000-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 10,586.19 10,586.19 10,000.00 ( 586.19) 105.9 101-43000-408 CONTRACTED STREET MAINT.97,280.07 97,280.07 100,000.00 2,719.93 97.3 101-43000-409 OFFICE EQUIPMENT RENTAL .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-414 EDP/COMMUNICATIONS EQUIP RENT 4,276.01 4,276.01 2,400.00 ( 1,876.01) 178.2 101-43000-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS 621.22 621.22 4,000.00 3,378.78 15.5 101-43000-416 SOFTWARE LICENSING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43000-433 MEMBERSHIPS 221.45 221.45 300.00 78.55 73.8 101-43000-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 1,582.45 1,582.45 3,500.00 1,917.55 45.2 101-43000-441 LICENSES & TAXES 38.00 38.00 300.00 262.00 12.7 101-43000-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 2,623.89 2,623.89 300.00 ( 2,323.89) 874.6 101-43000-590 STREET CONSTRUCTION .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 656,588.40 656,588.40 608,800.00 ( 47,788.40) 107.9 ENGINEERING 101-43170-303 ENGINEERING-RETAINER .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43170-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING 14,326.00 14,326.00 5,000.00 ( 9,326.00) 286.5 101-43170-305 GIS/MAPPING 6,670.00 6,670.00 15,000.00 8,330.00 44.5 TOTAL ENGINEERING 20,996.00 20,996.00 20,000.00 ( 996.00) 105.0 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 9 RECYCLING PICK-UP PROGRAM 101-43270-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-104 TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES REGULAR .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-121 PERA .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-122 FICA .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-316 CONTRACT RECYCLING PICKUP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-442 SPRING,FALL,X-MAS CLEANUP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43270-444 ORGANICS RECYCLING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL RECYCLING PICK-UP PROGRAM .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 SPECIAL SERVICES 101-43280-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 15,468.11 15,468.11 35,000.00 19,531.89 44.2 101-43280-121 PERA 515.54 515.54 2,600.00 2,084.46 19.8 101-43280-122 FICA 78.17 78.17 2,700.00 2,621.83 2.9 101-43280-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43280-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 700.00 700.00 700.00 .00 100.0 101-43280-228 TRAINING SUPPLIES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43280-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING 30,202.00 30,202.00 73,000.00 42,798.00 41.4 101-43280-307 LEGAL-CONSULTING 14,201.22 14,201.22 14,500.00 298.78 97.9 101-43280-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,068.33 1,068.33 .00 ( 1,068.33) .0 101-43280-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43280-800 SPECIAL PROJECTS, CONTINGENCY .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL SPECIAL SERVICES 62,233.37 62,233.37 128,500.00 66,266.63 48.4 SPECIAL PROJECTS-CONTINGENCIES 101-43290-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43290-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43290-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-43290-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 265.78 265.78 .00 ( 265.78) .0 101-43290-510 LAND 340,000.00 340,000.00 .00 ( 340,000.00) .0 101-43290-720 OPERATING TRANSFERS 400,000.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 .00 100.0 101-43290-800 SPECIAL PROJECTS, CONTINGENCY 3,399.00 3,399.00 30,000.00 26,601.00 11.3 TOTAL SPECIAL PROJECTS-CONTINGENCIES 743,664.78 743,664.78 430,000.00 ( 313,664.78) 173.0 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 10 PARKS 101-45200-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 63,939.05 63,939.05 79,400.00 15,460.95 80.5 101-45200-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 523.83 523.83 .00 ( 523.83) .0 101-45200-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 7,063.50 7,063.50 .00 ( 7,063.50) .0 101-45200-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 15,204.50 15,204.50 15,700.00 495.50 96.8 101-45200-121 PERA 4,943.84 4,943.84 6,000.00 1,056.16 82.4 101-45200-122 FICA 4,653.90 4,653.90 7,300.00 2,646.10 63.8 101-45200-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 11,871.87 11,871.87 17,400.00 5,528.13 68.2 101-45200-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 8,700.00 8,700.00 8,700.00 .00 100.0 101-45200-212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 17.99 17.99 .00 ( 17.99) .0 101-45200-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 4,206.84 4,206.84 .00 ( 4,206.84) .0 101-45200-223 BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT. SUPPLIES 18,087.48 18,087.48 10,000.00 ( 8,087.48) 180.9 101-45200-225 PARK INITIATIVES 5,922.36 5,922.36 10,000.00 4,077.64 59.2 101-45200-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-305 GIS/MAPPING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-313 IT SERVICES 1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 .00 100.0 101-45200-314 FLEET SERVICES 6,300.00 6,300.00 6,300.00 .00 100.0 101-45200-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 1,474.50 1,474.50 1,100.00 ( 374.50) 134.1 101-45200-321 TELEPHONE 420.12 420.12 400.00 ( 20.12) 105.0 101-45200-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 970.80 970.80 500.00 ( 470.80) 194.2 101-45200-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 138.45 138.45 600.00 461.55 23.1 101-45200-386 LIGHTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-402 REPAIRS/MAINT-AUTO EQUIP 523.07 523.07 .00 ( 523.07) .0 101-45200-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 75,620.79 75,620.79 58,000.00 ( 17,620.79) 130.4 101-45200-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS 9,328.12 9,328.12 7,000.00 ( 2,328.12) 133.3 101-45200-416 SOFTWARE LICENSING 159.84 159.84 .00 ( 159.84) .0 101-45200-439 MEETING EXPENSES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45200-441 LICENSES & TAXES 290.00 290.00 500.00 210.00 58.0 101-45200-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 90.62 90.62 100.00 9.38 90.6 101-45200-490 CONTRIBUTIONS TO CIVIC ORG'S .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 TOTAL PARKS 241,451.47 241,451.47 230,000.00 ( 11,451.47) 105.0 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 11 GOLF COURSE 101-45210-090 PURCHASES FOR RESALE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-091 BEER FOR RESALE 4,974.51 4,974.51 3,800.00 ( 1,174.51) 130.9 101-45210-092 SOFT DRINKS FOR RESALE 2,570.69 2,570.69 3,600.00 1,029.31 71.4 101-45210-093 CONCESSIONS FOR RESALE-TXBL 847.74 847.74 1,500.00 652.26 56.5 101-45210-094 CONCESSIONS FOR RESALE-NONTAX 1,328.89 1,328.89 2,300.00 971.11 57.8 101-45210-095 PRO SHOP ITEMS FOR RESALE 2,122.61 2,122.61 1,900.00 ( 222.61) 111.7 101-45210-099 OTHER FOR RESALE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-101 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES REGULAR 37,897.29 37,897.29 38,200.00 302.71 99.2 101-45210-102 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES OVERTIME 250.51 250.51 .00 ( 250.51) .0 101-45210-103 PART-TIME EMPLOYEES 16,214.65 16,214.65 .00 ( 16,214.65) .0 101-45210-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 48,407.75 48,407.75 58,200.00 9,792.25 83.2 101-45210-121 PERA 3,879.45 3,879.45 2,900.00 ( 979.45) 133.8 101-45210-122 FICA 4,628.50 4,628.50 7,400.00 2,771.50 62.6 101-45210-135 CITY BENEFIT CONTRIBUTION 8,834.96 8,834.96 8,800.00 ( 34.96) 100.4 101-45210-142 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT PAYMENTS 1,359.86 1,359.86 .00 ( 1,359.86) .0 101-45210-143 OPEB EXPENSE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-151 WORKER'S COMP INSURANCE PREM 7,400.00 7,400.00 7,400.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 2,078.52 2,078.52 300.00 ( 1,778.52) 692.8 101-45210-212 MOTOR FUELS & LUBRICANTS 11.95 11.95 .00 ( 11.95) .0 101-45210-221 EQUIPMENT PARTS & ACCESSORIES 3,362.37 3,362.37 .00 ( 3,362.37) .0 101-45210-223 BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT. SUPPLIES 14,170.69 14,170.69 8,500.00 ( 5,670.69) 166.7 101-45210-226 CLOTHING & PERSONAL EQUIPMENT 259.26 259.26 500.00 240.74 51.9 101-45210-240 SMALL TOOLS AND MINOR EQUIP 398.24 398.24 500.00 101.76 79.7 101-45210-301 AUDITING AND ACCT'G SERVICES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-304 ENGINEERING-CONSULTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-307 LEGAL-CONSULTING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-312 BANK FEES 11,418.49 11,418.49 3,700.00 ( 7,718.49) 308.6 101-45210-313 IT SERVICES 2,000.00 2,000.00 2,000.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-314 FLEET SERVICES 14,100.00 14,100.00 14,100.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-319 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 117.00 117.00 .00 ( 117.00) .0 101-45210-321 TELEPHONE 5,338.18 5,338.18 3,300.00 ( 2,038.18) 161.8 101-45210-322 POSTAGE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-331 TRAVEL EXPENSES 67.28 67.28 .00 ( 67.28) .0 101-45210-340 GENERAL ADVERTISING 500.00 500.00 1,800.00 1,300.00 27.8 101-45210-343 OTHER ADVERTISING .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 184.40 184.40 1,300.00 1,115.60 14.2 101-45210-361 GENERAL LIABILITY INS 7,400.00 7,400.00 7,400.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-362 UMBRELLA LIABILITY INS 1,500.00 1,500.00 1,500.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-365 BOILER & MACHINERY INS 400.00 400.00 400.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-366 PROPERTY INSURANCE 2,700.00 2,700.00 2,700.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-367 EQUIPMENT FLOATERS INS 300.00 300.00 300.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-368 AUTOMOTIVE INSURANCE 400.00 400.00 400.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-369 DRAM SHOP INSURANCE 600.00 600.00 600.00 .00 100.0 101-45210-370 INSURANCE AGENT OF RECORD .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-379 INSURANCE DEDUCTIBLES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 8,913.49 8,913.49 8,700.00 ( 213.49) 102.5 101-45210-382 WATER UTILITIES 285.50 285.50 .00 ( 285.50) .0 101-45210-401 REPAIRS/MAINT-OFFICE EQUIP 17.84 17.84 100.00 82.16 17.8 101-45210-402 REPAIRS/MAINT-AUTO EQUIP 3,488.34 3,488.34 .00 ( 3,488.34) .0 101-45210-403 REPAIRS/MAINT-MISC. EQUIP 1,299.85 1,299.85 .00 ( 1,299.85) .0 101-45210-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 20,473.31 20,473.31 14,000.00 ( 6,473.31) 146.2 101-45210-409 DEPRECIATION & AMORTIZATION .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail CITY OF ORONO EXPENDITURES WITH COMPARISON TO BUDGET FOR THE 12 MONTHS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2020 GENERAL FUND PERIOD YTD BUDGET UNEXPENDED PCNT FOR ADMINISTRATION USE ONLY 100 % OF THE FISCAL YEAR HAS ELAPSED 03/04/2021 02:06PM PAGE: 12 101-45210-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS 16,904.44 16,904.44 11,000.00 ( 5,904.44) 153.7 101-45210-433 MEMBERSHIPS 165.00 165.00 300.00 135.00 55.0 101-45210-437 TRAINING & DEVELOPMENT 10.22 10.22 200.00 189.78 5.1 101-45210-438 ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGE .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-440 SPECIAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45210-441 LICENSES & TAXES 301.00 301.00 600.00 299.00 50.2 101-45210-489 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS CHARGES 177.56 177.56 200.00 22.44 88.8 TOTAL GOLF COURSE 260,060.34 260,060.34 220,400.00 ( 39,660.34) 118.0 BRUSH SITE 101-45220-104 TEMPORARY/SEASONAL EMPLOYEES 5,508.00 5,508.00 10,800.00 5,292.00 51.0 101-45220-122 FICA 115.35 115.35 800.00 684.65 14.4 101-45220-223 BLDG/GROUNDS MAINT. SUPPLIES 219.16 219.16 300.00 80.84 73.1 101-45220-312 BANK FEES .00 .00 .00 .00 .0 101-45220-313 IT SERVICES 300.00 300.00 300.00 .00 100.0 101-45220-321 TELEPHONE 1,260.36 1,260.36 .00 ( 1,260.36) .0 101-45220-352 PRINTING & PUBLISHING 180.00 180.00 .00 ( 180.00) .0 101-45220-361 GENERAL LIABILITY INS .00 .00 100.00 100.00 .0 101-45220-381 GAS & ELECTRIC 293.71 293.71 300.00 6.29 97.9 101-45220-404 REPAIRS/MAINT-BLDGS/GROUNDS 8,182.54 8,182.54 500.00 ( 7,682.54) 1636.5 101-45220-415 OTHER EQUIPMENT RENTALS 501.12 501.12 .00 ( 501.12) .0 TOTAL BRUSH SITE 16,560.24 16,560.24 13,100.00 ( 3,460.24) 126.4 TOTAL FUND EXPENDITURES 8,937,023.27 8,937,023.27 9,143,200.00 206,176.73 97.8 NET REVENUE OVER EXPENDITURES (8,937,023.27) ( 8,937,023.27) ( 9,143,200.00) ( 206,176.73) ( 97.8) Attachment 5 - Expenditure Detail City of Orono Vendor Payment Amounts October ‐ December 2020 Payee Amount Paid Description MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 340,000.00 Land Purchase PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION 291,313.21 Employee and Employer Contribution to pension Blackstone Contractors LLC 228,667.70 Big Island Project and East Long Lake Trail Improvement BOLTON & MENK INC 196,582.35 Engineering Service CITY OF LONG LAKE 126,575.81 2020 Fire Service And Utility Service HEALTH PARTNERS 114,852.61 Employee Health Insurance MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 108,177.71 Wastewater & SAC Charges WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ISD 105,584.00 CARES Grant Distribution Hennepin County Accounts Receivable 100,000.00 Assessing Service DIAMOND MOWERS INC 83,496.00 Tractor #450 Attachments Orono Woods Apartments LLC 71,306.00 TIF payment JOHN DEERE GOVERNMENT SALES 67,981.68 Row Mowing Tractor #450 LANO EQUIPMENT 67,171.04 Toolcat Unit 604 CONSTRUCTION RESULTS CORPORATION 58,440.00 20‐039 City Hall Service Counter Remodel David Weekley Homes 55,625.00 Escrow Refund ‐ Orono Preserve STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 49,179.44 Squad Set‐Ups WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYCLE 47,495.25 Recycling Service XCEL ENERGY 44,384.94 Electrical Service MN STATE RETIREMENT‐HCSP‐ING 42,429.37 Employee's contribution to health care saving plans FERGUSON WATERWORKS 39,228.20 Meters And Flange Kits American Environmental LLC 38,952.30 2020 Sewer Televising LOGIS 36,926.14 Fuel System Troubleshooting, Adobe Licensing & Entrust Tokens QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 35,381.70 Lift Station Repairs CAMPBELL KNUTSON 31,668.82 Legal Services CARTEGRAPH 28,610.00 2021 License‐Asset Management GMH ASPHALT 27,636.62 2019 Street Improvements 19‐001 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 23,242.72 Fuel METRO WEST INSPECTIONS SVCS INC 22,788.00 Inspection Services OPTUM 22,096.95 Employee's contribution to health care saving plans SECURITY & SOUND CO 20,044.45 Building security and door access CITY OF WAYZATA 19,840.25 Utility Services MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 19,293.10 Pressure Vessel & State Surcharge CARDMEMBER SERVICE 18,309.63 Credit Card Purchases COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 16,560.56 Non‐treated Road Salt CARGILL SALT 15,832.46 Softener Salt LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DIST 15,001.50 2020 Levy Pmt VERIZON WIRELESS 13,605.88 Internet Service DELTA DENTAL 12,200.15 Employee Dental Insurance ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 11,337.00 Employees' contribution to retirement plans TITAN MACHINERY 11,335.23 Air Filters NORTON HOMES 10,970.00 Escrow Refund BRASS, JASON & ERIN 10,000.00 Escrow Refund CHARLES CUDD 10,000.00 Escrow Refund COHEN, ANDREW & KATHERINE 10,000.00 Escrow Refund MALONE, RYAN 10,000.00 Escrow Refund Terry & Lynda Sandvold 10,000.00 Escrow Refund Westar Homes 10,000.00 Escrow Refund DENALI CUSTOM HOMES 9,949.00 Escrow Refund SHEARER, FRED 9,940.00 Escrow Refund MARIANI, DAVE 9,700.00 Escrow Refund Newegg Business Inc 9,655.59 Computer/Network Supplies AEM FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS LLC 9,648.75 Finance Assistance NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 9,635.87 Employees' contribution to retirement plans ORCHARD TRUST‐MNDCP‐ING 9,540.00 Employees' contribution to retirement plans HENDEL HOMES 9,000.00 Escrow Refund SWANSON HOMES 8,999.00 Escrow Refund JABS, JOSHUA & NICOLE 8,979.00 Escrow Refund NORLINGS 8,247.00 City Hall Landscape Maintenance, Bederwood Park Project and Summit Park Gate Corporate 4 Insurance Agency Inc 8,000.00 2021 Insurance Agent Fee RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 7,649.34 Garbage Service HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT 7,555.97 Police And Public Work Radios CYCLONE CONSTRUCTION 7,500.00 Escrow Refund SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 7,356.55 Employee Insurance Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing HENNEPIN COUNTY TREASURER 7,156.54 Grant Repayment MN DEPT OF REVENUE‐WIRE 7,102.00 Sales Tax Payment SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC 6,432.19 Bederwood Park Improvement ASPEN EQUIPMENT 6,325.79 Equipment Repair And Parts Plan‐It Geo LLC 6,000.00 ROW Tree Inventory TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 5,776.20 Prosecution Services THE HARTFORD 5,356.35 Employee Insurance City of Orono Utilities 5,289.54 Utility Services ALTERNATIVE BUSINESS FURNITURE 5,221.16 Office Furniture VALLEY RICH CO 5,204.65 Watermain Break Repairs MINT ROOFING 5,200.00 Roof Repairs CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 5,028.31 Gas Service LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR SRV 4,840.32 Police Union Dues KUSSKE CONSTRUCTION 4,645.75 2019 Drainage Improvements 19‐029 JLR GARAGE DOOR SERVICE INC 4,575.00 Building Maintenance CORNERHOUSE 4,565.46 2021 Forensic Interview Svcs LaPointe Utilities Inc 4,500.00 Escrow Refund CENTURY LINK 4,455.09 Internet And Phone Service SERVICEMASTER CLEANING 4,416.50 Sewer backup cleaning BURSCHVILLE CONSTRUCTION INC 4,250.00 Sewer Repair LAKE MINNETONKA ERU 4,250.00 2021 Membership DALCO 4,170.16 Cleaning Machine ‐ Covid 19 (Cares Act) NOVA COMMUNICATIONS 4,122.00 Phone and Software Support ZAHL EQUIPMENT 4,033.80 Annual Hoist Inspection TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 3,685.50 Meeting Minutes WOLD ARCHITECTS INC 3,664.66 Front Entry Redesign ALLOY WELDING & MFG INC 3,600.00 Roll‐Off Container ‐ Leaf/Debris QUADIENT INC 3,538.48 Postage Machine and Inserter Lease OFFICE DEPOT 3,465.88 Office Supplies HOLLYWOOD PYROTECHNICS INC 3,300.00 Holiday Event ‐ cancelled & refunded THN ENTERPRISES 3,300.00 Big Island Dock ALLSTREAM 3,138.39 Phone Service JOHNSON CONTROLS FIRE PROTECTION LP 2,802.97 PW Fire Alarm Monitoring & Sprinkler System EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 2,728.68 Oil Changes And Squad Repairs MILLER, SCOTT & MICHELLE 2,700.00 Escrow Refund MN DEPT OF HEALTH 2,694.87 Water Supply System Operator License Renewal STU'S STUMP GRINDING LLC 2,670.00 Stump Grinding MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION 2,657.00 Code Updates ASHDOWN, GRACE 2,500.00 Escrow Refund BLUE, JAMES 2,500.00 Escrow Refund MINUTEMAN PRESS 2,450.90 Newsletter And Postage COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 2,351.11 Asphalt for road patching U.S. AutoForce 2,334.56 Squad Tires BIFFS INC 2,319.18 Porta Potty rentals Aspen Mills 2,273.24 Police Uniforms HALLORAN, KATHY 2,122.41 Refund ‐ Ub Overpayment UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 2,108.95 Utility Bill Postage And PO Box Rental HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 2,095.80 Jail Charges Metro Sales Inc 2,046.14 Copier Service Bratt Tree Company 2,000.00 Tree Removal In Row YAMAHA MOTOR CORP 1,942.00 Golf Cart Rental BARNWOOD GROUP INC 1,940.00 Escrow Refund 1 HR RESCUE RESTORATION 1,925.00 Election Polling Place Cleaning GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 1,915.65 Locates T W TUPY INC 1,905.66 Rock For Road, Water, Sewer, Sw, Park Projects And Repairs WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 1,889.91 Squad Tire Repair US Bank Equipment Finance 1,790.28 Copier Service OPEIU ‐ LOCAL 1,722.00 Local 12 Union Dues High Road Heating & Cooling 1,698.28 Ls#1 Generator Gas Line PROLAWNS 1,680.48 Bederwood fertilizer and mold control Marcel Smits 1,679.00 Escrow Refund Ishaug, Jennifer 1,670.00 Escrow Refund Druk, Tim 1,649.00 Escrow Refund VACKER INC 1,648.00 Bederwood Park Sign ROB HOWELLS 1,620.00 Council Meeting Video Streaming MILLOW ELECTRIC 1,500.00 Escrow Refund ESS BROTHERS & SONS 1,483.30 Manhole Covers Minnesota Topsoil 1,461.00 Yard Waste Haulout Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 1,433.05 Batteries & radios for PW vehicles and PPE TWIN CITY STRIPING 1,430.15 Road Striping SOUTH LAKE MINNETONKA POLICE 1,409.33 Masks MCB BANK ‐ HSA 1,400.04 Employee Contribution to HSA FILEONQ INC 1,300.67 Fileonq ‐ Annual License Renewal NORTH MEMORIAL 1,295.00 EMR Refresher Courses STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 1,248.60 Door rekeying and repairs MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 1,235.53 Aerator & Other Equipments MHSRC/Range 1,190.00 Training for Officers EARL F ANDERSON & ASSOC 1,172.14 Street Signs NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 1,152.00 Employee Pension Program H & L MESABI 1,107.04 Unit 428 Snow Plow Cutting Edges EMBEDDED SYSTEMS INC 1,107.00 Siren Maintenance WENDY DANKEY 1,100.00 Escrow Refund KENNETH N POTTS PA 1,093.50 Legal Fees SAFETY VEHICLE SOLUTIONS 1,035.00 Vehicle Warning Lights St. Cyr Johnson Enterprises 1,029.59 Uniform Cleaning Ferguson Enterprises LLC 1,001.45 Water Meters AFFORDABLE EGRESS WINDOWS & BASEMENT 1,000.00 Escrow Refund Ammermann, Jonathan & Sarah 1,000.00 Escrow Refund BYINGTON HOMES 1,000.00 Escrow Refund Cowden, Margaret 1,000.00 Escrow Refund DMK HOMES LLC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund GARDENEER INC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund HAYES & SONS EXC INC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund HILLESHEIM, MIKE 1,000.00 Escrow Refund HILLSTROM, BEN 1,000.00 Escrow Refund HOUSTON, WILLIAM 1,000.00 Escrow Refund JIVASOFT CORPORATION 1,000.00 On Duty Software JOHNSON, ROSS 1,000.00 Escrow Refund Precision Decks 1,000.00 Escrow Refund UNITED CONTRACTORS INC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund WHITEHALL II LLC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund YARDSCAPES INC 1,000.00 Escrow Refund CITY HOMES LLC 970.00 PETERS, BARRY 970.00 ROBERT LINDEN CONSTRUCTION 970.00 VEACH, BENJAMIN 970.00 International Union Local 945.00 IN CONTROL INC 934.00 DPC INDUSTRIES 930.38 SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 914.50 MIDWEST AQUA CARE 910.00 SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 904.83 PLAISTED COMPANIES INC 900.55 A 1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WACONIA 900.13 WATER CONSERVATION SVC INC 884.42 GEPHART ELECTRIC CO INC 851.74 CEMSTONE 831.35 A 1 RENTAL 796.21 THOMSON WEST 765.00 PETERSON, DAVE 764.50 CINTAS CORPORATION 757.12 GOPHER ACE 757.02 Modern Power Solutions LLC 754.60 Wright‐Hennepin Coop Electric 741.98 ONLINE SOLUTIONS LLC 739.64 NORTHERN SPECIALITIES INC 722.00 UNIFIRST CO 708.95 CHRIST'S FAMILY CHURCH 700.00 FORCIER, ELLEN 700.00 KUHL DESIGN BUILD 700.00 MICHAEL GALLUS CONSTRUCTION 700.00 MN NATIVE LANDSCAPE 700.00 FOX, NANCY 690.00 COMPASS MGMT GROUP 681.15 GREAT LAKES COCA‐COLA 677.44 CORE & MAIN 639.62 Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing Reed Wholesale & OCS 636.10 Riverside Design 632.02 APPRIZE TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS 567.00 CECE S SIGNS 565.00 MOUND TRUE VALUE 552.10 BUREAU OF CRIM. APPREHENSION 510.00 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPANY 509.29 RYAN AUTO MALL 502.67 TEEMASTER CORPORATION 500.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 489.30 THE HOME DEPOT 481.36 SONICLEAR 473.00 RITEWAY BUSINESS FORMS 465.46 WILLIAMS TOWING 465.00 JJ TAYLOR DIST LF MN 450.90 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATING INC 445.76 VESSCO INC 444.94 APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 437.00 DOG WASTE DEPOT 434.48 KLINGSPOR 431.85 Emergency Medical Products Inc 419.17 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 417.20 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NAPA 408.60 Morrie's Auto Body & Glass 402.00 TREECARE 400.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 377.08 WACONIA FORD SALES INC 369.00 CENTRAL HYDRAULICS 366.98 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIONS ‐ COPIERS 365.28 SUMMIT FIRE PROTECTION 359.00 FASTENAL 349.74 SUMMIT COMPANIES 342.00 Fricke & Sons Sod Inc 330.00 RUCHTI, STEVE 300.00 TRUCANO, JUDITH K 300.00 VERTEX UNMANNED SOLUTIONS LLC 300.00 CAPITOL BEVERAGE SALES L.P 295.50 LEOWEBPROTECT.com 286.12 AIRDATA UAV INC 260.00 WEAVER, JANETTE L 260.00 BARNUM GATE SERVICES INC 258.00 MCSHERRY, SHEILA 250.00 JR'S ADVANCED RECYCLERS 246.00 CHRIS FISCHER 241.76 GPS INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLGIES INC 240.00 ANNA CARLSON 239.14 PLUNKETT S 232.54 JEREMY BARNHART 231.15 PAYCHEX 225.00 Blue Lagoon Marine 223.07 ULINE 211.14 SRIXON SPORTS USA INC 209.40 LINDGREN, SANDRA 207.69 Brian Clark 200.00 LDF 200.00 RANDY OBRIEN 200.00 Occupational Health Centers of MN 198.00 JAY MCCOY 195.55 A LA CARTE CREATIVE GROUP 195.00 KYLE KIRSCHNER 191.14 MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 187.08 WILKINS, CATHLEEN L 186.00 SCOTT OBERAIGNER 184.79 CORREY FARNIOK 183.44 GARDNER CONSTRUCTION INC 181.20 ROBERTSON, JENNIFER L.L 178.75 KELLAR KENNEN, JANICE 175.00 GRAINGER INC 171.79 Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing TIM SONNEK 171.65 Int'l Institute of Municipal Clerks 170.00 LANDGRAVER, KEVIN 170.00 CHAD STENSRUD 165.16 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 164.00 TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 158.00 NELSON, KIRK D 154.00 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 153.77 BERGERSON CASWELL INC 150.00 WHISLER, SANDRA S 150.00 ES&S Election Systems & Software 142.94 PLATT‐NELSON, JUDY 140.00 DISPLAY SALES 134.00 O SULLIVANS HOLIDAY 132.00 SUSAN SCHULTZ 129.47 Kvalseth, Christine 120.00 LARSEN, FAITH 120.00 PASTEL, JOANNE M 115.00 Crow River Farm Equipment & Mfg Co 112.52 GREG HAYHURST 111.37 ALEXANDER, HUE 100.00 ARENDS, MAGGIE C 100.00 BRANDT, LYLE 100.00 DANIELSON, NANCY 100.00 DAYTON, ERIC 100.00 FERRILL, ELEANOR L 100.00 JONES, JULIE 100.00 PARRISH, CAROL 100.00 SMILEY, MATTHEW 100.00 WHITE, SHERRY DAVIS 100.00 ANDERSON, BECKY 99.98 LINDBLOOM, JULIE 98.00 MIDWEST TURF AND LANDSCAPE INC 95.00 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 94.50 EDEN PRAIRIE POLICE DEPARTMENT 93.44 KEEGAN, SANDRA 92.50 ROHRER, RICHARD J 92.50 ABBOTT, MICHELE 90.00 BURWELL, BARBARA 90.00 DOHERTY, MARY LOU 90.00 EXSTED, SAMANTHA 90.00 Jones, Sheila 90.00 MAHOWALD, SOPHIA 90.00 MILLER, MICHAEL 90.00 MISCHKE, LU‐CHIN 90.00 NASH, SHERYL 90.00 SANFORD, JENNIFER 90.00 STERICYCLE INC 85.00 GOUDY, MELISSA 83.47 Januik, Robert 83.47 BENNETT, MARY ELLEN 80.00 CADY, THOMAS 80.00 GRUNDEEN, JOY 80.00 HOUSTON, DEBORAH A.S 80.00 MARKUSEN, LOCKIE B 80.00 MERIDETH, MARYANN B 80.00 OBRIGEWITSCH, JANET 80.00 RUEGEMER, JULIE 80.00 SCHOENZEIT, LAURA J 80.00 SPILSETH, DAVID 80.00 Hennepin County 78.00 PETRUSA, JANELLE 72.50 SAIKI, PENNY 72.50 VEACH, MARIA 72.50 AASEN, DENISE L 70.00 ACTIVE911 INC 70.00 BLUM, DEBORAH 70.00 CARLSON, JUDY A 70.00 Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing DARLING, LAUREEN 70.00 Perry's Truck Repair 70.00 POLLOCK, KATHLEEN H 70.00 ROBERTS, JOHN 70.00 ROGOSHESKE, JUDY 70.00 UNITED FARMERS COOPERATIVE 63.24 NOLA DICKHAUSEN 60.95 SHANNON, KATY 60.00 JAMI WITTKE 58.89 City of Wayzata\DMV 57.50 EDWARDS, NANCY 57.50 QUALITY STAINLESS INC 57.01 Advance Auto Parts 54.35 Batteries + Bulbs 50.38 GLEYSTEEN, MICHAEL & CYNTHIA 50.07 MPPOA 50.00 FRED VARGAS 47.44 Yamaha Golf & Utility 44.57 BRAD SCHOENHERR 42.07 ANNE HENTGES 38.70 BCA FORENSIC SCIENCE LAB 33.25 MATT SILTALA 28.24 UNG, MARGARET 26.80 OTTEN BROTHERS 26.59 MN DEPT OF AGRICULTURE 25.00 SNAP‐ON TOOLS INC 23.35 DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 20.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 20.00 Awards by Cindy LLC 15.24 GRUNDITZ, JOHN & LAVONNE 10.00 WAYZATA BAY CAR WASH 9.95 Grand Total Paid in Q4 2020 3,212,969.01 Attachment 6 - 4th Quarter Vendor Listing City of Orono Vendor Payment Amounts January ‐ December 2020 Top 100 Vendors Paid Payee Amount Paid Description BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 1,171,968.78 Bond Agent Fee And Debt Service Payments HEALTH PARTNERS 700,154.61 Employee Health Insurance BOLTON & MENK INC 679,776.18 Engineering Service MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 597,924.98 Wastewater & Sac Charges PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATIO 481,287.76 Employee And Employer Contribution To Pension CITY OF LONG LAKE 460,820.98 2020 Fire Service And Utility Service Omann Brothers Paving Inc 442,304.94 Bracketts Point Overlay & 2020 Street Improvement Project Blackstone Contractors LLC 357,502.68 Big Island Project And East Long Lake Trail Improvement MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 342,015.24 Signal Maintenance & Land Purchase LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 304,573.86 Comp Municipal Liability Insurance PEMBER COMPANIES 222,240.00 2019 Sewer Improvements ORONO PUBLIC SCHOOLS 194,416.00 Distribution Of Cares Act Grant To Orono School District For Technological Improvement WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYCLE 189,981.00 Recycling Service QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 187,642.40 Lift Station Repairs XCEL ENERGY 184,866.44 Electrical Service LOGIS 167,350.06 Microsoft Licensing & Entrust Tokens Berkley Risk Admin Co LLC 124,582.00 2020 1St Half Worker'S Comp Insurance VISU SEWER CLEAN & SEAL INC 122,836.01 2018 Sewer Improvements GMH ASPHALT 113,814.75 Old Crystal Bay Rd And 2019 Street Road Improvement Schneider Excavating and Grading Inc 110,102.75 2020 Stormwater Project WESTONKA PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ISD 105,584.00 Cares Grant Distribution CAMPBELL KNUTSON 103,871.51 Legal Services Hennepin County Accounts Receivable 100,000.00 Assessing Service Traut Companies 98,703.00 Well #3 Screen Install & Test Pumping 19‐024 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 97,694.66 Fuel CITY OF WAYZATA 97,512.70 Utility Services METRO WEST INSPECTIONS SVCS INC 95,636.50 Inspection Services David Weekley Homes 95,505.00 Escrow Refund ‐ Orono Preserve DODGE OF BURNSVILLE 92,894.00 Purchase Of 2 Squad Cars STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 92,891.79 Squad Set‐Ups Gordon James Construction 91,482.15 Council Chambers & Conference Room Improvement SUNRAM CONSTRUCTION INC 86,497.35 Bederwood Park Improvement DIAMOND MOWERS INC 83,968.74 Tractor #450 Attachments ABM Equipment & Supply LLC 83,044.43 Body For Unit #421 FERGUSON WATERWORKS 73,564.12 Meters And Flange Kits Orono Woods Apartments LLC 71,306.00 Tif Payment LANO EQUIPMENT 70,400.77 Public Works Equipment Repairs JOHN DEERE GOVERNMENT SALES 67,981.68 Row Mowing Tractor #450 SECURITY & SOUND CO 64,054.45 Council Chamber Equipment CARDMEMBER SERVICE 63,597.00 Credit Card Purchases LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DIST 59,136.00 1St Qtr 2020 Levy Pmt CONSTRUCTION RESULTS CORPORATION 58,440.00 20‐039 City Hall Service Counter Remodel Modern Power Solutions LLC 57,074.61 Annual Maintenance And Repairs For Generators MN STATE RETIREMENT‐HCSP‐ING 53,905.57 Employee'S Contribution To Health Care Saving Plans VALLEY RICH CO 53,145.60 Watermain Break Repairs CARGILL SALT 51,864.43 Softener Salt MP Asphalt Maintenance 47,250.00 Road Crack Sealing ASPEN EQUIPMENT 44,462.92 Equipment Repair And Parts Hoffman & McNamara Co 41,867.20 18‐043 Csah 112 Ph2 Landscaping DELTA DENTAL 41,107.62 Employee Dental Insurance American Environmental LLC 38,952.30 2020 Sewer Televising COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 38,415.89 Road Salt VERIZON WIRELESS 37,749.13 Internet Service OPTUM 37,658.00 Employee'S Contribution To Health Care Saving Plans MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 36,887.30 Aerator & Other Equipments TL STEVENS 36,428.35 Bederwood Park Well TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 32,388.18 Prosecution Services HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TECH DPT 30,788.19 Police And Public Work Radios MN DEPT OF REVENUE‐WIRE 30,425.00 Sales Tax Payment KRIHA ELECTRIC 29,397.00 Electrical And Generators For Lift Stations CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 28,801.79 Gas Service CARTEGRAPH 28,610.00 2021 License‐Asset Management SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 28,271.45 Employee Insurance CORE & MAIN 28,243.62 Hydrant Parts Attachment 7 - YTD Top 100 Vendor Listing MN DEPT OF LABOR & INDUSTRY 27,685.84 State Surcharge Carmen Bay Lake Improvement District 27,435.66 Cblid Payment SHAUGHNESSY LAWN CARE 24,672.00 Park Mowing Newegg Business Inc 24,314.33 Computer/Network Supplies Abdo, Eick & Meyers LLP 24,000.00 2019 Audit Service THE HARTFORD 23,390.18 Employee Insurance LaPointe Utilities Inc 21,000.00 Escrow Refund PROLAWNS 20,992.90 Bederwood And Golf Course Fertilizer And Pesticide RANDYS ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 20,805.99 Garbage Service Bratt Tree Company 20,313.60 Golf Course 2020 Tree Maintenance Luther Infiniti of Bloomington 19,590.00 2011 Ford Escape ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST 19,332.00 Employees' Contribution To Retirement Plans NATIONWIDE RETIREMENT 17,703.79 Employees' Contribution To Retirement Plans MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT 17,620.24 Pw Truck Parts CENTURY LINK 17,113.56 Internet And Phone Service NORLINGS 16,530.00 City Hall Landscape Maintenance ORCHARD TRUST‐MNDCP‐ING 15,990.00 Employees' Contribution To Retirement Plans E.J. MAYERS INC 15,000.00 Sewer Main Repair MISSION COMMUNICATIONS LLC 14,976.00 Mission Annual Service MINUTEMAN PRESS 14,846.14 Newsletter And Postage City of Orono Utilities 13,942.70 Utility Services CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 13,722.83 Software Support And Training TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 12,783.50 Meeting Minutes ALLSTREAM 12,512.02 Phone Service Diabsolut 12,463.00 2020 Licenses NORTON HOMES 11,970.00 Escrow Refund EDDIES AUTO AND MARINE 11,963.88 Oil Changes And Squad Repairs TITAN MACHINERY 11,816.69 #429 Loader Repair VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 11,575.39 Janitorial Service YAMAHA MOTOR CORP 11,357.00 Golf Cart Rental OFFICE DEPOT 11,327.88 Office Supplies A 1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WACONIA 11,211.21 Public Works Door Chime Office And Maintenance Bay Wischmeier, Shawn & Kelly 10,970.00 Escrow Refund MN DEPT OF HEALTH 10,603.59 Water Supply System Operator License Renewal T W TUPY INC 10,538.92 Rock For Road, Water, Sewer, Sw, Park Projects And Repairs DITTER INC 10,076.89 Heating And Cooling Maintenance And Repair Attachment 7 - YTD Top 100 Vendor Listing Prepared By: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to award the contract for the 2021 Street Maintenance Project (21-001), the Casco Point Stormwater Project (21-026), the Fagerness Point Stormwater Project (21-028), and the Navarre Parking lot Project (21-040). 2. Background. At the May 16th, 2020 Council meeting streets were selected for maintenance in 2021 and design and engineering was authorized. Throughout the summer and fall Staff and our consulting firm, Bolton and Menk, have been preparing plans for the selected streets. On November 23rd, 2020 Council approved the design and engineering of the Casco Point Stormwater project, Fagerness Point Stormwater project and the Navarre Parking Lot Overlay project. Due to their common nature, these project were combined with the streets project into one bid package in an effort get the best possible bids for the project. 3. Scope of Work. a. 2021 Street Maintenance Project (21-001): The project consists of the reclamation and/or mill and overlay of the bituminous pavement, select subgrade corrections, and the replacement / improvement of the associated stormwater systems for Casco Circle, Eileen Street, Park Lane, Elm Street, East Navarre Roads (Kenwood, Olive, Lafayette Ridge, Bayview, Navarre Ln,) and the West Navarre Roads (Crystal Place, Lyric, Blaine). b. Fagerness Point Stormwater Project (21-028): The project consists of curbing, pavement adjustments and a storm pipe on a select portion of the roadway. c. Casco Point Stormwater Project (21-026): The project consists of curbing, pavement adjustments and replacement of a stormwater structure. It also includes a tie into the Casco Circle project with a new storm pipe. d. Navarre Parking Lot Project (21-040): The project includes stormwater structure repair, a pavement overlay and new striping of the municipal lot. 4. Cost. The city received seven bids. The Bid Summary is at Exhibit A. The low bid for $1,389,655.99 is from Omann Brothers. In addition to the construction cost, Bolton and Menk provided a proposal of NTE $ 99,000 for construction oversight. (Exhibit B) Who Work Cost Status Bolton &Menk 2021 Streets Design and Bid Engineering $95,000 Not to exceed Previously approved Bolton &Menk Casco Point and Fagerness Point Stormwater Design and Bid Engineering $28,500 Not to exceed Previously approved Bolton &Menk Navarre Parking Lot Overlay Design and Bid Engineering $4,200 Not to exceed Previously approved Omann Brothers Construction $ 1,389,655.99 Pending award Bolton &Menk Construction Oversight $ 99,000 Not to exceed TOTAL $1,616,355.99 Item No.: 22 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: 2021 Road Maintenance Project Award Presenter: Adam Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Public Works Director/ City Engineer’s Report AGENDA ITEM 5. Funding. Funding for the project will come from a combination of the pavement management fund, stormwater fund, water fund, sewer fund and community investment fund. Fund As bid Est. 2021 End of Year Fund Balance Pavement Fund $ 824,375.16 $ 0 Stormwater Fund $ 616,530.94 $ 1,119,620 Water Fund $ 69,111.68 $ 204,510 Sewer Funds $ 24,856.94 1,701,060 Community Investment Fund $ 81,481.27 $595,202.73 Total $1,616,355.99 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend award of the bid to Omann Brothers in the amount of $1,389,655.99. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to award the 2021 Streets project to Omann Brothers for $1,389,655.99 and to authorize Bolton & Menk to perform construction oversite for a fee not to exceed $99,000.00. Reference A. Bid Tab B. Bolton and Menk Construction Services Proposal AGENDA ITEM Exhibit A-Bid Tab City Of Orono 2021 Street Improvements Bid Date: 3 March 2021 Contractor Bid Amount Omann Brothers Paving $ 1,389,655.99 GMH Asphalt $ 1,392,380.40 Northwest Asphalt $ 1,397,665.40 Asphalt Surface Technologies $ 1,416,359.97 Bituminous Roadways $ 1,549,769.00 Valley Paving $ 1,589,589.00 Park Construction $ 1,608,514.10 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\2021 Street Improvements Construction Services.docx March 3, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: 2021 Street Improvements – Construction Services Dear Adam: As requested, we have prepared a scope of services and estimated fee for the construction services associated with the 2021 Street Improvements Project, which includes various drainage improvements. Scope of Services Public Coordination/Communications Bolton & Menk is committed to supporting the coordination requirements of this project with qualified staff and will proactively engage affected property owners and the general public with timely and accurate information via newsletters and website updates as desired by the City. Construction Staking and Observation Construction staking will be provided along with full time construction observation. Duties of the Construction Observer will include the following: • Attendance at the pre-construction meeting and all construction -related meetings • Serve as a liaison between the City and the contractor • Review of the completed work to determine if the project is in general conformance with the plans and specifications • Review of all materials testing • Maintenance of construction documentation • Communication with affected property owners, as necessary, to address their construction -related concerns and issues Construction Administration Construction administration duties will include the fo llowing: • 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 li nked to the City mapping system and the City’s GIS system will be updated. 2021 Street Improvements Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\2021 Street Improvements Construction Services.docx Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, and the additional work, we propose a not-to -exceed of $99,000 to be billed on an hourly basis. A separate proposal for materials testing services will be submitted to the City for review. Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to accept the proposal for the utility design and engineer for sewer and Water connections to the Future Public Works Facility Site. 2. Background. In 2020 the City Council expressed an interest in procuring land and constructing a new public works facility. The City acquired the parcel at 365 OCB earlier this year. Council indicated a desire to complete utility connections for the property in 2021 followed by soliciting proposals for facility design later in the year. 3. Project Scope. The scope of the project will be to complete the design, permitting and prepare bid documents for the construction of water and sanitary sewer lines to service the property at 365 Old Crystal Bay Road. 4. Cost. The city solicited proposals from 2 engineering firms to complete design and engineering of the Water and Sewer systems to the site. WSB provided the lowest quote for a fee not to exceed $28,736. Summary of proposals is in the table below. Firm Proposed Cost WSB $28,736 BMI $29,000 5. Funding. Funding for the project would come from facility fund. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from BMI for a fee not to exceed $28,736 for the design and engineering of sewer and water utilities to serve the new public works facility. Exhibits A. Fee Proposal from WSB for Utility (Sewer and Water) Design Services. B. Fee Proposal from Bolton and Menk for Utility (Sewer and Water) Design Services. Item No.: 23 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: Public Works Facility Approval of Utility Engineering and Design Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E City Engineer/ Dir of Public Works Agenda Section: Public Works Director/ City Engineer Report G:\.Clients All\Orono\Proposals\2021 Public Works Facility Sewer and Water Design\20210305 AEdwards PROP utility extension to PW facility Final.docx 7 0 1 X E N I A A V E N U E S | S U I T E 3 0 0 | M I N N E A P O L I S , M N | 55 4 1 6 | 7 6 3 . 5 4 1 . 4 8 0 0 | W S B E N G . C O M March 5, 2021 Mr. Adam Edwards City Engineer City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55323 Re: Proposal for Professional Engineering Services for a Utilities Extension Project Dear Mr. Edwards: On behalf of WSB, we are pleased to submit this proposal to provide design and permitting services for the municipal water and sewer extension project from the west end of Goldenrod Way to a lot that has been designated for a future Public Works Facility located at 365 Old Crystal Bay Road. With State Highway 12 and the MNSF railway within the project corridor, City staff indicates that this project will use trenchless technology for the utility installation. We have developed an approach based on our understanding of your needs as well as our familiarity with similar projects. Our experience and history of working on these types of projects stakeholders along with similar projects makes WSB the ideal candidate to complete the work. WSB has successfully assisted many cities in implementing public infrastructure projects and the project team members have led projects requiring coordination with multiple governing bodies including MnDOT, BNSF, MPCA, MDH, and others. We will support the City of Orono in their efforts to coordinate project completion at all levels. SCOPE OF SERVICES Based on the Request for Proposals received February 18, 2021 we propose to perform the following work: Task A: Contract/Project Management, Coordination, and Quality Control We propose Jim Stremel as the Project Manager for this project. Jim has 19 years of project management experience in municipal and trenchless design projects. He has worked on similar projects in communities such as St. Paul Park, Brooklyn Park, Excelsior, and Lino Lakes which makes him the ideal candidate for this project. His expanded resume is included as an attachment to this proposal for your reference. Deliverables: a work plan for the project, biweekly project schedule progress reports, monthly progress payment requests, and three meetings with City Staff. Task B: Coordination with BNSF and MNDOT The utilities will cross both BNSF and MNDOT right of way. Immediately following City authorization to proceed, WSB will contact both agencies to discuss the proposed project, the City’s desired project schedule, and determine key design components of each agency and deliverables to each agency. The City will be informed of any Exhibit A Mr. Adam Edwards March 5, 2021 Page 2 G:\.Clients All\Orono\Proposals\2021 Public Works Facility Sewer and Water Design\20210305 AEdwards PROP utility extension to PW facility Final.docx anticipated project schedule adjustments that may be necessary based on the outcome of these discussions. Deliverables: project schedule adjustments (if any), and BNSF and MNDOT perm its necessary for construction. Task C: Geotechnical Evaluation WSB’s fee includes two soil borings to a depth of 15 feet. Based on a review of the information provided, it appears that the site can be accessed with our CME-55 Track- mounted auger drill. WSB will complete Gopher State One Call (GSOC) utility clearance to have public underground utilities located. Private utilities are the responsibility of the site owner to mark, and WSB should be notified of any private underground utilities onsite. If borings are extended due to unsuitable soils at termination depths (organics, fills, etc), an additional charge of $20 per lineal foot will be assessed. Samples retrieved during drilling will be returned to our laboratory where they will be reviewed, classified using the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) and logged under the direction of a geotechnical engineer. Select samples will be set aside for laboratory testing. We may perform routine laboratory tests on selected soil samples obtained from the exploration. Deliverables: Geotechnical Evaluation Report. Task D: Survey and Mapping Topographic survey will be collected on the north and south ends of the anticipated pipe boring location as needed to complete the work identified in Tasks E and G. GSOC Design locates will also be completed as part of this task. Task E: Utility and Stormwater Management Design The sewer and water service sizes will be based on a facility that is 120% of the size of the existing Public Works Facility located at 365 Old Crystal Bay RD. The sanitary sewer will serve the building wastewater needs and the watermain will serve the building water needs as well as bulk water demand (e.g. brine making). The project will be located entirely within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) boundary. Linear projects including utility construction that create less than 10,000 sq-ft of new impervious are exempt for the stormwater management rule. Therefore, we do not anticipate any permeant stormwater management design will be required for this project. There also does not appear to be any wetland or floodplain impacts as a result of the work outlined in the RFP. Deliverables: Design Memo outlining water and sewer sizing requirements. Task F: Environmental Documentation and Permits Based on the information provided in the RFP we anticipate that the following permits will be necessary: • MCWD Erosion Control Permit (Required for disturbance greater than 5,000 sq-ft of 50 CY) • MDH Watermain Permit • MPCA Sewer Extension Permit Mr. Adam Edwards March 5, 2021 Page 3 G:\.Clients All\Orono\Proposals\2021 Public Works Facility Sewer and Water Design\20210305 AEdwards PROP utility extension to PW facility Final.docx AET Phase I Environmental Site Assessment obtained from council meeting minutes revealed no evidence of recognized environmental conditions in connection with the Public Works site. MPCA What’s In My Neighborhood review is also clear of potential contamination sites within or adjacent to the project work area. Therefore, we do not anticipate any additional environmental review will be required to complete the work outlined in the RFP. We also do not anticipate the project requiring a NPDES permit due to the area disturbance projected to be less than an acre. This scope of work does not include any necessary permit fees; these will be passed on to the City if applicable. Deliverables: Permits from MCWD, MDH, and MPCA that are necessary to proceed with construction of the project. Task G: Final Design Documents Plans and specifications for the extension of municipal sanitary sewer and watermain from the existing stubs located at the west end of Goldenrod Way to the future Public Works Facility will be prepared. WSB has many great construction industry partnerships and will coordinate an expert on trenchless technology will perform a QA/QC review of the 60% construction plans. Utility Designs will confirm with BNSF Utility Accommodation Policy, MnDOT Utility accommodation and coordination manual. Deliverables: 60%, 90%, and final construction plans, including a statement of quantities table; an opinion of probable costs based on the final design; project technical specifications; and contract documents. Task H: Bidding Process Assistance Upon City Council authorization, WSB will submit the advertisement for bids, respond to plan holders’ inquiries, tabulate the bids, and provide a letter of recommendation for the City Council’s consideration for award of contract. WSB is able to administer online or paper bidding based on City preference. Deliverables: Advertisement for bids, bid tabulation, letter of recommendation. BASIS OF COMPENSATION WSB’s fee to perform the scope of services outlined above on an hourly, not to exceed basis is $28,736. Hourly Our fee breakdown spreadsheet is attached for your reference. Should additional work arise WSB will contact the City for authorization for additional fee prior to completing any out-of-scope work. Mr. Adam Edwards March 5, 2021 Page 4 G:\.Clients All\Orono\Proposals\2021 Public Works Facility Sewer and Water Design\20210305 AEdwards PROP utility extension to PW facility Final.docx SCHEDULE Work will begin once a contract between the City and WSB is fully -executed. Based on the tentative schedule in the RFP we anticipate the following timeline, assuming very timely permitting responses from outside agencies such as MNDOT and BNSF: Consultant Selection & Authorization ........................................................................ March 29, 2021 Project Kickoff Meeting with City .................................................................First Week of April, 2021 Field Work (Geotechnical & Topographic Survey Work) ......................................... Early April, 2021 Begin Final Design .................................................................................................... Late April, 2021 Utility/MnDOT/RR Coordination Meeting(s) ............................................................. Early May, 2021 Review Draft Plans With City ................................................................................... Early May, 2021 Prepare/Submit Permitting Documents ............................................................................. May, 2021 City Council Approves Plans/Specs & Authorizes Ad for Bids .................................... May 24, 2021 Bid Opening .............................................................................................................. Mid-June, 2021 City Council Awards Contract ..................................................................................... June 28, 2021 Begin construction ..................................................................................... August/September, 2021 Substantial Completion ............................................................................................... October, 2021 Final Completion ..................................................................................................... November, 2021 A copy of the project task hour budget is attached for your reference. This represents our complete understanding and scope of the project. We are available to begin work immediately upon authorization as indicated in the proposed project schedule. WSB appreciates the opportunity to provide the City of Orono with this proposal. We are looking forward to working with you and your staff toward the completion of the project. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 952-843-8323. Sincerely, WSB Brian Bourassa, PE Bill Alms, PE Vice President of Corporate Development Senior Project Manager af Pr o j e c t M a n a g e r Pr o j e c t E n g i n e e r En g i n e e r i n g T e c h n i c i a n Of f i c e T e c h n i c i a n Tw o - P e r s o n S u r v e y Cr e w Su r v e y P r o j e c t M a n a g e r Tw o - P e r s o n D r i l l i n g Cr e w Ge o t e c h n i c a l P r o j e c t En g i n e e r To t a l H o u r s To t a l F e e Bill Alms/ Jim Stremel Alex Mollenkamp Mike Miller Aleesha Penn N/A Jeremy Honga N/A Mark Osborn 164 122 101 85 199 120 220 138 Phase TASKS A. Project Management Project Manamgnet Updates 6 6 $984 Client Meetings 4 4 $656 B. Coordination with BNSF & MnDOT Coordination Meetings 6 6 $984 BNSF Coordiantion/Permit Submittal 4 10 14 $1,876 MnDOT Coordiantion/Permit Submittal 2 8 10 $1,304 C. Geotechnical Utility Coordination 4 4 $552 Soil Borings 9 9 $1,980 Technical Memorandum 13 13 $1,794 D. Survey and Mapping Survey computations 2 2 $240 GSOC Utility Location Coord.2 2 $240 Topographic Survey 8 8 $1,592 E. Utility Design Sewer & Water Service Sizing 3 8 $836 Design Memo 1 1 2 $286 F. Environmental Documentation and Permits MCWD Permit Application 0 $0 MDH/MPCA Permit Applications 1 5 6 $774 G. Final Design Design 6 8 12 34 $3,172 Specifications 4 8 4 22 $2,536 Drawings/Layouts 10 40 50 $5,260 Quantity Estimates 8 8 $976 QA / QC 2 8 $516 Utility Coordination 2 2 4 $572 H. Bidding Process Assistance Bidding 4 5 4 13 $1,606 0 $0 42 68 52 8 8 4 9 17 233 $164.00 $122.00 $101.00 $85.00 $199.00 $120.00 $220.00 $138.00 $6,888 $8,296 $5,252 $680 $1,592 $480 $1,980 $2,346 $28,736 $28,736 Total Hours Total Project Fee Hourly Rates Labor Total Fee Estimate for Professional Engineering Services Design Services for PW Facility Utilties Total City of Orono JStremel@wsbeng.com | 763 . 287 . 8532 Jim Stremel, PE MUNICIPAL/CIVIL PROJECT MANAGER Jim is a registered Professional Engineer with over 19 years of experience in civil engineering, client development, and project management. As a municipal project manager, Jim encourages collaboration and utilizes team members based on their expertise to produce the ideal product within budget and on schedule for the client. Jim’s municipal project knowledge includes all phases of the design and construction process from feasibility reporting, property assessments, planning, permitting, design documents, bidding process, and construction administration. His project experience includes projects of all sizes from less than one half mile of a mill and overlay to five miles of full urban street and utility reconstruction. He will be responsible for leading and coordinating the work within the project team and be responsible for the quality control, staff scheduling, and overall project management to ensure that the project meets a high-quality standard, is delivered on time, and within budget. SERVICE GROUP: Municipal REGISTRATION: Professional Engineer – Minnesota #45782, Wisconsin #43172 EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering, University of Minnesota, 2002 Street & Utility Improvement Project | St. Paul Park, MN CLIENT: CITY OF ST PAUL PARK , MN PROJECT DURATION: JUNE 2018 – MAY 2020 Jim acted as project manager for both the 2019 City/State-Aid funded street and utility improvement projects totaling over $2.9 million. The project scope encompassed the full reconstruction of deteriorating streets, utilities, and storm sewer including a half mile section along 9thAvenue, which is a critical east-west collector through the City and one of the few crossings at the adjacent railroad corridor. The project area has significant bedrock and significant rock excavation was necessary to install the utilities. Two new utility crossings were also constructed under the BNSF railroad crossing utilizing separate casing sections jacked through the bedrock. Planning for the project was conducted under the strict MN Statutes Chapter 429 special assessment process and plans were completed to MnDOT State Aid standards. West Shadow Lake Dr Street & Utility Improvement Project | Lino Lakes, MN CLIENT: CITY OF LINO LAKES , MN PROJECT DURATION: AUGUST 201 7 – MAY 2020 Jim and his team were responsible for the design, plans, specifications, and construction management of a large street and utility improvement project in the City of Lino Lakes totaling more than $6.3 million. The project area spanned two miles and included both rural and urban street improvements, watermain, sanitary sewer, and storm sewer installations. The project area was located in close proximity to Reshanau Lake and included flood control installations and other critical storm water management techniques to treat runoff prior to discharge into the lake. The neighborhood also had no public utilities prior to the new sewer and watermain installations ; portions of the wateramain were directionally drilled to avoid open trenching between the lakes. The extensive changes to the neighborhood within the project area required extensive coordination with the City, residents, and governing agencies. Other Trenchless Experience | Various Cities Mr. Stremel has designed and implemented various other projects that involved trenchless technologies including the 2017 City of Excelsior Downtown Area Improvement project which included directionally drilled watermain through portions of the historic downtown areas and the 2014 Gateway Business Park in the City of Brooklyn Park that comprised of jacking two 42” steel casings across TH 169 at a 40’ depth. Currently, he is working on a watermain pipe bursting project for the USPS in the City of Eagan due for construction in 2021. Orono Public Work Facility Utility Services Concept Exhibit DATE: 2/21/2021 PID: 3311823320002 ADDRESS: 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED, ORONO OWNER NAME: BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC ACRES: 19.24 LEGEND: 2 FOOT ELEVATION CONTOURS INDEX INTERMEDIATE N H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate - PW Water and Sewer Extension - Revised.docx March 3, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards PO Box 66 Orono, MN 55323 RE: Public Works Water and Sewer Extension – Revised Fee Estimate Dear Adam: Based on the City’s request for proposals , we have prepared a scope of services and design fee estimate for the extension of water and sewer service to the proposed public works site. It is our understanding that the scope of the project will include the following: •Extend watermain under Hwy 12 and the railroad by trenchless construction methods. •Extend a sanitary sewer forcemain under Hwy 12 and the railroad by trenchless construction methods. Proposed Scope of Engineering Services To assist the City with this improvement project, Bolton & Menk proposes the following scope of services: Topographic Survey – We will document existing conditions in the areas of the boring pits on each side of the highway and will rely on the highway record plans for the work that will occur within Mn/DOT’s right of way. Staff Design Meetings – Our team will work with City staff to develop the scope of the project and to get input on design details. The goal of these meetings is to ensure that the project is designed consistent with City standards and that the City’s maintenance practices and operations are considered throughout the design process. Detailed Design and Bidding – Once the final scope of the project is determined, Bolton & Menk will prepare detailed plans and specifications for the water and sewer crossings of HWY 12 and will obtain all necessary permits. Our scope of services will not include design of the grinder pump that will be required to serve the site of the new public works facility. Detail design of the pump and controls will occur with the site design for the new building. Upon authorization, the project will be advertised for competitive bids. Bolton & Menk will administer the bidding process and will ultimately make recommendations to the City Council about awarding the project. Fee Estimate Based on the scope of services described above, we propose a not -to -exceed fee of $29,000 to be billed on an hourly basis. Once the Construction Contract is awarded, Bolton & Menk will prepare a separate scope and fee estimate for construction phase services. Exhibit B Public Works Water and Sewer Extension March 3, 2021 Page 2 H:\ORNO\2021 New Projects\Fee Estimate - PW Water and Sewer Extension - Revised.docx Please let me know if you have questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. David P. Martini, P.E. Principal Engineer AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To consider a resolution regarding a proposed the Comprehensive Plan Amendment to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Background. To provide sanitary service for the new Public Works Facility (PWF) site, Council directed staff to initiate the Comprehensive Plan amendment to expand the MUSA. The PWF is expected to include a wash bay, a kitchen area, and bathrooms, though final design has not concluded. Preliminary plans suggests that sanitary sewer will be routed under the Highway 12/ RR right of way, to be added to the same meter-shed employed by the existing PWF. The expansion is not expected to increase sewage flows beyond capacity. The Comprehensive Plan prescribes situations where expansion of the MUSA is appropriate, ranking them in order of priority. This subject expansion ranks a 6 (out of 6), but it seems as though these priorities were developed with private, residential development in mind, not city services. Impact to Comp plan density and growth requirements. Because the land is proposed to retain its residential land use, expansion of the MUSA for the public works facility will have an impact on the City’s density. Clarification on the impacts were received after the Planning Commission meeting. Density will drop to 3.69 units per acre, which is still above the 3.0 units per acre minimum. The 2 lots anticipated for residential growth can be added to the growth projections. 2. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed expansion, and ultimately recommended approval as proposed. One Commissioner (Bollis) suggested that the city owned lot east of the Fire Station on Willow would be more appropriate for the facility. That site, though, is substantially smaller than the subject site. 3. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution as drafted. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resultion B. MUSA Addition Maps C. Existing Sanitary Sewer areas D. MUSA Map Item No.: 24 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000006 – City of Orono, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road – Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) Expansion - Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO E. PC minutes – draft F. PC Staff report References PC Exhibits 2-16-2021 City of Orono Comprehensive Plan CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT #4 TO EXPAND THE METROPOLITAIN URBAN SERVICE AREA (FILE NO. LA21-000006) WHEREAS, the City of Orono (City) recently purchased 5.85 acres of property legally described in Exhibit A, (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the City desires to construct a Public Works Facility to provide for the continued service for the citizens of Orono”), and the City desires that facility to be served by municipal sanitary sewer service, requiring expansion of the Metropolitain Urban Service Area as shown in the City’s Comprehensive Plan; WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning the Comprehensive Plan Amendment were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 8, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the Comprehensive Plan Amendment based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File LA21-000006 (Comprehensive Plan Amendment). 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 guided for Low Density Residential in the 2040 Community Management Plan. Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 2 3. The Property is located in the RR-1B Zoning District. 4. The Property contains 5.85 acres in area. 5. Municipal Buildings and City owned public service structures are permitted uses in the RR-1B zoning district. 6. The additional MUSA property does reduce the city’s overall sewered density, though not below 3.0 units per acre. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: I. Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants approval of an Amendment to the City of Orono Comprehensive Plan to expand the Metropolitan Urban Service Area to incorporate the area described in Exhibit A and directs staff to submit same to the Metropolitan Council. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 8th day of March, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 3 That part of Tract A described below: Tract A. The north 10 acres of that part of the East Half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 33, Township 118 North, Range 23 West, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying south of the right of way of the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, formerly the Great Northern Railway; which lies westerly and southerly of Line 1 described below, and westerly of the westerly right of way line of Old Crystal Bay Road as now located and established: Line 1. Beginning at Right of Way Boundary Corner B16 as shown on Minnesota Department of Transportation Monumentation Plat No. 27-M16 as the same is on file and of record in the office of the County Recorder in and for said County; thence northerly on an azimuth of 00 degrees 16 minutes 00 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 101.45 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B17; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 48 minutes 58 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 25.65 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B18; thence on an azimuth of 00 degrees 48 minutes 59 seconds along the boundary of said plat for 79.00 feet to Right of Way Boundary Corner B19; thence on an azimuth of 285 degrees 18 minutes 31 seconds for 79.82 feet to Boundary Corner M23; thence on an azimuth of 270 degrees 49 minutes 00 seconds for 1183.44 feet to Boundary Corner M24 and there terminating; containing 5.85 acres, more or less; Subject to the following restriction: No access shall be permitted to Trunk Highway No. 12 from the lands herein conveyed; except that access shall be permitted to Old Crystal Bay Road. 1, 60 0.0 Legend 365 Old Crystal Bay Road N MUSA addition 0 1,600 Feet This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 1/14/2021 2:16 PM City Limits Parcels (10/26/2020) 2040 MUSA Council Exhibit B 40 0.0 Legend 365 Old Crystal Bay Road N MUSA Addition 0 400 Feet This drawing is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, information, and data located in various city, county, and state offices, and other sources affecting the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Orono is not responsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. Disclaimer: © Bolton & Menk, Inc - Web GIS 2/11/2021 1:34 PM City Limits Parcels (10/26/2020) 2040 MUSA [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú [Ú !H!H !H !H!H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H !H )n )nGsWX GeWX GsWX GoWX GeWX GÞWX G½WX GoWX GoWX GÞWX GVWX112 GVWX135 GVWX146 )n GVWX110 Sp GïWX Cook'sBay SpringParkBay Carman'sBay HarrisonBay WestArm MaxwellBay NorthArm ForestLakeJenning'sBay StubbsBay LafayetteBay WayzataBayTanagerLake LakeClassen DickeyLake LongLake LydiardLake MooneyLake CascoPoint CrystalBay BohnsPoint SmithBay LakeMinnetonka BrownsBay BrackettsPoint FrenchMarsh KatrinaLake DutchLake LangdonLake L o ngLak eCreek P a i n t e r C r e e k Minnetonka Blvd Lake St Extension Highland Ave P e a v e y R o a d 6thAveN Fe r n d a l e R o a d N C o u n t y R o a d 19 N S u n s e t D r Hu n t e r D r Star k e y R o a d Rutledge Road 22nd A v e N Lynw ood Blvd Co m m e r c e B l v d Highway12E 6 t h A v e N T on k aw o o d R o a dShorelineDr C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 H i g h w ood Dr 1 8 t h AveN N A r m D r Azure Road Highway 7 19th A v e N 8th Ave N N Shore Dr Rice St E W atertownRoad 3rdAve N Wayzata Blvd E Wi l l o w D r N BaysideRoad Kelley Pk w y County Road 151 Ra n c h v i e w L n N Lake Ave Daniels St S p a r r o w R o a d L a r c h w o o d D r LakeStE Sunnyfield Road E P k w y 4th Ave N P a i n t e r R o a d D ev on Dr P a r k Ave OrchardLn S t e e l e S t Park St E Grand Ave 9 t h A v e N Rid g eview DrE Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d N OldLongLake R o a d Day Pl Co u n t y R o a d 8 3 Lyric Ave Spring H i l l R o a d W Branch Road Temp l e Dr Ga me Fa rm R oad E E astw o o d R o a d 5 t h A v e N Moline Road Drake Dr Ta m a r a c k D r S u ga rw o o d D r R e g e n t s W a l k C y g n e t P l Bl a i r R o a d Turner Road K elly Ave V i n e H i l l R o a dWestedge B l v d Co u n t y R o a d 9 0 C o u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 C r o s b y R o a d B a r tl e tt B lv d Hi g h l a n d R o a d Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S C a nterb u r y D r Donald D r Du n k i r k L n N Le a f S t M c Cu l l e y R o a d C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 0 N Vi c t o r i a S t I s l a nd V i e w D r Vi c k s b u r g L n N St u b b s B a y R o a d N Sussex D r Troy L n N L25 L26 L38 L39 L40 L44 L45 L46 L48 L49 L50 L59 L60 M434 M428 M431 M430 M424 M421 M423 M422 M429A M440 M435 M426 M455 To MeterM431 To MeterM435 To MeterISLAND To MeterM429A To MeterM430 To MeterM428 Ma p D o c u m e n t : \ \ A r c s e r v e r 1 \ G I S \ O R N O \ C 1 3 1 1 4 8 1 4 \ E S R I \ M a p s \ L a n d U s e \ O R N O _ 4 B - 1 _ M C E S S a n i t a r y S e w e r M e t e r S e r v i c e A r e a s _ P a r c e l s _ 1 1 x 1 7 L . m x d | D a t e S a v e d : 1 1 / 1 4 / 2 0 1 8 3 : 5 0 : 0 2 P M 2040 Comprehensive PlanOrono, MN MCES Sanitary Sewer Meter Service AreasNovember 2018 Legend City Limits 2040 MUSA Lakes & Ponds Rivers & Streams 0 3,500FeetSource: Met. Council, City of Orono, Hennepin County, MnDOT !I MCES Sanitary Sewer System [Ú Lift Station !H Meter GravityInterceptor ForcemainInterceptor Map 4B-1 Council Exhibit C )n )nGsWX GeWX GsWX GoWX GeWX GÞWX G½WX GoWX GoWX GÞWX GVWX112 GVWX135 GVWX146 )n GVWX110 GïWX Cook'sBay SpringParkBay Carman'sBay HarrisonBay WestArm MaxwellBay NorthArm ForestLakeJenning'sBay StubbsBay LafayetteBay WayzataBayTanagerLake LakeClassen DickeyLake LongLake LydiardLake MooneyLake CascoPoint CrystalBay BohnsPoint SmithBay LakeMinnetonka BrownsBay BrackettsPoint FrenchMarsh KatrinaLake Long Lake Creek Painter Cree k Minneton k a B l v d Fe r n d a l e R o a d N Lake St Extension Highland Ave P e a v e y R o a d 6th Ave N Sunset Trl N C o u n t y R o a d 19 N Star k e y R o a d Wi l l i s t o n R o a d Rutledge Road I n t e r s t a t e 4 9 4 Co m m e r c e B l v d Highwa y 1 2 E T on k a w o o d R o a d Highw o o d D r Wayzata Blvd W 1 8 t h Ave N B r o w n R o a d N 19th Av e N F e r n d a l e R o a d S W o o d h i l l R oa d I nte rsta te 394 Highway 7 8th Ave N Orcha rd Ro a d StoneRoad W atertownRoad Rice St E Ra n c h v i e w L n N C a r l s o n P k wy N No r t he r n A v e 21 s t A v e N 3rdAve N Wayzata Bl vd E Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d N Wi l l o w D r N 22nd A v e N BaysideRoad Ke lley Pk w y H i g h l a n d R o a d Fox St Lake Ave Daniels St L a r c h w o o d D r Ri d g e d a le DrLakeStE P k w y 4th Ave N Co u n t y R o a d 8 3 D ev on Dr P a r k Ave S Ln Orcha rdLn S t e e l e S t Park St E Grand Ave Hu n t e r D r Fin c h L n 9 t h A v e N E astw o o d R o a d Rid g eview DrE Day Pl Lyric Ave Spring H i l l R o a d Tem p l e Dr Crown Dr N Arm Dr 5 t h A v e N Ta m a r a c k D r Moline Road R e g e n t s W a l k K e n m a r C i r C y g n e t P l K elly A ve B a k e r R o a d X e n i u m L n N Co u n t y R o a d 1 0 1 Du n k i r k L n N M c G i n tyRoadE Cr o s b y R o a d O a kland Ro a d Le a f S t H a r b o r L n N Vi c k s b u r g L n N Es s e x R o a d W ayzata Blvd Co u n t y R o a d 1 9 Ol d C r y s t a l B a y R o a d S V i n e H i l l R o a d C a nterb u r y D r Donald D r L i n n e r R o a d M c Cu l l e y R o a d C o u n t y R o a d 1 1 0 N Vi c t o r i a S t To w n L i n e R o a d G a y woo d D r I s l a nd V i e w D r Ni a g a r a L n N W oodruff R o a d Le r o y S t St u b b s B a y R o a d N Troy L n N S h o r e line D r C o u n t y Ro a d 1 0 1 1 1 2 31 47 8 27 42 26 7 6 24 48 37 36 25 2223 35 45463 43 34 21 5 32 10 1939 4140 20 29 12 9 50 33 13 14 41149 30 16 2838 17 18 51 Ma p D o c u m e n t : \ \ a r c s e r v e r 1 \ G I S \ O R N O \ C 1 3 1 1 4 8 1 4 \ E S R I \ M a p s \ W a t e r _ R e s o u r c e s \ O R N O _ 4 B - 2 _ M U S A E x p a n s i o n _ 1 1 x 1 7 L . m x d | D a t e S a v e d : 2 / 4 / 2 0 1 9 1 0 : 5 0 : 0 4 A M 2040 Comprehensive PlanOrono, MN MUSA ExpansionFebruary 2019 MUSA Expansion History Map 4B-2 * Demolished for Highway 12 right-of-way** Annexed to City of Long LakeDSI = Downstream Interceptor Legend City Limits 2040 MUSA Lakes & Ponds Rivers & Streams 0 3,500 FeetSource: Met. Council, City of Orono, Hennepin County, MnDOT !I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 45 46 47 48 49 50 MUSA Part Addition Name Lift Station Service Area Zoning District Acres Navarre / Forest Lake / Tonkawa LS-59 #1135 4/14/1980 LR-1B/C, B-1 to 5 1,285 Orono Schools & Industrial park LS-60 #1135 4/14/1980 RR-1B, I 64 Hackberry LS-60 #1135 4/14/1980 R-1B 17 Herrick Circle Wayz #1135 4/14/1980 R-1A 7 Chevy Chase Ferndale Green Wayz #1135 4/14/1980 R-1A 47 Mtka Bluffs / Orono La / W Ferndale DSI #1337 11/23/1981 LR-1A, RR-1B 87 County Road 15 Marinas DSI #1337 11/23/1981 LR-1A, B-2 4 Crystal Bay DSI #2131 2/23/1987 LR-1A, RR-1B 44 Fulmer Property*LS-60 #2131 2/23/1987 RR-1B 3 Hwy 12 Corridor West LS-60 #2437 5/23/1988 Various 242 Hwy 12 Corridor East Wayz #2437 5/23/1988 RR-1B 10 North Shore / Scotch Pine LS-59 #3283 5/24/1993 LR-1A 119 650 Brown Rd. N.LS-60 #3283 5/24/1993 LR-1A 3 Fairway Hills Addition Wayz #3283 5/24/1993 RR-1B 5 Long Lake / Fleming Trail **#3283 5/24/1993 24 Stubbs Bay LS-59 #3153 8/10/1992 LR-1A, RR-1B 179 Oono Sewer Plant Property LS-59 #3348 10/25/1993 RR-1B 4 Nettles Property DSI #3348 10/25/1993 LR-1A 4 North Long Lake LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A 22 Long Lake Country Club LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A 23 East Long Lake LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A, RR-1B 20 Orono Orchards DSI #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 40 Fox Ridge LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 16 Weber hills DSI #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 48 Edgewood Hills DSI #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 20 Bracketts Point DSI #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A 34 Foxhill DSI #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A 43 Bayridge / Hartwood DSI #3791 10/28/1996 LR-1A 28 Orono Schools Hockey Arena LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 75 Dillman Property LS-60 #3791 10/28/1996 RR-1B 3 Mawell Bay Area LS-59 #4195 10/9/1998 LR-1A 165 Dumas Orchard LS-60 #4723 11/13/2001 RR-1B / RPUD 70 Lake Classen NE LS-60 #4723 11/14/2001 RR-1B 49 East Hackberry LS-60 #4723 11/15/2001 RR-1B / RPUD 29 Van Eeckhout (Creekside)LS-60 #4723 11/16/2001 RR-1B PRD 31 Bluffs Extensions Hamm-Goetten DSI #4723 11/17/2001 RR-1B 23 Tanager Lake DSI #4723 11/18/2001 LR-1A 82 Murphy North Shore DSI #4723 11/19/2001 LR-1A 79 Dickey Lake Shoreland LS-60 #4723 11/20/2001 RR-1B 145 Long Lake Shoreland LS-60 #4723 11/21/2001 LR-1A 218 St. Edwards Church Plym #4723 11/22/2001 RR-1B 4 French Lake Shoreland LS-59 #4723 11/23/2001 RR-1B 362 Old Long Lake Road Wayz #5063 10/27/2003 RR-1B 19 Myrtlewood Road Wayz #5673 10/8/2007 RR-1B 30 5 & 15 Brown Road South LS-60 #5959 9/13/2010 RR-1B 4 465 & 525 Leaf Street LS-59 #5959 9/13/2010 RR-1B 7 3060 Fox Street LS-59 #5959 9/13/2010 RR-1B 1 850 Wayzata Boulevard Wayz #5959 9/13/2010 RR-1B 6 3245 Wayzata Boulevard LS-60 #5959 9/13/2010 RR-1B 29Proposed: 1003 Wildhurst Trail LS-17 RR-1B 10 CMP Amendment / Date 51 Council Exhibit D MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 3 4. LA21-000006 CITY OF ORONO, 365 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD NORTH, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT – METROPOLITAN URBAN SERVICE AREA (MUSA) EXPANSION (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Barnhart said the City of Orono is considering relocating its public works facility and to do so it needs to amend the Comprehensive Plan specifics to the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and needs to amend the CUP to expand sanitary sewer into an area that is not served by sanitary sewer. He showed a map of the City and showed the proposed expansion into a parcel of land just south of Highway 12 shown in red, off of Old Crystal Bay Road. The Planning Commission may recall this property was for sale by MnDOT for a couple of years and the City purchased it last summer for the purpose of a public works facility. When considering an expansion of the MUSA they are generally concerned about impact to the existing system and if the system can support that type of improvement. The City Engineer has reviewed the proposed/anticipated volume of water to be generated and treated on the site and feels comfortable that the existing system can support it. He said there will be necessary expansions to that system, a sanitary sewer line and a new lift station will likely be necessary to pump the waste from the facility into the system just north of Highway 12. The project will likely include a normal kitchenette or breakroom, some restrooms, and perhaps 1-2 wash bays. Barnhart noted the final plans have not been determined but that is what Staff anticipates. In terms of impact to the system, the main increase will likely be the future use of the existing public works facility which is directly to the east. They have not identified a use for that and the zoning of that property is the same as the zoning of the subject property, which is a residential-type property and does allow City public works facilities as a permitted use. He noted there is an extra public hearing requirement but it is not technically a CUP. Staff has reviewed the standards for expansion of the MUSA which is contained in the Comprehensive Plan, which does anticipate expansions of MUSA from time-to-time. There are basically 6 priorities where the City Council could support a change or an amendment. For this project, there is not a failing system on the property, it is not adjacent to other property that needs to be served, it does not fit the top five criteria for priority, so it is a lower priority in terms of what the Comprehensive Plan spells out. Barnhart pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan established those priorities based on private residential use primarily, and private other development secondarily; public development for public services was not considered in terms of drafting the priorities. As with any proposed expansion of MUSA, Staff’s worry is whether this is creating or establishing a precedent – does it just make the argument easier for anyone else to expand the MUSA boundary into their property? As the Planning Commission knows, the goal has been since the 1980’s to keep urban densities around specific areas such as Navarre, Highway 12, but also more importantly, keep density away from the lakeshore but also provide sanitary sewer along the lakeshore to help preserve the water quality of the lakes. Barnhart noted they wanted to avoid expansion into the area shown on screen as those are lower density rule areas and did not want to extend sanitary sewer into those areas. He does not think this expansion, while it is into a more rural area, is precedent setting because it is for a public use and public service for the community. Staff is recommending approval as proposed. Bollis asked if this decreases the sewer density with this proposal. Barnhart replied that this has no impact on the sewer density because it is not a residential use. Kirchner said regarding the City Engineer’s comments, does that opinion include if there were a wash bay and vehicle washing or is that specific to restrooms and a kitchen. Barnhart said it does include the wash bay because they have one now. Council Exhibit E MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 3 Gettman asked if they have received any comments from neighbors. Barnhart said as of today, no, he has not received any comment for or against the proposal. Gettman noted there would presumably be an increase in the number of trucks and utility vehicles in the area. Barnhart said perhaps, yes. He imagines a fair number of traffic comes down Old Crystal Bay Road from the current facility, but Gettman is correct, if all of the trucks leave that site there will be more traffic on that section of road. McCutcheon assumes there is a need for it and asked regarding the purchase, was it because this was relatively close or there were limited choices. Barnhart does not know the history as to why this site was chosen, but from a planning perspective, the City Engineer suggested a 25% increase in size necessary to accommodate the future public works needs of the community. McCutcheon clarified the zoning would stay the same except for that one lot. Barnhart said that is correct, the zoning would not change, nor would the guiding land use change. The only change proposed is to expand the MUSA into that subject property. He showed the MUSA map on screen and pointed out the subject parcel and would add that as an addition to the MUSA map. Bollis asked if it is possible to do this without expanding the MUSA and doing an on-site system. Barnhart replied possibly, they could build an on-site septic system and chances are they would need to incorporate some additional land because the land itself is not sized enough to accommodate that service plus the outdoor storage that will be required. He noted they do own a portion of land to the west. Ressler asked if owning the land to the west could be an opportunity for expansion in the future to avoid a whole new facility. Barnhart said it could; they did not include it into the MUSA boundary expansion proposal here. While the City does own this and perhaps the City Council could consider some outdoor storage in that area, that area is not included in the MUSA expansion as proposed. Ressler opened the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 6:45 p.m. Ressler likes the fact that the City already owns the property, it is nice that the adjacent property is owned as that allows for expansion in the future without having to start all over again. The need is there, the City has provided analysis with support and asked if any other Commissioners have comments. McCutcheon said since it is a rural zoned area, they are always tentative, but as long as the zoning remains and will not be extended - his worry is that the 2040 Comp Plan becomes “oh, we have septic MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 3 here, we could chop up these lots and have a house every 1/3 acre.” That is his worry, but they are not doing that and as the City has the current plan of green space and keeping it rural, it is up for the community to maintain that. He noted the City already owns the land, there is a need as the City is growing and the infrastructure has to grow as well, so in that case he is supportive. Ressler appreciates those comments and thinks the City and Staff have done a nice job of explaining that they are not setting themselves up for any precedent because this is for City use not residential. Kirchner moved, Gettman seconded, to approve LA21-000006 City of Orono, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road North, Comprehensive Plan Amendment – Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) expansion as applied. VOTE: Ayes 7, Nays 0. To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: #LA21-06, City of Orono, 365 Old Crystal Bay Road, Amendment to Comprehensive Plan to expand MUSA Public Hearing Background The City recently purchased the 5.85 acres at 365 Old Crystal Bay Road from MnDOT. The city intends to relocate the public works facility to that location. Public works activities include storage and maintenance of vehicles and equipment necessary to maintain the city’s streets, parks, and utilities throughout the year. The buildings to be built likely will generate waste water flows from restrooms, a kitchenette, and a wash bay. Sanitary sewer flows from the proposed facility will likely be pumped under Hwy 12 and the rail road to the city meter-shed north of Hwy 12. Because of this sewer flows are not expected to increase with the relocation. The new use for the existing facility will create a difference in flow. This future re-use has not been determined. The subject property is not located within the MUSA boundary, and for the parcel to be able to connect to sanitary sewer services, and amendment to the Plan is necessary. This amendment will need to be approved by the Metropolitan Council. Analysis: City owned public service structures are a permitted use in the RR-1B zoning district, no change relative to Comprehensive Plan land use or the zoning of the property is necessary or proposed. The Comprehensive plan anticipates the need to amend the MUSA boundary from time to time, and establishes priorities when contemplating expansions of the MUSA. Of concern to the drafters of the Comprehensive plans over the years has been uncontrolled expansion of the sanitary sewer service, and with it, increased residential densities necessary to pay for such expansion, i.e. “the Urbanization Spiral.” The proposed expansion for this proposed new development falls under priority 6: Application Summary: The applicant is proposes to amend the Comprehensive Plan to expand the Metropolitan Urban Services area (MUSA) to incorporate a planned Public Works facility. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the MUSDA expansion for a public service facility as proposed. Council Exhibit F FILE # LA21-06 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 3 The Comprehensive Plan also outlines certain conditions under which an expansion would be approved. Since this expansion is intended to serve a non-residential use, the conditions do not apply: Conditions Expansion of the MUSA on the established prioritized basis noted above will occur only when one of the following conditions is found: 1. When an area of existing homes has failing or non-conforming septic systems and replacement drain field sites are not available for a significant share of the existing homes. 2. When an individual home has a failing or non-conforming septic system, does not have an alternate drain field site, is adjacent to existing sewer lines, and is not part of a neighborhood that could be better served by a neighborhood sewer lateral project. 3. When a new or existing residential development meeting all required development standards is adjacent to existing sewer lines and the developer or homeowners agree to bear all costs of extending municipal sewer to the development, but only when inclusion of such development in the MUSA will not result in a decrease in the City’s sewered density as calculated by the Metropolitan Council. While the Comprehensive Plan does not rate the proposed expansion a high priority, it is clear that the priorities and conditions were based on private development, in particular private residential development. Because the proposed MUSA expansion is intended to support public works activities, staff can support the amendment without concern toward establishing precedent for other expansions into the City’s rural areas. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. FILE # LA21-06 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 3 Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval as proposed. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Location map Exhibit C. MUSA addition map Exhibit D. Comprehensive Plan Map 4B-1 showing Sanitary Service areas Exhibit E. Comprehensive Plan Map 4B-2 showing MUSA areas Exhibit F. City Engineer Memo Exhibit G. Public notice information AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: J. Barnhart Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To consider a variance for a rear yard setback encroachment and provide direction to staff regarding a resolution. 2. Background. The applicants are looking to add a screened porch to the rear of their home. The home sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side. The Wayzata Country Club abuts the property to the north. The addition is proposed to encroach into the rear yard setback. 3. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The applicant made a complete application on January 20, 2021. The 60-Day review period expires March 19, 2021. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The commission held a public hearing on February 16, 2021 with no verbal comments presented. The commission reviewed staff’s analysis and the applicant’s narrative. After discussion with the property owners and reviewing the neighbor’s support, the commissioner’s found that due to the existing location of the current home with an extreme front yard setback, substandard lot, and topography of lot, there are practical difficulties to support the variance request. The commission voted 6-1 (Gettman) to approve the variance as requested. 5. Public Comment 12 Neighbors have submitted letters of support for the project, attached as Exhibit B. 6. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff find the practical difficulties are not met and recommends denial. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED The Council should review the application and determine if the practical difficulties are met for the variance required. Council should direct staff to draft a resolution. If the Council suggests denial, they should state reasons. Exhibits A. Proposed Plans/Survey B. Neighbor Comments C. 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 E. Neighbor Emails F. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 25 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000010 – Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes, 133 Chevy Chase, Variance Presenter: Laura Oakden Planner Agenda Section: Planning Department Report / J 1/2" PIPE I I I / / I I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY / / NOTES: --------...___ .,.,,,,---... ............. 1) THIS SURVEY WAS PERFORMED WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE INSURANCE COMMITMENT. EASEMENTS SHOWN ARE PER PLAT OF HILL O'WAY MANOR. 2) P.I.D .: 36-118-23-41-0022 3) PARCEL AREA: 23, 148 SQ. FT. 4) BEARING BASIS IS ASSUM ED. 5) ELEVATION DATUM: NAVD88, BY GPS OBS ERVATION BENCHMARK : TOP NUT OF HYDRANT (TNH), AS SHOWN ON MAP 5) DATE OF FIELDWORK: 10-1 3 -2020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LO T 1 7, BLOCK 1, HILL O'WAY MANOR, HE NNEPI N COU NlY, MI NNESOTA PREPARED FOR: MICHAEL NELSON KATELYN NELSO N 133 CHEVY CHASE DR WAY2ATA MN 55391 / / Scale, In Feet H 0 20 LEGEN D: • @) FO UND IRON PIPE (AS NOTED ) SET MAG NAIL W/WASHER /14410 9 / / ~v~ / I \\~~ ~c:J:,, G~<?-! y-.0 ~ a: l>4 POWER POLE (WITH GUY ANCH OR) FIRE HYDRANT GATE VALVE CATCH BASIN 9 SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE 0'<1-..,...-------OVER HEAD UTILI TY LI NE ..,...------- STRUCT URA L COVERAGE CALCULATIONS: ~CHAIN U NK FEN CE EX ISTIN G HOUSE PROPOSED SCREEN PORCH PROPOSED COVERED PO RCH 282 1 SQ. FT. 246 SQ. FT . 328 SQ. FT. TOTAL: 3395 SQ . FT. OR 14.7% ............. CE RTIFIC ATI ON : -- X 9 77.() ............. 1/2" PIPE ...... CONC RETE SURFACE BITUM IN OUS SUR FACE --EX ISTING CO NTOUR LI NE PROPO SED CONTO UR LINE EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIO N PROPO SED SPOT ELEVATI ON I he reby certify t hat t h is su rvey, p la n, o r r e po rt was pre pared by m e or u nd e r my dir ect s u pe rv isi o n a nd th at I a m a d uly Licen sed La n d Su rveyor un der the la ws o f the state of Mi n nesota . .-. SIGNED : /z::_A 1/i 5 Travis W. Van Neste, Minn esota Professional Surveyor-#44109 Michigan Professional Su rveyor f 46695 JOB I/ 20 20 069 ISSUED: 1 1-1 1 -2020 DRAWN BY: TWV N REV: 1-1 9 -20 2 1 SCALE: 1 "=20 FEET VAN NESTE SURVE Y ING PROFESSIONAL S URV EYING S ERVICES 4 400 WEST AR M RD, UNIT 120, SPR ING PAR K, MN 5538 4 (952 ) 686-305 5 VANN ESTE SURVEYIN G.CO M SHEET 1 OF 1 January 20, 2021 Views from Proposed Porch Location View from NE property corner view toward the home View from proposed porch toward the north (golf course) View from proposed porch toward the west View from proposed porch toward the east Page 5 of 8 January 20, 2021 Page 6 of 8 17 ft January 20, 2021 Page 7 of 8 January 20, 2021 Page 8 of 8 January 20, 2021 133 Chevy Chase Variance Application Summary Mike & Katelyn Nelson respectfully request a rear yard setback variance of 12.2 feet for the provision of a covered screen porch addition to their home located at 133 Chevy Chase Drive. Background & Current Conditions Mike & Katelyn Nelson live and own a home in the neighborhood located at 102 Chevy Chase Drive. They purchased 133 Chevy Chase Drive (“Subject Property”) in August 2020 to renovate the interior and exterior to accommodate their young and growing family. Practical Difficulties Tests 1.“The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter.” The owners’ use of the property as a single-family home is consistent with R1-A permitted uses. 2.“The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner.” a) Non-Conforming: The property is non-conforming lot under the R1-A district Lot area requirements. The property is .53 acres vs the required 1.0 acres. The lot width at the front setback line is 127.95 vs the required 140 ft. The R1-A district front (35 ft), side (10 ft) and back yard (30 ft) setbacks are currently conforming. However, the setbacks are all over proportioned to the actual lot area by almost double relative to a conforming lot area requirement of 1.0 acre. If the setbacks were proportional to actual lot size they would be 18.55 ft (front), 5.3 ft (side) and 15.9 ft (rear) b) Excessive Structure Setback: The home was built 69.5 ft from the front property line. It exceeds the minimum 35 ft front yard setback by an additional 34.5 ft. This significantly reduces the usable rear yard depth by 34.5 ft, an area greater than 5,000+ sq ft. c) Structure Layout and Placement: The property is a wedge shape with the front property line 107.73 ft and the rear property line 208.42 ft. The home was not built aligned with nor perpendicular to any property boundary AND the garage was located on the side of the home with the longest side property line. The result is the nonliving portion of the home (i.e. the garage) has substantially more usable rear yard area than that on the living side. 3.“The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” Page 1 of 8 January 20, 2021 The addition of a screen porch will not change the essential character of the neighborhood. As designed and located, the addition creates the least impact to other property owners’ lines of sight. a.The adjacent property owner to the west has a double car garage near the shared property line. The property owner’s home angles toward the west away from the subject property. These two aspects of the west property together with the subject property garage location effectively blocks the west neighbor’s interior and exterior sight lines of the addition. b.The adjacent property owner to the north is the Wayzata Country Club (WCC). A 135 ft deep tree grove mostly on the WWC property creates a significant green screen barrier to the addition. Furthermore, the screen porch finished floor elevation is 978.27. The elevation at the back-property line is 983.0 and 990 before emerging on to WCC’s golf cart path on the other side of tree grove. Therefore, the screen porch finished floor elevation as proposed will be 11.4 feet below the cart path elevation. c.The adjacent property owner to the east has a double car garage near the shared property line. The east property owner’s home angles toward the east away from the subject property. These two aspects of the east property together with the subject property’s tree grove, and elevation change of 7 feet functionally blocks the east neighbor’s interior and exterior sign lines of the addition. d.The single-family home #128 located to the south across Chevy Chase Drive from the subject property does not have any interior window or yard sight lines of the addition. e.The undeveloped lot #132 located to the southeast across from the subject property is owned by the City of Orono as such is not negatively impacted. 4.“Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter.” It is possible but not economically feasible to: a.move the entire home 12.2’ toward the front setback line, or b.change the angle of the home on the lot to permit the required back yard setback, or c.change the side of the home on which the garage is placed. 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 §216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter.” Not applicable to this application. 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.” The Nelson’s use of the property as a single-family home is consistent with R1-A permitted uses. Page 2 of 8 January 20, 2021 7.“The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling.” Not applicable to this application. 8.“The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” a.Non-Conforming: The property is non-conforming lot under the R1-A district Lot area requirements. The property is .53 acres vs the required 1.0 acres. The lot width at the front setback line is 127.95 vs the required 140 ft. The R1-A district front (35 ft), side (10 ft) and back yard (30 ft) setbacks are currently conforming. However, the setbacks are all over proportioned to the actual lot area by almost double relative to a conforming lot area requirement of 1.0 acre. If the setbacks were proportional to actual lot size, they would be 18.55 ft (front), 5.3 ft (side) and 15.9 ft (rear) b.Excessive Structure Setback: The home was built 69.5 ft from the front property line. It exceeds the minimum 35 ft front yard setback by an additional 34.5 ft. This significantly reduces the usable rear yard depth by 34.5 ft, an area greater than 5,000+ sq ft. c.Structure Layout and Placement: The property is a wedge shape with the front property line 107.73 ft and the rear property line 208.42 ft. The home was not built aligned with nor perpendicular to any property boundary AND the garage was located on the side of the home with the longest side property line. The result is the nonliving portion of the home (i.e. the garage) has substantially more rear yard depth and area than that on the living side. 9.“The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located.” Other homes in the district may have one or two similar peculiarities included above, no home has all three aspects. 10.“The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” A customary and normally sized screen porch with views of their rear yard is a substantial property right for a nonconforming ½+ dry acre parcel. 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.” A screen porch is in no manner contrary to the intent of the zoning code. Page 3 of 8 January 20, 2021 12.“The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The difficulty of placement of a screen porch on this lot is the minimal distance between the rear setback and the home. Locating a screen porch anywhere along the rear of the home other than the proposed location effectively divides the already compromised size of the usable rear yard into two even smaller usable yards. The proposed location preserves what back yard does exist as a contiguous area promoting the normal rear yard recreational activities expected from owning a ½+ acre property. The proposed location also preserves one single line of sight view of the rear yard from the interior of the home and from the porch itself. These single lines of sight are critical to monitor the safety of the owners’ youngest family members. If any one of the three identified special conditions identified above did not exist a setback variance would not be necessary to alleviate the demonstrated difficulty. Page 4 of 8 From:Roger Remark To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Drive setback variance request. Date:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:07:29 PM Hello, my wife, Megan Remark, and I live at 141 Chevy Chase Drive. We are in support of the Nelson’s request for a setback variance on their home at 133 Chevy Chase Drive. Sincerely, Roger Remark From:Sondra Howe To:Laura Oakden Cc:Mike Nelson; katelyn.ann.nelson@gmail.com Subject:133 Chevy Chase Drive variance Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 7:45:45 PM Dear City of Orono, I have reviewed the plans for a screen porch attached in back of the Nelson home at 133 Chevy Chase Drive. I support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Sondra W. Howe -- Sondra Wieland Howe, PhD 135 Chevy Chase Drive, Wayzata MN 55391 952-473-4323 howex009@umn.edu From:Tripp Standa To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 9:43:03 AM Dear City of Orono, I have reviewed Nelson's plans for a screen porch. I support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Tripp Standa 137 Chevy Chase Dr Wayzata, MN 55391 From:Katie Simpson To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 11:12:13 AM Dear City of Orono, I have reviewed the Nelson’s plans for a screen porch. I support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Katie & Michael Simpson 142 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 From:Jana Nelson To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 1, 2021 5:50:52 PM Dear City of Orono, We have reviewed the Nelson’s plans for a screen porch. We support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Thank you for your time. Todd and Jana Nelson 128 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 From:Wendy To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 8:55:28 PM Dear City of Orono, I have reviewed the Nelson’s plans for a screen porch. I support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Best, Wendy Beltrand 139 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 Sent from my iPhone From:Leah Moyneur To:Laura Oakden Subject:Variance for remodel, 133 Chevy Chase Drive Date:Sunday, January 31, 2021 1:58:42 PM Dear City of Orono, We have reviewed the Nelson’s plans for a screen porch, and support their request for a set back variance to build it. If you have any questions, please reach out to us at the numbers below. Thank you, Leah and Patrick Moyneur 131 Chevy Chase Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 leahmoyneur@q.com home 952-473-3777 cell 612-201-6588 From:Tom Dunn To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Drive Variance Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:58:16 AM Importance:High Dear City of Orono, The Nelsons have shown me their plans for a screen porch and we support their request for a set back variance to build the proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Tom & Lynne Dunn 107 Chevy Chase Drive Orono, MN 55391 Tom Dunn Realtor eXp Realty c 952.649.7174 www.teamdunn.net From:Scott Krenner To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase drive variance Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 8:51:14 PM Dear City of Orono, The Nelson’s have shown me their plans for a screen porch and I support their request for a set back variance to build the proposed screen porch. Scott and Erica Krenner 101 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 Thanks for the consideration! Sent from my iPhone From:Chad Olson To:Laura Oakden Cc:Chrissie Walsh Olson Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:09:15 AM Attachments:image002.png Dear City of Orono, We have reviewed the Nelson’s plans for a screen porch and feel it would be an added benefit to the safety of the Nelson’s children and not negatively impact our neighborhood in any. We support their request for a setback variance to build their proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Chad & Chrissie Olson 116 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 Chad K. Olson | Financial Advisor | SageView Advisory Group 201 East Lake Street Suite 240 Wayzata, MN 55391 D 952.444.4002 | C 952.221.0492 | TF 800.814.8742 E colson@sageviewadvisory.com www.sageviewadvisory.com Schedule a Meeting Registered Representative with and securities offered through Cetera Advisor Networks LLC (doing insurance business in CA as CFGAN Insurance Agency LLC), Member FINRA/SIPC a broker/dealer and a Registered Investment Adviser. Advisory Services offered through SageView Advisory Group, LLC. Cetera is under separate ownership from any other named entity. The information contained in this electronic mail message, including any attachments, is confidential and intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the e-mail is addressed. It may contain information that is protected by the attorney-client privilege, work-product doctrine, or other privileges, and may be restricted from disclosure by applicable state and federal law. Any further distribution of this message is prohibited without the written consent of the sender. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, be advised that any dissemination, distribution, copying or use of the contents of this message is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please contact the sender by reply e-mail. Also, please permanently delete all copies of the original e-mail and any attached documentation. Thank you. From:Laura Higgins To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 9:09:53 PM Dear City of Orono, We have reviewed the Nelson's plans for a screen porch at 133 Chevy Chase Dr and I support their request for a set back variance to build their proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Laura and Ken Higgins 110 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 -- 612-802-4498 From:Marissa Walters To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 1:23:43 PM Dear City of Orono, After reviewing the Nelson's plans for a screen porch, we support their request for a setback variance to build their proposed screen porch. Sincerely, Justin and Marissa Walters 126 Chevy Chase Drive Orono, MN 55391 From:Rob McClanahan To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 9:24:42 AM Laura, We have reviewed the Nelson's plans for their proposed screen porch and we support their request for a set back variance. Regards, Kristin & Rob McClanahan 125 Chevy Chase Drive Orono, MN 55391 From:Sean Hemmer To:Laura Oakden Subject:133 Chevy Chase Variance Date:Sunday, February 14, 2021 2:59:58 PM Dear City of Orono, The Nelson’s have shown me their plans for a screen porch and I support their request for a set back variance to build the proposed screen porch. Thank you Sean and Lindsay Hemmer 108 Chevy Chase Dr Orono, MN 55391 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Jon Ressler, Commissioners Chris Bollis (arrived at 6:27 p.m.), Bob Erickson, Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner, Dennis Libby, and Mark McCutcheon. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planner Laura Oakden, and City Planner Melanie Curtis. City Council representative Matt Johnson was also present. 7. LA21-000010 CHAMBERLAIN FINE CUSTOM HOMES, 133 CHEVY CHASE, VARIANCE (STAFF: LAURA OAKDEN) Michael and Catelyn Nelson, Applicants, were present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Oakden noted the application is for a rear yard setback and she emailed and printed out some additional public comment that was received over the weekend. The planning Staff has determined that practical difficulty standards have not been met and the Planning Commission should review those standards when reviewing this application. She noted the Applicants are looking to add a covered screen porch to the rear of the home. The home sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side, and the Wayzata Country Club to the northern property line, which is the rear of the home. For a practical difficulty analysis, the Applicant identified the location of the existing home being placed from back from the front yard required yard, as well as a substandard lot for the area. Staff finds that the submitted practical difficulties are not met and the proposed addition would have a minimal impact to the neighbors, and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot for a single-family home and there are other locations for conforming additions on the property, such as side or other locations within the rear of the home. The proposed additions act as a convenience to the property and the lot analysis was done; again, Oakden reiterated the property has a 30-foot rear setback and currently sits 32.4 feet and the Applicant is requesting a 17.8-foot setback. Neighbors have submitted letters of support as Exhibit E, additional letters were sent to the Planning Commission today. McCutcheon noted in the application, they stated the property is .53 acres and that it is non-conforming; he asked if that is correct or if this development is conforming to the zoning. Oakden replied the property is substandard, it is .53 acres and the zoning is a 1-acre zoning district. It is a substandard lot and the width is 125 feet measured at the front yard setback where a standard would be 140 feet in width. It is substandard to width as well as area. The front yard setback required in this district is 35 feet and the existing home is sitting 69.5 feet back from the front yard; the existing home does sit pretty far back meeting that front yard standard. A representative from Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes approached the podium with the home owners. He looked at the lot as being substandard because it is in a 1-acre zone and has a 30-foot setback in the rear yard, based on an acre. This is now a ½ acre lot so it is a little bit incumbent on this property to have to have 30 feet. As opposed to being shoved up towards the street like the previous Applicant’s house was, this house is pushed back. It was 35 feet from the front setback, so it is way back in the back and is turned slightly to make it difficult to utilize that yard given that the topography in the back includes a hill MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ and a boulder wall. The difficulty is really the fact that the house was built so far back on the property. The setback on the back being 30 feet seems to be onerous on a property that is only ½ of an acre. Michael Nelson, homeowner, noted he has lived at 102 Chevy Chase on the same street for the last five years and has a growing family with two small children. With that, they outgrew their rambler and upgraded to a 2-story home. They purchased the house in September and since then have been in the planning phases of the next remodel. Between the two 1950’s homes, they have significantly invested in this neighborhood and the community in hopes of finding their forever home. He said they absolutely love the area and couldn’t be more excited about raising a family here. Mr. Nelson said they have made some very close friends and have become acquaintances with almost everyone in the neighborhood. He hopes their letters of support are a testament to the Nelson’s place in the community, including the approval of Chad Olson, previous member of the Orono Planning Commission. Mr. Nelson said they have explored many options over the course of this remodel and have always come back to this exact same spot for two reasons: one, to safely monitor their children while they are in the backyard, and two, it is in the best interest of neighbors because it is not visible to most of them. He noted their youngest daughter has a skin condition which does not allow her to be in the sun. Having a screen porch like this will allow her to still be with the other kids when playing in the backyard for recreation. The screens can be opened and she can still feel that she is part of the action; this is the main reason they would love it to be there to watch the whole back yard and safely monitor their kids while they play. Another reason is for neighbors, and both neighbors have given letters of approval. As mentioned, there are other places it could go, one being on the side of the house, but that would basically be sitting on top of the neighbor’s driveway. As mentioned, this is not a lakeshore or waterfront, they are not encroaching any structure and he asks for the approval of this variance with the community’s support, to safely monitor their children as they use the backyard. Ressler noted Mr. Nelson illustrated some other proposed options inside the building envelope, he asked to understand a bit more, as typically when the Planning Commission entertains these applications there is just nowhere else for it to go. As noted in the other application, they were not adding additional footprint but just going up from existing footprint. Mr. Nelson said one area they looked at, which looks like an obvious area, is right in the middle of the house. That effectively splits the backyard in two and does not allow them to monitor safely, and there is also a retaining boulder wall right there. For future recreational purposes of homeschooling, there is not enough room for their physical education and activity. It would also block the view of the kitchen to the backyard. He noted the garage is on the left side and cannot really access the porch from the back of the garage. Another practical difficulty is that the buildable land is on the right side and the non-buildable land is on the left side where they actually could build something. Catelyn Nelson noted if they were to put it on the side, it eliminates the safety factor of having the whole family in the backyard. One of their daughters cannot be in the sun, so to give her an equal shot at being a kid is something they are really focused on. Libby asked for an idea of the elevation of the screen porch. Mr. Nelson said the backyard goes way up and showed on screen that it goes way up; from the golf course’s perspective they will be below that and those on the golf path will not really be able to see it. He MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ noted there is also about 70 feet of woods behind them, and there is also a berm and a hill that protects it from the neighbor on one side; on the other side of the house, they cannot even see that neighbor’s house. He stated it is private and he believes that is also why the neighbors are in such high support of this. Libby asked if there are any future plans to have egress from the screen porch to the exterior of the yard. Mr. Nelson asked what he means by egress. Libby said an access to get in and out of the screen porch into the backyard. Mr. Nelson replied it would be right where the door is shown on screen, and he thinks that would still be inside of the variance. Libby is hearing loud and clear about safety as he is a great-grandfather. Ressler said while they are on that slide, he sees a proposed stoop. Oakden believes those are the existing doors from the house to the back yard. Mr. Nelson said that will actually be removed. Ressler opened the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m. Ressler said in lieu of the public hearing they always have the letters of support on the application. McCutcheon thinks that breaks a record as there are a lot of them. Kirchner said these seven letters of support are the most he has seen on an application. McCutcheon thinks the Applicant laid it out pretty well; the 30-foot setback is meant for 2 acre lots, so being an acre lot, in his eyes is it a practical difficulty and the Planning Commission has ruled on that in the past. With the boulders, the steepness, and moving the porch to the middle, that would cut their yard in half. He said it is a bigger proposed screen porch but as the Applicant laid out with their child it is necessary for them. McCutcheon remembers when the golf course built a garage and they wanted to go closer to the residence setback and the Planning Commission allowed that. If they can go towards the neighborhoods, he does not have a problem with the neighborhoods going towards the golf course. He is in support of it. Kirchner agrees with that. He pulled up an aerial photo while listening, and it is a very wooded area to the rear and appears that there is quite a bit of privacy there, as well as the pictures submitted from the Applicant. It shows that people on the cart path would not even see the structure. Erickson said most of the time when the point is made that there are other alternatives within the zoning ordinance that is certainly one of the strongest arguments. However, looking at this situation there are MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ also some strong arguments in favor of the application. One of them, as McCutcheon mentioned, was about a year ago they had a discussion on rezoning for the Wayzata Golf Club and had built up close to their neighbors with a berm and a change in elevation, etcetera. Along with that they also had a number of neighborhood meetings and neighbors were all pretty much in favor. The other thing Erickson sees looking at the site plan is the uniqueness of the shape of the lot; if it were not fronted with this curved Chevy Chase, it is considerably wider in the back and narrower in the front. It is close to being a triangular lot, which is a textbook case for justification for a variance because it limits what can be done. The Applicant mentioned part of the issue is that the house is set back as far as it is. The reason the house was put there is because the front yard is narrow and about all one can do is put in a horseshoe drive, which they have done. Again, this leaves a constricted backyard and when people have children, those backyards are important. Erickson is tempted to go in favor of this one. Gettman’s one concern is the fact that as they look at the paver patio area – and to the left is a lot more space – but the paver patio itself looks like it would accommodate an even larger proposed screen porch but not enter into that restricted area with the setbacks. He said absolutely with all the issues and concerns they have heard; he is just not hearing the practical difficulty as to why it should be there; especially with the majority of it over that line. Ressler’s personal perspective on this is very difficult. He recognizes that it is a tough building envelope and where the property sits right now, if this were a brand-new construction it would be an easy fix and they would just move it up. Of course, the property was marketed for sale as it was built, and that makes it difficult to approve because it could arguably be unjust enrichment to build on something that is not a buildable addition. With that being said, something to note he thinks it is helpful to see the elevation of hill in the backyard as it provides a bit of screening and buffer to some of the reasons for these rules being put in place – such as not encroaching on neighbors or adjoining property and their enjoyment and use. For right or for wrong he finds that to be a mitigating circumstance. He appreciates the explanation as far as the placement. Initially his first response was to put it in a place that it fits into, and he thinks Erickson makes some really good points about the triangular shape being a textbook standard for situations like these. There is also a garage that makes it difficult; being able to use what is in place seems reasonable to Ressler. It looks like there is a bit of a discrepancy from the plans and illustrations from what is shown on screen because it looks like there is a one-foot encroachment further about 4.5 feet in – he asked Staff if he is reading that correctly. The drawings in the illustration show it just being a square. He does not know if the Applicant would like to comment on which one the application is for because of that discrepancy. Mr. Nelson said it will not be the square one, it will be the other one and there is a proposed fireplace that will go back there and that is where the fireplace box. Ressler clarified that the one-foot jog in that is 6x1 feet is what they are applying for. Mr. Nelson replied that is correct. Ressler said it is difficult and it is nice to see the support from the neighborhood, although they cannot always carry a lot of weight behind those. He thinks there have been some strong points both ways. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Bollis noted this is a tough one because there is all of this overwhelming neighborhood support, but traditionally it looks like it would be a no-go. However, looking at the floor plan, he sees why it would not necessarily work where everyone thinks it would work. Where the paver patio is existing, it looks like access would have to be through a bathroom which is not very practical for a screen porch. He is leaning towards liking this location and supporting this because of the access, the safety issue, and by putting it in the middle, he can see how that would basically cut the yard in two, and based on the rear slope coming down to the house, that would be a practical difficulty. Ressler asked the Applicant if they have entertained any plans of making that a little bit smaller so it is not quite as encroaching upon the setback. He asked if they could make it work by going to 14 feet instead of 16 feet. Mr. Nelson said he thinks they can if that would be viewed as favorable to the Planning Commission. It was proposed in this way for a reason, but not necessarily as practical; it is to be able to recreationally enjoy it by having a dining table and a chair to sit there as well. At 14 feet it makes it difficult to do that and at 16 feet it allows for that. Ressler asked for feedback and if anyone has a problem with the dimensions and would it change their opinion for or against if the dimensions go from 16 to 14 feet, or if that 1x6 foot in the middle goes back to a square. Kirchner said for one or two feet, considering the size of the encroachment on the setback, he does not think a simple adjustment of one to two feet would make much of a difference for him as it is still a fairly large encroachment into the setback. Bollis would agree with that. McCutcheon said it is hidden, it is a steep incline and wooded. If this was out with no trees and all the neighbors could see it, that would be a much harder pill to swallow; he thinks it is well thought out and maintained his support of it. Ressler thinks either way there is a lot of good feedback for the City Council. McCutcheon moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000010, 133 Chevy Chase, Variance as applied. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Gettman). Date Application Received: 01/20/2021 Date Application Considered as Complete:01/20/2021 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/19/2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Planner Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: LA21-000010, Chamberlain Fine Custom Homes. 133 Chevy Chase, Variance, Public Hearing Background The applicants are looking to add a cover screened porch to the rear of their home. The home sits on a curved road with neighbors on either side. The Wayzata Country Club abuts the property to the north. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the location of the existing home and the substandard lot area 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 submitted practical difficulties are not met. The proposed addition would have minimal impact to the neighbors and would not alter the character of the neighborhood. However, the property owner has adequate use of the lot currently for a single family home and there are other locations for a conforming additions. There is room on the property for home additions along the side of the home or along the rear western part for the proposed porch which would could setback standards. The proposed addition acts as a convenience to the property and not a necessity to the use of the lot. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-230 - Setbacks: DISTRICT R-1A Required Existing Proposed Front 35’ 69.5’ 62.7’ Rear 30’ 32.4’ 17.8’ Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a rear yard setback. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff has determined that the practical difficulties standards are not met. The Planning Commission should review the submitted documents. LA21-000010 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Side (West) 10’ 17.7’ 17.7’ (No Change) Side (East) 10’ 41.5’ 41.5’ (No Change) Section 78- 230- Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT R-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acres) 140’ Actual 23,148 s.f. (0.53 acre) 125’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 23,148 s.f. (0.53 acre) Allowed: 4,629.6 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,395 s.f. (14.7%) Section 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: • The property is exempt from hardcover regulations as it is located outside the shoreland overlay district. Applicable Regulations: Rear Yard Setback Variance (78-230) The property has a 30’ rear setback. The home currently sits 32.4’ and the applicant is requesting a17.8’ setback. 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 addition is not in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The addition and use of the property are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. LA21-000010 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 4 a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The use of the property for a porch addition to an existing single family home are in line with the permitted controls. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The home was build in 1957. The applicant wishes add a 3-season porch. The applicant stated the existing home location and substandard lot are practical difficulties for the owner to have enjoyable space. Staff finds the owner has reasonable use of the lot for a single family home. There are also other conforming locations that would allow for addition to the home. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant states the proposed addition would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it would not impact the neighbors. There is also substantial vegetation surrounding the home. 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 single family home is an allowed use in the R-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Staff finds that the location of the existing home is peculiar but a reasonable building envelope is still available for additions to the home in conforming locations. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The conditions on the lot being substandard are similar to neighboring properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The new porch addition would be located in the rear yard setback. The applicant states the existing location of the home and the substandard lot creates practical difficulty for the owner in allowing a useful and enjoyable space for on the existing homes. Staff finds the use and enjoyment of the property is currently being met with a single family home. 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 proposed variance will not impair health, safety, comfort or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed addition would serve as a convenience as the use of the property for a single family home is met with open space within a conforming building envelope of the property. LA21-000010 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 4 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 Neighbors has submitted letters of support for the project. See Exhibit E. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Department Staff has determined that the practical difficulties standards are not met. 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. Neighbor Emails Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. To review the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Plan, Preliminary Plat, and corresponding resolution, direct staff on any changes desired. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. A completed application was received on January 20, 2021. The 60-Day review period for the Comp plan amendment, site plan, and zone change has been extended and will expire with the preliminary plat on May 20, 2021. 3. Background. The City Council reviewed this project as a concept plan last October (LA20-52). This proposal is in response to the Council’s desire for a townhome type development and reduction of density (from 20-25 units per acre) but maintain a minimum number of units on the property. As noted above, the applicant requests a number of approvals for the proposed Orono Crossings, a 37 unit townhome development. The plans reflect Council direction from October, in particular those regarding external setbacks and the location of the private recreational area. The development includes 9 separate buildings, an internal private road, and an internal, private recreation area. The project will be served by municipal water and sewer. The staff report to the Planning Commission (Exhibit D) provides additional analysis, including a summary of the flexibility requested. In addition, the Council should note: Development design. Noting the garage door sides of the buildings adjacent to the Wayzata and Willow face those streets, and the prominence of that intersection, staff suggested that these buildings flip, such that the front door side of the buildings face “out”. In staff’s opinion, the front door side of a structure is typically more aesthetically pleasing, and community character is enhanced with high design standards, but would require reduced external setbacks: 30 foot setback off of Willow, and 35 feet off of Wayzata. The developer proposes a line of arborvitae to buffer the view of the garage facades. The Planning Commission did not support Staff’s recommendation. Density. In October, staff provided an analysis of the Comp Plan impacts of the development. It was recognized that the reduction in density would drop the overall sewered area density from 3.925 to 3.760 (within acceptable limits) and it appeared the growth period requirements could still be met However, staff found a calculation error, resulting in a 4 unit deficit in growth over the next 20 years. (Row 5 below) Preliminary discussions with the Met Council staff suggest that this deficit is within acceptable limits; staff has requested clarification prior to Monday’s meeting. Item No.: 26 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000014 – Mark Rausch and Aziz Saddiqui o/b/o University of St. Thomas and David Weekley Homes, NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd., Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Preliminary Plat, and Master Development Plan Approval – Resolution Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 16, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 6-1 on a motion to approve the applications, subject to staff’s recommended conditions. Because he did not support the density change at this corner, Ressler voted no. 5. Public Comment. No one spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. The Developer hosted an electronic open house prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The city has received a number of comments in writing, these are attached as Exhibit J. Public comments included concerns over headlights from cars exiting the new development, flipping the houses on the edge of the development, quality of material, and landscaping. A solution to the headlight concern is to shift the drive to the east. However, the proximity of the intersection and turn-lane limits how far the drive can shift to the east. The City Engineer does not recommend the entrance drive be closer than 335 feet from the Intersection with Willow (Exhibit M), which is about the “N” in sightline, on the applicant’s Exhibit N. This exhibit shows the relationship between the proposed development and the Stonebay development. Hennepin County also requests additional right of way to accommodate an ADA signal at the intersection (Exhibit O). This request has been forwarded to the applicant. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council review the proposal and the draft resolution and direct changes as desired. 1. Met Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. City Council approval of the zone change to RPUD 3. City Staff comments, Exhibit K. 4. City Engineer comments are satisfied, Exhibit L. 5. MCWD approval of the stormwater management plan COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Draft Resolution B. Plan Set C. Planning Commission minutes A B C D E F G H 1 Pending amendments Proposed Development impact Total Net Residential Acres Total Number of units Calculated Density 2021-2030 Growth Period (GP) 2031-2040 Growth Period (GP) "Affordable Housing" Acres 2 Met Council Mandated sewer growth requirements (Table 3B-1a) 3.0 523 340 15.4 3 Current Comp Plan results. Reflects additon of 135 Orono Orchard Road to MUSA (Add appx 13 acres and 5 units to the 2021 GP) 227.2 897 3.95 552 344 15.4 4 Reducing Land use density to Urban Medium High (10- 20 u/a) (Remove 74 units from 2031 and add 37 units to 2021 GP) Reduce to 37 from 74 units 227.2 860 3.79 589 270 15.4 5 66 -70Surplus/ (Deficit) AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO D. Planning Commission staff report E. Architectural renderings F. Open Space and Amenities G. Buffer graphic H. Colored Landscape graphic I. Narrative J. Public Comments K. Staff comment letter L. Engineer comment letter M. Engineers comments RE: access location N. Applicant Access Crossing Exhibit O. Hennepin County Transportation comments References LA20-000052 case file PC exhibits 2-16-2021 Comprehensive Plan CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 1 of 20 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GENERAL CONCEPT PLAN AND GRANTING PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL AND CONDITIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPROVAL, AND ZONING CHANGE APPROVAL FOR PROPOERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF WILLOR DRIVE AND WAYZATA BLVD WEST, PID #33-118-23-11-0060 FILE NO. LA21-000014 WHEREAS, David Weekley Homes, (hereinafter the "Developer") has an interest in un addressed property located at the NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd West within the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") and legally described as follows: Outlot A, Stonebay Addition) (hereinafter the "Property"); and WHEREAS, the Developer has requested General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval for development of this approximately 3.69-acre Property. Proposed is a rezoning from RR-1B, One Family Rural Residential District to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District for construction of 37 attached family homes in 9 structures; and WHEREAS, the Developer has concurrently requested an amendment of the 2018-2040 Orono Community Management Plan (“CMP”) to allow said development at a density of approximately 10 dwelling units per acre, rather than the 20-25 units per acre for which the Property is guided in the CMP; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2021 the Developer filed a formal application with the City for Comprehensive Plan amendment, rezoning, and concept plan & preliminary plat approval for a 37-lot residential subdivision of the Property; and WHEREAS, after due published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes 462.358 et. seq. and the City of Orono Zoning and Subdivision Codes, the Orono Planning Commission held a public hearing for the application and reviewed it on February 16, 2021, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission on February 16, 2016 recommended on a vote of 7-1 that the Council grant the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment; the rezoning to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development District; and grant general concept plan and preliminary plat approval subject to a number of conditions and recommendations; and WHEREAS, the Orono City Council was given the opportunity to review sketch plans for the Property in regular meeting in October 20120 and has reviewed the formal application at it regular Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 2 of 20 meeting on March 8 2021; and hereby makes the following findings in regard to this application for RPUD General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval, CMP amendment, and rezoning: FINDINGS A. Community Management Plan Conformity; CMP Amendment 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000014 2. The Property is currently zoned RR-1B One Family Rural Residential Zoning District, requiring a minimum residential lot size of 2.0 acres. The property consists of approximately 3.69 acres exclusive of existing road right-of-ways. 3. The proposed use of the Property for residential development at a density of 10 units per acre is inconsistent with the Orono 2018-2040 CMP guiding of the Property for residential development at a density of 20-25 units per acre. The Developer has applied for an amendment of the CMP to reguide the Property to allow development at a density of 10 units per acre. 4. The proposed development is directly adjacent to Wayzata Blvd, and it was determined that higher density residential development would not be appropriate given area uses and the desire to spread out high density uses through-out the community and not concentrate them in small areas. 5. The City Council has reviewed the development proposal with regards to the CMP and finds that it meets a number of goals for housing as established within the Housing element of the CMP, including: Provides opportunities for a mix of housing types, locations, and cost ranges which will meet the needs and provide adequate housing for a broader range of ages, family groups, lifestyle needs and levels of income to the greatest extent practical. Provides housing types and residential densities consistent with environmental and land use plans and with the availability of public services and facilities. Extends the character of the Stonebay neighborhood with attached family densities B. Rezoning from RR-1B to RPUD 6. The Property is located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA) and is intended to be developed using municipal sewer and water. Municipal sewer and water are available to serve the property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 3 of 20 7. Because the property is proposed to be reguided in the CMP for single family residential use at a density of 10-20 units per acre, use, the property should be rezoned consistent with the intended and guided use. The most appropriate zoning for the intended use is RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District. 8. The property is 3.69 acres in gross area exclusive of existing public road right -of-ways. The property meets the conditions of Zoning Code Section 78-626(1) for rezoning to RPUD because it is directly adjacent and intended to be an extension of an existing RPUD is not within the designated Shoreland Overlay District. 9. Rezoning the property to RPUD Residential Planned Unit Development is appropriate based on the medium-density residential nature of the proposal, which meets the following general purposes of the RPUD District: a) incorporates flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; b) provides lifecycle housing with the potential to meet affordable and moderate cost housing needs; c) incorporates energy conservation through the clustering of buildings and land uses; d) preserves desirable site characteristics and open space and protects sensitive environmental features, including sensitive wetland areas; e) provides design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; f) results in a sensitive development in the transitional area located between low-density single family uses to the south and industrial / institutional uses to the east and north; and g) yields development which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guiding for higher density than the typical urban and rural residential development in Orono. C. Environmental Considerations; Site Planning & Amenities; Transportation; 10. Conservation Design. The City Council waives the requirement for a Conservation Development report because this development is a re-plat of a previously platted parcel min which environmental issues were considered. 11. Tree and/or Woodland Impacts. The site is extremely flat and open, with no significant trees located on the property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 4 of 20 12. Perimeter Buffers, Landscaping, Fencing. In response to the discussions at the sketch plan stage, the Developer proposes to create a landscaping edge along Willow and Wayzata Blvd. The buffers are intended to provide screening from adjacent roadways into private yards. The proposed landscaping plans (Sheets 13 & 14) will be evaluated for compliance with the very detailed RPUD landscaping requirements. The Developer has indicated an intent to provide a dark-colored wrought-iron style fence along the east, west, and southern property lines, and to establish restrictions and standards for its maintenance. 13. Conformity with Zoning District Standards. In relation to the RPUD standards, there are specific guidelines for detached single family development in Zoning Code Section 78- 626(8). Section 78-626(16) provides for flexibility in RPUD standards, as follows: (16) Flexibility. The uniqueness of each RPUD requires that specifications and standards for streets, utilities, public facilities and subdivisions may be subject to modification from the city ordinances ordinarily governing them. The city council may therefore approve streets, utilities, public facilities and land subdivisions which are not in compliance with usual specifications or ordinance requirements, if it finds that strict adherence to such standards or requirements is not required to meet the intent of this section or to protect the health, safety or welfare of the residents of the RPUD, the surrounding area or the city as a whole. This proposed development concept requires a significant departure (flexibility) from the RPUD district lot standards for individual homesites. The table below identifies specific standards which require flexibility: Section Standard Conforming? 1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or tied to adjacent RPUD Conforms to the exception: The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 2 Uses. Multifamily residential uses are conforming 3 Sewer availability Yes. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 5 of 20 4 Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. Conforms to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 CMP requided the property from Commercial to high density residential 5 Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. None requested 6 Floor Ratio, up to 1.0 Calculated preliminarily at 0.53 (1.98 acres of floor area/ 3.69 acres of gross land) 7a Setbacks. Setbacks are 35’ to Kelley, 50’ to Willow and Wayzata. Drive lanes 20’ from exterior property lines. No. All buildings are at least 36 feet from Kelley. Most buildings are 50 feet from Willow Dr., though Lot 4, Block 4 is 36’. Blocks 6-8 are 50’+ from Wayzata, Block 9 is 50’ from Wayzata. The drive south of blocks 6-8 is 10 feet from the property line. Staff supports waivers. 7b Height, stories, roof style Conforming. Residential pitched roofs, two story buildings. 7c Outside storage No. None proposed. 11 10% Private Recreational Area (Active and/or Passive) Conforming, tot lot shown 12 Common Ownership Conforming. Association documents required. 13 Signage Signage located, plans not yet developed 14 Landscaping Conforming to the number of trees and shrubs. 15 Architectural Standards Details need to be codified, intended to be consistent with Stonebay regulations. 16 Flexibility from standards Requested, and supported 1 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested 18 Building Permits Expected 19 General regulations applicability Expected CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 6 of 20 20 Lighting Conforming. Photometric Plan provided. 21 Trails Sidewalks and public walks proposed 1. Waivers may be necessary to accommodate the Councils goal of townhome style development, rather than larger attached family buildings. 14. Hardcover. Based on proximity to lakes and tributaries, the property would be exempt from Stormwater Quality Overlay district regulations. However, b y virtue of the RPUD zoning, per 78-1701(4)(a) the property is assigned to Hardcover Protection Tier 4, which allows up to 50% hardcover of the gross lot area. Townhome development by nature exceeds hardcover limitations as often the building on the lot extends property line to property line. Flexibility from the hardcover limitations is necessary. 15. Private Streets. All 37 lots will be served by a new internal private road system to be constructed by the developer to City standards, with minimum paved road width of 28 feet (back of curb to back of curb). All 37 lots will have driveways accessing the new internal road, and none shall have direct driveway access to Wayzata Boulevard, Willow Drive, or Kelley Parkway. The City Engineer has indicated at this time there is no need for additional right of way. With the internal road system being privately owned and maintained, road easements are necessary. 16. Easements Required. Perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required as directed by the City Engineer. A number of drainage easements are shown on the plat drawings as necessary to direct stormwater runoff. 17. Lighting. Internal private street lighting should be at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security, and will be maintained by the homeowners association. Street lighting will be provided by the developer. 18. 10% Private Recreation. The private recreation area of ‘10% of the platted property’ required under the RPUD standards is provided by the Outlot C of the plan, improvements and maintenance will be the responsibility of the homeowners association. 19. Park and Trail Dedication. There are no identifiable public parkland needs at this location. However, development of the proposed housing will generate additional use of existing City park facilities in the area. The Council finds that no park lands need to be dedicated and the park dedication should be in the form of a Cash Contribution in Lieu of Lands as allowed by the Municipal Code. Additionally, the Council finds that connection to the Wayzata Blvd trail and the Kelley Parkway sidewalk systems are appropriate. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ Page 7 of 20 20. Site Grading. The property is very flat, with elevations generally between 1017’ and 1021’, slightly lower on the westside near the regional pond, slightly higher along the north edge. In order to prepare home sites, a significant amount of excavation and filling will be necessary, including soil replacement for stability as well as adding significant amounts of fill to ensure adequate site drainage and elevate homes above the high seasonal water table. 21. Stormwater Management. Stormwater management is proposed to be provided by filtration basins along the north side, and in the SW corner, which ultimately discharges to the regional pond intended for the Stonebay Development, including this lot. These facilities will be subject to standard drainage easements. In addition to the City of Orono, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District have approval authority over the applicants’ stormwater management plan. Final stormwater plans will be subject to the recommendations and approval of the City Engineer. 22. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements & Fees. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee. The 2021 fee schedule requires a rate of $8,490.00 per acre (Multifamily Residential greater than 4 units per acre), for an estimated Trunk Fee of 3.69 acres x $8,490/acre = $31,328.10. 23. Utility Locations/Availability/Assessments/Connection Fees. Preliminary connection charges for the applicants’ site are estimated at $161,690 for municipal water and $199,060 for municipal sanitary sewer. The Metropolitan Council will also require a Sewer Access Charge at the time each building permit is issued. That rate is currently $2,485 per residential unit. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 8 24. The applicant has provided General Concept Plans and Preliminary Plat Drawings attached to this Resolution as Exhibits B-1 through B-17 including: B-1: Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet B-2: Unnumbered – Existing Conditions Survey B-3: Sheet 3 – Preliminary Plat B-4: Sheet 4 – Site Plan B-5: Sheet 5 – Grading B-6: Sheet 6 – Pond Details B-7: Sheet 7 – Pond Details B-8: Sheet 8 – Road Profile B-9: Sheet 9 – Erosion and Sediment Control B-10: Sheet 10 – Erosion and Sediment Control details B-11: Sheet 11 – Utility Plan B-12: Sheet 12 – Storm Sewer Plan B-13: Sheet 13 – Landscape Plan B-14: Sheet 14 – Landscape Schedule and Notes B-15: Sheet 15 – Photometric Plan B-16: Unnumbered – Colored Landscape Rendering B-17: Unnumbered – Colored Building Elevations Council finds that the plans submitted are generally sufficient to indicate the intent of the developer and the potential impacts of the project. 25. City Engineer Comments. The City’s consulting engineer has provided comments and recommendations regarding all aspects of the development plans. Those comments are attached hereto as Exhibit C. General Development Plans and Final Plat approvals will be reviewed for conformity with these recommendations. 26. The City Council finds that the development of this property must set a high standard for the quality, character, context and compatibility of development desired by the City for medium density development in Orono. The Council finds that the proposed comprehensive plan re-guiding, rezoning and proposed development of the property for medium single-family residential use is appropriate for the property, will not have negative impacts on the surrounding properties when all Concept Plan Approval conditions are met, and is in keeping with the goals, policies and philosophies of the City. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 9 CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orono hereby approves the General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat for development of the Property subject to the following declarations and conditions: 1. This approval is subject to the prior approval by the Metropolitan Council of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to reguide the property from Urban High Density Residential (20-25 units per acre) to Urban Medium High Density Residential (10-20 units per acre), and this approval shall not take effect until such time that Metropolitan Council approval is granted. 2. The City of Orono will approve rezoning of the property to RPUD as described herein upon City Council finding of satisfactory completion of the Conditions for Development Plan approval. 3. Conditions for Development Plan Approval are as follows: A. RPUD Development Standards and General Conditions. 1) The total number of residential dwelling units shall be 37 attached-family homes generally as configured on the preliminary site plan attached as Exhibit B-3. 2) Developer shall provide a final Development Plan for the development that conforms to all standards of the RPUD District except as modified herein, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Council that all RPUD standards have been met and shall demonstrate where such standards have not been met, and shall satisfy the City Council that non-compliance with said standards is remedied in a manner acceptable to the Council. 3) Sidewalks shall be constructed in the locations shown shown on the approved preliminary plans. All sidewalks, whether public or private, shall be installed concurrently with the development improvements and prior to occupancy of residential units. Maintenance responsibility for the internal sidewalk system shall be the responsibility of the homeowners abutting said sidewalks. 4) Developer shall provide a final landscaping plan meeting all of the requirements of the RPUD District and addressing the elements of Conservation Design to the satisfaction of the City Council. Final landscaping plans will be reviewed for conformity with the RPUD standards. Developer shall install a dark-colored, consistent wrought-iron-style fencing as shown on the Landscaping Plan (Exhibit B-13), and establish appropriate restrictions and/or covenants to ensure its ongoing maintenance in terms of consistency and quality of appearance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 10 5) Street lighting shall be provided by the Developer and shall be of a style, number, height and location approved by the City Council, and generally consistent with the photometric plan attached as Exhibit B-15. Street lighting shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Street lighting shall be downcast, fully shielded and at a low level consistent with the surrounding rural residential character while providing the necessary level of security. 6) Building footprints and styling shall be generally per the examples included in the attached Exhibit B-17. 7) Flexibility shall being granted for the external setbacks as noted in the Findings section above. The FAR for the site is calculated at 0.53. 8) The site will remain Exempt from the Hardcover limitations imposed by the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. B. Transportation 1) The new road serving the development shall be platted as shown on the Preliminary Plat drawing (Exhibit B-3). The road shall have a platted corridor width of 50’ and a paved width (back of curb to back of curb) of 28’. The road shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association. 2) Concrete curb & gutter will be required 3) All curve radii shall be reviewed to ensure that moving vans, garbage trucks, firetrucks, etc. are accommodated. Any revisions required by the Long Lake Fire Department for fire-protection purposes shall be made by the Developer. 4) Appropriate traffic control signage within and pertinent to the site shall be installed by the Developer subject to the City Engineer's review and approval. C. Utilities; Stormwater Management 1) Sewer and water mains shall be installed by the Developer per the Utility Plan attached hereto as Exhibit B-11, subject to the modifications noted in the City Engineer’s comments in Exhibit C. 2) The City will own and maintain the sanitary sewer and water mains within the CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 11 development. The City will inspect these systems during their construction to ensure proper installation. Drainage and Utility Easements shall be granted to the City of Orono over all sewer and water main lines and facilities in order to facilitate future system maintenance. 3) The Developer shall install stormwater management facilities generally as shown on the various attached plans. Developer shall provide suitable evidence of Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) approval of the stormwater management plan before Development Plan and Final Plat Approval will be granted. The Developer shall provide sufficient drainage and utility easements as necessary to allow for future maintenance access for stormwater management facilities, including the infiltrations areas. The stormwater drainage facilities will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. D. Grading, Erosion Control 1) Erosion control shall adhere to "Best Management Practices for Protecting Water Quality in Urban Areas". All erosion controls as required by the City and the MCWD shall be in place prior to commencing excavation on the site. All such erosion control measures shall be maintained in working order until the site is revegetated. 2) The construction limits shall be clearly marked with adequate fencing to prevent any construction damage or disturbance of any trees and vegetation outside of the construction limits area. Developer shall identify trees to be preserved on site, shall mark them on a site plan, and shall take extraordinary measures such as fencing, signage, etc. to ensure they are not disturbed. E. Other General Conditions. 1) Monument signs may be provided by the developer at each entrance to the RPUD development site. The signage shall be limited to a development name and/or logo on the monument signs. Final design/materials of monument signage shall be provided as part of the final development plan submittals and shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 2) The applicable general engineering comments and or conditions provided by City Engineer Robert Bean dated February 3, 2021 in relation to the original Concept Plan review and attached hereto as Exhibit C shall be suitably addressed by applicant in the development plan submittal. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 12 3) Developer shall provide copies of proposed covenants and documents describing the structure, rights and responsibilities of the homeowners association to be reviewed by the City Attorney. F. Plans and Specifications. The following plans and specifications shall be submitted for review and approval by the City and other appropriate jurisdictions: 1) Final plans and specifications for all proposed utility lines and services, including any proposed revisions to existing service facilities. Proposed plans shall be provided to the City for final review and approval with the Final Plan set. The City and any other pertinent reviewing agencies shall review and approve all utility improvements. Final sanitary sewer and watermain plans shall be provided and are subject to approval by the City Engineer. 2) Final Road and Sidewalk Plans. 3) Final Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP showing existing and proposed contours, building locations, elevations, stormwater facilities and calculations, utilities and erosion control measures to be used during construction. General Development Plan Approval will not be granted until the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has approved the stormwater plans. 4) Final Landscaping Plan with planting schedules including numbers and species, in accordance with the landscaping requirements of the RPUD zoning district, and the recommendations contained within the Conservation Design Master Plan. 5) Detailed monument signage and street lighting plans if any. 6) Any additional plans and specifications deemed necessary by the City as review progresses. G. Platting Process. Applicant shall complete all requirements for Final Plat Approval as follows. The following list of final submittals must be submitted to the City. 1. Record plat drawings in the form of two (2) mylar copies (one copy for the City's records and one for filing with Hennepin County) and one (1) copy reduced to 1" = 200'. Drawing to include: A. Lot lines platted per preliminary plat survey/drawing attached hereto as Exhibit B-3, except as modified herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 13 B. Dedication of "drainage and utility easements" as directed by the City Engineer. C. Naming of plat. D. Street Name 2. Legal documents required: A. Title opinion addressed to the City or a title insurance policy in favor of the City. All owners, mortgage holders or others with property interest indicated therein shall sign the plat and all other documents affected by such interest. B. The applicant must provide certified copies of all recorded easements currently affecting the property. C. Signed Developers Agreement and Letter of Credit for construction of improvements. The City Engineer shall establish the amount to be provided in the Letter of Credit. 3. Final plat approval fee to be paid: Total due: $ 500.00 H. Development Agreement. Development Approval is contingent upon the successful execution of a Development Agreement between the applicant and the City. Such Agreement shall address all specific City requirements for the development. I. Financial Guarantee. The Development Agreement shall include a financial guarantee by the applicant to ensure the completion of site improvements. The City Engineer shall complete an estimate of improvement costs, including but not limited to public streets, curb & gutter, sidewalks, stormsewers, landscaping, grading, erosion control, utilities, driveways and parking areas, trails, sidewalks, retaining walls and stormwater management facility construction, and the applicant shall provide to the City a financial guarantee of 125% of the improvement costs. J. Storm Water and Drainage Trunk Fee. The property will be subject to the Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee, due at the time of final plat approval, described in the Conditions above. The Stormwater and Drainage Improvement Fee is $31,328.10 (2021 fee schedule). K. Park Dedication The City Code requires dedication of 8% of the land as public park, or payment of the equivalent value in cash. The City Council has determined there is no need for dedication of land from the proposed development. Therefore, payment of the standard Park Dedication fee for 37 new building lots will be required. The Park Dedication Fee is calculated due at the time of final plat approval. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. ________________________ 14 This fee is estimated as $120,250.00. The fair market value is estimated based on the table below: Park Dedication calculation: Predevelopment Value (Land Only) $600,000 8% of this value $ 48,000 Divided by the number of new lots (37) $1,297.30 If less than 3,250, then fee equals $3,250 x 37 $120,350.00 L. Sewer and Water Connection Charges. Municipal sewer and water utilities is described in the Conditions section above. These fees are at $161,690 for municipal water and $199,060 for municipal sanitary sewer. These amounts will be due and payable at the time of final plat approval. 4. This General Concept Plan and Preliminary Plat approval is based upon the known issues that may affect this project, but this approval does not limit the City from revising or amending these conditions as the review process continues. 5. This Approval shall be effective until December 31, 2022 per the provisions of Zoning Code Section 78-628. If General Development Plan and Final Plat Approval is not granted by that date, the terms and conditions of this resolution shall be null and void. The City Council at its sole discretion may extend this effective period. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this ______ day of ________________, 20__. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor BLOCK 843251BLOCK 74321 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 24321 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 3321BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT BOUTLOT B OUTLOT C ROAD AROAD AROAD AWAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 112) PARKWAYKELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) 1 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL COVER 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N O R O N O C R O S S I N G S O R O N O , M I N N E S O T A S U I T E 7 0 0 L A N D S C A P E A L L I A N T E N G I N E E R I N G , I N C . 7 3 3 M A R Q U E T T E A V E N U E M I N N E A P O L I S , M N 5 5 4 0 2 P H : 6 1 2 - 7 5 8 - 3 0 8 0 C O N S U L T A N T F X : 6 1 2 - 7 5 8 - 3 0 9 9 S U R V E Y O R E N G I N E E R M A R K R A U S C H L I C E N S E N O . 4 3 4 8 0 A R C H I T E C T M A R K K R O N B E C K L I C E N S E N O . 2 6 2 2 2 P E T E R G O E R S L I C E N S E N O . 4 4 1 1 0 D E V E L O P E R D A V I D W E E K L E Y H O M E S 1 2 9 0 0 W H I T E W A T E R D R I V E S U I T E 1 8 0 M I N N E T O N K A , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 4 3 P H : 6 1 2 - 2 6 0 - 2 3 1 0 C O N T A C T : A Z I Z S I D D I Q U I E M : a s i d d i q u i @ d w h o m e s . c o m 9 S H E E T I N D E X N O . C O V E R S H E E T 1 V I C I N I T Y M A P N O T T O S C A L E G R A D I N G A N D D R A I N A G E P L A N 5 E R O S I O N A N D S E D I M E N T C O N T R O L P L A N E R O S I O N A N D S E D I M E N T C O N T R O L N O T E S A N D D E T A I L S 1 0 1 1 S A N I T A R Y A N D W A T E R M A I N P L A N 1 2 S I T E P L A N 4 S T O R M S E W E R P L A N 3 E X I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S P L A N 2 P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A T G R A D I N G P R O F I L E S 8 1 3 L A N D S C A P E P L A N P R O J E C T L O C A T I O N G R A D I N G A N D D R A I N A G E P L A N 6 - 7 1 4 L A N D S C A P E S C H E D U L E A N D D E T A I L S 1 5 P H O T O M E T R I C P L A N C o u n c i l E x h i b i t B OUTLOT AWAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 1 1 2 ) PARKWAYKELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) N 8 9 ° 5 1 ' 1 2 " W 8 9 . 9 2 R=256.50L=89.77Δ=20°03'1 3 " R=361.68L=127.01Δ=20°07'13"S49°58'22"W63.13S00°54'50"W185.94S89°05'10"E 456.46 N00°08'48"E 399.58 S 8 8 ° 5 1 ' 1 1 " E 4 8 . 4 7 R=430.00L=189.83Δ=25°17'40" ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) 1 " = 5 0 ' 1 2 / 1 / 2 0 2 0 P G P F F I E L D C R E W D R A W N B Y S C A L E D A T E I S S U E D J O B N O . C H E C K E D B Y 2 2 0 - 0 1 0 1 O R O N O , M I N N E S O T A O R O N O C R O S S I N G T S A L T A / N S P S L A N D T I T L E S U R V E Y P R O P E R T Y D E S C R I P T I O N O u t l o t A , S t o n e b a y , H e n n e p i n C o u n t y , M i n n e s o t a . A b s t r a c t P r o p e r t y T o W e e k l e y H o m e s , L L C , a D e l a w a r e l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y , C e n t r a l O r o n o , L L C , a M i n n e s o t a l i m i t e d l i a b i l i t y c o m p a n y , a n d S t e w a r t T i t l e G u a r a n t y C o m p a n y : T h i s i s t o C e r t i f y t h a t t h i s m a p o r p l a t a n d t h e s u r v e y o n w h i c h i t i s b a s e d w e r e m a d e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e 2 0 1 6 M i n i m u m S t a n d a r d D e t a i l R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r A L T A / N S P S L a n d T i t l e S u r v e y s , j o i n t l y e s t a b l i s h e d a n d a d o p t e d b y A L T A a n d N S P S , a n d i n c l u d e s I t e m s 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 ( a ) , 8 , 1 1 , 1 3 a n d 1 6 o f T a b l e A t h e r e o f . T h e f i e l d w o r k w a s c o m p l e t e d o n N o v e m b e r 1 1 , 2 0 2 0 . D a t e o f P l a t o r M a p : _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ D e c e m b e r 1 , 2 0 2 0 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ P e t e G o e r s , P r o f e s s i o n a l L a n d S u r v e y o r M i n n e s o t a L i c e n s e N o . 4 4 1 1 0 E m a i l : p g o e r s @ a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m 1 . T h i s s u r v e y a n d t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n s h o w n h e r e o n a r e b a s e d u p o n i n f o r m a t i o n f o u n d i n t h e c o m m i t m e n t f o r t i t l e i n s u r a n c e p r e p a r e d b y S t e w a r t T i t l e G u a r a n t y C o m p a n y , f i l e n o . 0 1 0 4 0 - 2 3 5 7 3 , d a t e d A u g u s t 1 9 , 2 0 2 0 . 2 . A l l d i s t a n c e s a r e i n f e e t . 3 . T h e b a s i s o f b e a r i n g s i s a s s u m e d . 4 . B e n c h m a r k 1 : T o p n u t o f h y d r a n t l o c a t e d a t t h e S W c o r n e r o f K e l l e y P a r k w a y a n d W i l l o w D r i v e h a s a n e l e v a t i o n o f 1 0 2 3 . 4 4 f e e t N A V D 8 8 . 5 . B e n c h m a r k 1 : T o p n u t o f h y d r a n t l o c a t e d a l o n g K e l l e y P a r k w a y , 9 9 . 7 f e e t f r o m t h e m o s t n o r t h w e s t e r l y c o r n e r o f O u t l o t A , h a s a n e l e v a t i o n o f 1 0 2 9 . 6 3 f e e t N A V D 8 8 . 6 . T h e e x i s t i n g h o u s e a c r o s s K e l l e y P a r k w a y f r o m s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s d e p i c t e d p e r a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y . C E R T I F I C A T I O N N O T E S L E G E N D 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e , S t e 7 0 0 M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 9 9 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m M A I N F A X T A B L E A I T E M S 1 . M o n u m e n t s p l a c e d ( o r a r e f e r e n c e m o n u m e n t o r w i t n e s s t o t h e c o r n e r ) a t a l l m a j o r c o r n e r s o f t h e b o u n d a r y o f t h e p r o p e r t y , u n l e s s a l r e a d y m a r k e d o r r e f e r e n c e d b y e x i s t i n g m o n u m e n t s o r w i t n e s s e s t o t h e c o r n e r a r e s h o w n h e r e o n . 2 . A d d r e s s o f t h e p r o p e r t y i s n o t a v a i l a b l e a t t h e t i m e o f s u r v e y . 3 . T h e p r o p e r t y l i e s w i t h i n Z o n e X ( u n s h a d e d - a r e a s d e t e r m i n e d t o b e o u t s i d e t h e 0 . 2 % a n n u a l c h a n c e f l o o d p l a i n ) o f F e d e r a l E m e r g e n c y M a n a g e m e n t A g e n c y ( F E M A ) F l o o d I n s u r a n c e C o m m u n i t y P a n e l N o . 2 7 0 5 3 C 0 3 0 2 F , e f f e c t i v e N o v e m b e r 4 , 2 0 1 6 . 4 . T h e a r e a o f t h e a b o v e d e s c r i b e d p r o p e r t y i s 1 6 2 , 6 9 2 S q . F t . o r 3 . 6 8 8 A c r e s . 5 . C o n t o u r l i n e s d e p i c t e d h e r e o n a r e b a s e d o n g r o u n d m e a s u r e m e n t s a n d r e f e r e n c e d t o N A V D 1 9 8 8 . 6 ( a ) . A z o n i n g l e t t e r w a s n o t p r o v i d e d t o s u r v e y o r a t t i m e o f s u r v e y . 8 . S u b s t a n t i a l f e a t u r e s o b s e r v e d i n t h e p r o c e s s o f c o n d u c t i n g f i e l d w o r k , a r e s h o w n h e r e o n . 1 1 . T h e l o c a t i o n s o f e x i s t i n g u t i l i t i e s o n o r s e r v i n g t h e p r o p e r t y a r e d e p i c t e d b a s e d o n G o p h e r S t a t e O n e C a l l T i c k e t N o . 2 0 3 0 8 2 8 9 4 , d a t e d 1 1 / 0 3 / 2 0 2 0 , a v a i l a b l e c i t y m a p s , r e c o r d s a n d o b s e r v e d e v i d e n c e l o c a t i o n s . L a c k i n g e x c a v a t i o n , u n d e r g r o u n d u t i l i t y l o c a t i o n s m a y n o t b e e x a c t . V e r i f y c r i t i c a l u t i l i t i e s p r i o r t o c o n s t r u c t i o n o r d e s i g n . 1 3 . N a m e s o f a d j o i n i n g o w n e r s a r e d e p i c t e d b a s e d o n H e n n e p i n C o u n t y G I S t a x i n f o r m a t i o n . 1 6 . T h e r e w a s n o o b s e r v e d e v i d e n c e o f e a r t h m o v i n g w o r k o r b u i l d i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f o u r f i e l d w o r k . T h e f o l l o w i n g a r e s u r v e y r e l a t e d e x c e p t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n S c h e d u l e B , P a r t I I o f t h e h e r e i n r e f e r e n c e d T i t l e C o m m i t m e n t : 1 0 . T e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f D e c l a r a t i o n , d a t e d J u n e 6 , 2 0 0 3 , f i l e d J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , a s D o c u m e n t N o . 8 1 0 4 1 9 2 . A f f e c t s t h e s u r v e y e d p r o p e r t y a n d b l a n k e t i n n a t u r e . 1 1 . T e r m s , c o n d i t i o n s a n d e a s e m e n t s o f F l o w a g e a n d C o n s e r v a t i o n E a s e m e n t A g r e e m e n t a n d W a i v e r o f D a m a g e s , d a t e d J u l y 9 , 2 0 0 3 , f i l e d J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , a s D o c u m e n t N o . 8 1 0 4 1 9 3 . D o e s n o t a f f e c t t h e p r o p e r t y . 1 2 . D r a i n a g e a n d u t i l i t y e a s e m e n t s a s s h o w n o n t h e P l a t o f S t o n e b a y , f i l e d J u l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 3 , a s D o c u m e n t N o . 8 1 0 4 1 9 4 . A f f e c t s t h e s u r v e y e d p r o p e r t y a n d d e p i c t e d h e r e o n . 1 3 . T e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f D e c l a r a t i o n o f E a s e m e n t s , R e s t r i c t i o n s a n d C o v e n a n t s f o r S t o n e b a y , d a t e d J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , f i l e d J u l y 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , a s D o c u m e n t N o . 8 4 0 6 7 5 2 . A f f e c t s t h e s u r v e y e d p r o p e r t y a n d b l a n k e t i n n a t u r e . S C H E D U L E B , P A R T I I E X C E P T I O N S V I C I N I T Y M A P 1 / 5 / 2 1 : R e v i s e d w a t e r s t u b l o c a t i o n p e r a s - b u i l t 1 / 1 3 / 2 1 : A d d e d e x i s t i n g h o u s e p e r a e r i a l p h o t o g r a p h y 1 / 1 8 / 2 1 : A l i g n e d s a n i t a r y s e w e r w i t h m a n h o l e a l o n g W i l l o w D r i v e OUTLOT A WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 112) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) N 8 9 ° 5 1 ' 1 2 " W 8 9 . 9 2 R = 2 5 6 . 5 0 L = 8 9 . 7 7 Δ = 2 0 ° 0 3 ' 1 3 " R=361.68L=127.01Δ=20°07'13"S49°58'22"W63.13S00°54'50"W185.94S89°05'10"E 456.46 N00°08'48"E 399.58 S 8 8 ° 5 1 ' 1 1 " E 4 8 . 4 7 R=430.00L=189.83Δ=25°17'40" ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 24321 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT B O U T L O T B OUTLOT C ===== = ==== = = ===== P A R C E L A R E A T A B L E P A R C E L B 1 - L 1 B 1 - L 2 B 1 - L 3 B 2 - L 1 B 2 - L 2 B 2 - L 3 B 2 - L 4 B 3 - L 1 B 3 - L 2 B 3 - L 3 B 4 - L 1 B 4 - L 2 B 4 - L 3 B 4 - L 4 B 5 - L 1 B 5 - L 2 B 5 - L 3 B 5 - L 4 B 5 - L 5 B 6 - L 1 B 6 - L 2 B 6 - L 3 B 6 - L 4 B 7 - L 1 B 7 - L 2 B 7 - L 3 B 7 - L 4 B 8 - L 1 B 8 - L 2 B 8 - L 3 A R E A S F 1 , 8 8 8 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 9 4 3 1 , 9 7 5 1 , 5 4 6 1 , 5 4 0 2 , 1 3 9 2 , 1 0 0 1 , 5 4 0 2 , 2 9 1 2 , 2 2 1 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 6 8 3 1 , 5 3 9 1 , 5 3 9 1 , 5 3 9 1 , 7 1 7 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 7 8 0 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 9 5 1 1 , 5 3 6 1 , 5 4 0 A R E A A C 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 5 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 P A R C E L A R E A T A B L E P A R C E L B 8 - L 4 B 8 - L 5 B 9 - L 1 B 9 - L 2 B 9 - L 3 B 9 - L 4 B 9 - L 5 O U T L O T A O U T L O T B O U T L O T C O U T L O T D T O T A L A R E A S F 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 8 9 0 1 , 5 4 0 1 , 5 6 5 1 , 6 4 1 2 , 0 1 9 1 7 , 1 2 2 5 2 , 1 7 4 1 6 , 6 3 3 1 0 , 3 3 3 1 6 0 , 6 9 4 A R E A A C 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 4 0 . 0 5 0 . 3 9 1 . 2 0 0 . 3 8 0 . 2 4 3 . 6 9 3 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL PRELIMINARY PLAT 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N LEGEND: BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 3 21 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTL O T B O U T L O T B O U T L O T C ROAD AROAD A R O A D A WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY N O . 1 1 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) 4 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL SITE PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N S I T E P L A N N O T E S : S I T E P L A N N O T E S : LEGEND: P R I V A T E R O A D S E C T I O N ( 2 4 ' B - B ) PRIVATE PAVEMENT SECTION ROAD(INSET A)TYPICAL LOT DETAIL E N T R A N C E R O A D S E C T I O N ( 3 4 ' B - B ) BLOCK 8432 5 1 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BL O C K 2 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D O U T L O T B O U T L O T B O U T L O T C ROAD AROAD A R O A D A WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWA Y N O . 1 1 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) 5 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N GRADING LEGEND: 1234BLOCK 1 R E T A I N I N G W A L L N O T E S : G R A D I N G N O T E S : H O L D D O W N D E T A I L S 6 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL FILTRATION BASIN CROSS SECTION 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 FOR RE V I E W O N L Y PRELI M I N A R Y NOT FOR C O N S T R U C T I O N LEGEND: F I L T R A T I O N B A S I N 1 A - A ' C R O S S S E C T I O N N O T T O S C A L E DRAINTILE SECTION:FILTRATION BASIN 1 & 2 7 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL FILTRATION BASIN CROSS SECTION 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N LEGEND: FILTRATION BASIN 3 A-A' CROSS SECTIONNOT TO SCALE F I L T R A T I O N B A S I N 2 B - B ' C R O S S S E C T I O N N O T T O S C A L E D R A I N T I L E S E C T I O N : F I L T R A T I O N B A S I N 3 R o a d A P R O F I L E 8 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL GRADING PROFILE 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 321 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT B O U T L O T B OUTLO T C ROAD AROAD AR O A D A WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 11 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) 9 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 FOR REVIEW ONLYPRELIMINARYNOT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVE SWPPP MAP LEGEND L E G E N D : D N D C O N S T R U C T I O N S E Q U E N C I N G : N O T E : S W P P P B M P Q U A N T I T I E S E R O S I O N C O N T R O L R E S P O N S I B L E P A R T Y : C O N T R A C T O R : ( P E R P L A N ) : S E E F I N A L C D ' S N O T E T O C O N T R A C T O R : V I C I N I T Y M A P N O T T O S C A L E 1 0 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N E R O S I O N C O N T R O L S C H E D U L E : P E R M A N E N T C O V E R : EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES: M A N A G E M E N T M E A S U R E S : M A I N T E N A N C E P R O G R A M : P O L L U T I O N P R E V E N T I O N E R O S I O N A N D S E D I M E N T C O N T R O L · S E D I M E N T C O N T R O L P R A C T I C E S : DEWATERING: WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY N O . 1 1 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 3 21 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT B O U T L O T B O U T L O T C ROAD AROAD A R O A D A 1 1 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL SANITARY SEWER AND WATERMAIN PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N L E G E N D : U T I L I T Y N O T E S : SANITARY SEWER SCHEDULE WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 1 1 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 3 21 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT B O U T L O T B OU T L O T C ROAD AROAD A R O A D A 1 2 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL STORM SEWER PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N STORM SEWER SCHEDULE S T O R M S E W E R N O T E S : LEGEND: O C S 5 0 1 N O T T O S C A L E O C S 3 0 0 & 4 0 0 N O T T O S C A L E WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 11 2 ) P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 321 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTLOT B O U T L O T B OUTLO T C ROAD AROAD AR O A D A 1 3 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL LANDSCAPE PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N L A N D S C A P E N O T E S L A N D S C A P E N O T E S L A N D S C A P E R E Q U I R E M E N T S L A N D S C A P E N O T E S LEGEND 1 4 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL LANDSCAPE SCHEDULE AND DETAILS 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N C O L U M N A N D O R N A M E N T A L F E N C E E X A M P L E S 1 LANDSCAPE SCHEDULESEEDING NOTES: P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) BLOCK 843251 B L O C K 7 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 6 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 9 432 51 BLOCK 5 432 51 BLOCK 2 4 3 21 B L O C K 4 4 3 2 1 B L O C K 3 3 2 1 BLOCK 1321 O U T L O T A OUTLOT D OUTL O T B O U T L O T B O U T L O T C ROAD AROAD A R O A D A X X X X A A AA3 A A 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 6 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 . 9 1 . 1 1 . 1 0 . 9 0 . 6 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 . 5 1 . 6 1 . 5 1 . 2 0 . 8 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.10.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 . 7 2 . 9 2 . 1 1 . 4 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.40.60.60.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 4 . 9 6 . 1 2 . 7 1 . 6 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.61.01.32.03.83.70.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 7 . 7 4 . 8 2 . 9 1 . 7 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.71.21.82.74.95.53.21.80.40.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 6 . 8 4 . 8 2 . 9 1 . 7 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.91.31.62.13.03.42.91.71.10.60.20.10.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 5 . 5 6 . 5 2 . 8 1 . 6 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.71.01.31.61.92.01.91.71.10.60.30.10.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 . 0 3 . 4 2 . 3 1 . 5 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.50.71.01.11.31.51.41.40.90.50.20.10.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 1 . 7 1 . 8 1 . 6 1 . 3 0 . 8 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.30.40.50.50.71.01.01.00.70.40.20.10.00.00.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 . 0 1 . 2 1 . 2 1 . 0 0 . 6 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.20.20.20.40.60.60.60.40.10.10.00.00.00.1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 6 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 5 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 5 0 . 3 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.20.30.30.30.10.00.00.10.1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 2 1 . 6 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.20.00.10.1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 5 0 . 9 1 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 5 3 . 8 1 . 8 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 6 0 . 9 1 . 3 1 . 9 3 . 8 7 . 4 7 . 7 3 . 2 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 8 1 . 2 1 . 7 2 . 6 4 . 0 5 . 3 8 . 2 4 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 8 1 . 3 1 . 8 2 . 6 3 . 6 6 . 7 3 . 9 2 . 0 0 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.30.60.30.30.20.10.10.10.00.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 7 1 . 1 1 . 7 2 . 2 3 . 1 2 . 4 1 . 6 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.51.61.70.90.60.30.20.10.10.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 3 0 . 6 1 . 0 1 . 5 1 . 7 1 . 6 1 . 3 0 . 8 0 . 4 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.53.14.13.61.80.80.40.20.10.00.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 9 1 . 1 1 . 2 1 . 0 0 . 6 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.62.54.97.04.42.40.80.30.10.10.00.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 5 0 . 7 0 . 8 0 . 7 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.53.25.34.42.10.70.20.10.00.00.00.0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.20.83.01.10.40.20.10.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.50.20.20.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.10.10.10.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 4 0 . 4 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 3 0 . 9 1 . 8 1 . 1 0 . 8 0 . 5 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 9 4 . 1 3 . 3 2 . 9 1 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 2 1 . 1 4 . 0 5 . 9 6 . 1 4 . 0 2 . 0 0 . 9 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.00.00.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 1 . 0 4 . 0 5 . 1 4 . 5 1 . 6 0 . 5 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 9 2 . 1 0 . 7 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 4 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 7 1 . 3 0 . 6 0 . 7 0 . 8 1 . 2 0 . 9 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 3 1 . 3 4 . 9 5 . 5 6 . 6 6 . 2 5 . 7 1 . 8 0 . 3 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 4 1 . 5 2 . 3 3 . 4 4 . 0 3 . 8 2 . 7 1 . 9 0 . 7 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 3 0 . 4 0 . 5 0 . 8 1 . 1 1 . 0 0 . 7 0 . 7 0 . 4 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 2 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 3 0 . 2 0 . 1 0 . 1 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 XX 1 5 ORONO CROSSINGS PRELIMINARY PLAT, PUD, & RE-ZONING SUBMITTAL PHOTOMETRIC PLAN 7 3 3 M a r q u e t t e A v e n u e M i n n e a p o l i s , M N 5 5 4 0 2 6 1 2 . 7 5 8 . 3 0 8 0 w w w . a l l i a n t - i n c . c o m S u i t e 7 0 0 F O R R E V I E W O N L Y P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N Luminaire ScheduleSymbolQty231Calculation SummaryLabelSITE GROUNDPARKING NORTHSOUTHWEST PARKING LabelAAXXArrangementSINGLEAA3SINGLESINGLECalcTypeIlluminanceIlluminanceIlluminanceLLF Description0.810 0.900 RAYON T349LEDB-170-UNV-40K-T3-T S A M 1 0 S - B Z - H S S M O U N T O N 2 0 F T S S S P O L E W I T H 2 F T B A S E EXISTING POLE TO REMAIN - ESTI M A T E D O U T P U T A T 2 0 F T 0.900 T349LEDB-119-UNV-40K-T4-TSAM10 S - B Z - H S S M O U N T O N 2 0 F T S S S P O L E W / 2 F T B A S E UnitsFcFcFcAvg Max Min0.292.740.00 8.27.40.0 0.00.30.0 Avg/ M i n M a x / M i n N.A. N . A . 9.13N.A. 2 4 . 6 7 N . A . A r r . W a t t s 1 6 6 . 5 6 8 5 . 2 1 1 9 . 9 8 L u m . L u m e n s 1 5 4 3 8 9 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 6 6 1 3 0 B l u e C i r c l e D r . , M i n n e t o n k a , M N 5 5 3 4 3 P h 9 5 2 - 2 1 7 - 0 4 0 0 - F a x 9 5 2 - 9 3 0 - 1 6 3 2 w w w . p u l s e p r o d u c t s . c o m MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 10 11. LA21-000014 MARK RAUSCH/AZIZ SADDIQUI O/B/O UNIVERSITY OF ST. THOMAS, PID 33-118-23-11-0060 (NW CORNER OF WILLOW AND WAYZATA BLVD) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT - SITE PLAN; ZONE CHANGE; AND PRELIMINARY PLAT (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Aziz Saddiqui, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. This application involves four different actions that Barnhart is looking for responses on tonight: a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a zone change, a preliminary plat, and a master development plan proposal. These are all related to re-guiding and rezoning the property for a residential planned unit development to support a 37-unit townhome development. The Planning Commission saw this project as a sketch plan last September and at the time the project was 43 units and there was some comment or concerns with the external setbacks of the site. There was also a density issue. Barnhart said the Applicant has responded to the comments made by the Planning Commission and City Council and has come back with a 37-unit project. The project will be 37 units in 9 separate buildings, all of the buildings would be shared by municipal water and sewer, and storm water management plans have been provided to manage water on site. Eventually all storm water will depart the site and enter the larger regional pond immediately to the west of the site. Access to the project is via a single road off Kelley Parkway, this road will be private. There are no proposed or supported intersections with Willow Drive or Wayzata Boulevard. The Applicant proposes a unique feature as a sidewalk that connects to all the front doors throughout the development, with a larger external sidewalk or trail system. The Applicant also shows a decorative fence along the west, south, and east boundaries of the property to define the space between the public and private areas. Regarding the Comprehensive Plan amendment, generally the City of Orono tries to keep density low and only introduces higher density where it absolutely has to happen or there is no impact on neighboring properties. Barnhart said this project is proposing a reduction in density from what is guided for in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which guides this property for urban high density which is 20-25 units an acre. This project came in at right above 10 units an acre which requires a formal approval for that amendment through the Met Council. There has been comment during the sketch plan process of why they cannot make it less dense; in analyzing this project, when they start dropping below 10 units an acre, they start having repercussions in requiring to add density elsewhere in the community. Barnhart said if they go below 37 units, it would require them to re-guide it for urban medium density which is a 3-10 unit/acre range. When dropping to the 3-10 unit/acre range, the Met Council only considers the lowest number of that range (3 units/acre). With the guidance of 3-10 units/acre the Met Council expects to see about 9 units – with that difference between 9 and 37, they must identify sewered land elsewhere in the community or higher density to accommodate that additional growth. The City Council reviewed that as part of the sketch plan and recognizes the give-and-take associated with that type of density transfer and supported at least 37 units/acre for this property. Barnhart stated that is important because some of the comments he will make later he wants to make sure they will not reduce density from that number. Gettman asked what the initial proposal was. Barnhart believes the Planning Commission saw 43 units. From a Comprehensive Plan amendment, Staff supports the change down to 10 units/acre, as anything further than that would require more work on the City Council and Planning Commission to identify higher density and sewer properties elsewhere. The zone change to the Residential PUD, the master development plan, and the preliminary plat are all connected; the zone change does meet most of the criteria of an R-PUD and there are a couple waivers identified. The first is the minimum lot area for an R-PUD zone is 5 acres and there are exceptions, such Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 10 as being adjacent to another R-PUD zone and it could be considered as an extension of that. Barnhart thinks the Applicant has approached it as the overlying feature. He said these buildings will not be identical to Stone Bay but they will have the same characteristics; Staff does suggest and support the zone change to R-PUD. The memo talks about the waivers identified, those waivers included setbacks from Willow and from Wayzata; predominantly they address both the Planning Commission and City Council comments during the sketch plan. At the time, the buildings were very close to Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard, and these buildings did not conform to the minimum setback requirements as proposed by the City ordinances with the exception of Lot 4. He showed a unit on screen that is a little too close to Willow Drive and clarified the Applicant needs that waiver to keep to the 37 units on this project. Barnhart pointed out a road on screen and said the setback adjacent to Willow for the road itself should be 20 feet and this shows it at 10 feet. Staff supports the waivers as shown to keep an appropriate amount of area for open space and also provide 20-foot separation between the building and the street so one can park without blocking the street. Barnhart said one comment that the City Engineer raised was the City standard for roads that serves this many units, a private road should be 28 feet. These roads are shown at 24 feet; at 24 feet there would be no on-street parking as part of the fire code. At 28 feet they may be able to have parking on one side and to address that, the Applicant showed 10 guest parking spaces adjacent to the open space to accommodate some guest parking. Barnhart said the parking will be satisfied with a 2-car garage and parking stalls in the driveway area off the street, so technically each unit will provide 4 spaces, two of which will be covered. One thing Staff typically looks for in a townhome development is the distance between the buildings and distance between the back of the building and the street. This project shows 10 feet between buildings which is a little less than Stone Bay at 14 feet on the smallest measurement; they show 20 feet here (on screen) and Stone Bay’s smallest measurement was about 18 feet. He said it is similar but not exactly the same. The Applicant has provided drawings of the proposed buildings and Barnhart noted this is one of the areas the City has received comment from the neighboring community. As mentioned before the Applicant has taken heed of the Planning Commission and City Council’s comments during sketch plan review and at the time were concerned about setbacks and preserving external setbacks. One thing Staff has a slight concern with is Block 5, 6, 7, and 8 – the face of those buildings face out to Willow or Wayzata Boulevard. He said this is the garage side of the building, which is often the more private space but is also where a garbage can is stored and they do not usually want that at the front entrance. Staff has some concern with this orientation and would suggest flipping these buildings so they face Willow or Wayzata. To do so and maintain the same number of units they would have to reorganize this road here (on screen) to provide access to all of the lots. They would also need the support from the Planning Commission and City Council for waivers for the setback. Barnhart thinks they can achieve the same number of units fronting Willow and Wayzata in just these three blocks if they have a 30-foot setback off of Willow and a 35-foot setback off of Wayzata. He said that goes against what the Planning Commission and City Council talked about earlier. The Applicant seems receptive to that but has been leery to change the plan knowing the Planning Commission and City Council had commented opposite of that. Barnhart would like to hear some feedback on that type of change. The Applicant shows landscaping along the exterior of the project, and a row of arborvitae to show some screening as well as the decorative fence which will not block view but will provide a decorative edge to the public and private space. The Fire Chief has provided comment and he absorbed it into his Staff comment letter – basically his main issue was the fire hydrant is shown on the east side of the new road intersection and he would prefer it on the other side. Staff is recommending approval of the four applications subject to the five conditions included in the memo. Staff has received 6-7 comment letters and most of them seem to be focused on the location of the driveway and its potential impact from a headlight perspective with the residential units on the other side. He also noted quite a few comments with concern about the design of the building, not so much what they are, but want to make sure the materials are hardy plank rather than vinyl siding, and wanted some variation in the color or texture of the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 10 building. Staff is looking for some feedback on the architecture and whether the Planning Commission would like to see any changes. Regarding the driveway location, the City standard is relatively minimal; it is 100 feet away from an intersection. Barnhart pointed out 100 feet on screen and said a bigger issue is there is a turn lane and generally they would look for 300 feet on the turn lane and pointed it out 300 feet on screen. He pointed out the building across the street that would be impacted by headlights and said there is not a lot of opportunity to provide screening on the other side of the street because where this road intersects Kelley Parkway on the other side from the Stone Bay Development is an unimproved fire access, so trees and plantings are prohibited in that area in favor of maintaining an access for emergency vehicles. He noted the Applicants are here. Staff recommends approval and is looking for feedback on any changes to the plat, any comment for the architecture of the buildings, and anything else the Planning Commission has identified as a concern. Ressler said seeing how it is proposed and how it is guided, what was going to go there, was it supposed to be an apartment complex. Barnhart thinks the 20-25 unit would have almost required an apartment building and there was an apartment building proposed for that property that did not require any wavers, met all the setbacks, with all the parking, etcetera. The City Council felt that was too dense at the sketch plan level about a year ago so their direction at the time was to look at something a little more consistent with the Stone Bay Development and that is where they are at now. Bollis said regarding the driveway or road, it appears that it correlates directly with the cul-de-sac to the property to the north and asked if that is correct. Barnhart replied yes. Libby asked for a clarification on the five conditions; the orientation Staff is recommending versus what the Planning Commission received in the original drawings, are they recommending that there be no garage and driveway facing to Wayzata Boulevard or Willow and asked why. Barnhart is suggesting the driveway and garage door side of these four blocks, they face interior to the site so there would be a road roughly here (on screen) and the “public” front door portion of the property would face Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard. Libby asked what is the metric or premise that is based on. He noted there was a mention of garbage and recycling, and in most residential neighborhoods that do not have this kind of density would actually be street side because of the size of the vehicles that come in for waste management. He noted trying to compress vehicles into that interior would seem to be really restrictive. He wonders if they are borrowing from other metrics or reasons to do that, as these large vehicles are better off in the larger thoroughfare and in the front. Ressler noted this may be better suited for the discussion. Libby apologized and said he was asking a question so he had clarity. Ressler said it is natural for it to turn into discussion. Aziz Saddiqui with David Weekley Homes, Applicant, approached the podium. He is responsible for overseeing the entitlements and development for the Midwest and western part of the country. He MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 10 thanked the Planning Commission for all their feedback and perspective last September. He noted three major takeaways for him and were very important; first, the density count and how sensitive that issue was, as that conversation went on for about an hour and there was difficulty figuring out from 75 or 85 units versus 37 or 35 or 40 units. He said the magic number is 37 and they managed to get that, and that unit count contributed to the setbacks – he thinks the main one was Wayzata having 50 feet because the rest of the units along the stretch were 50 feet. With Willow and Kelley, he thinks they were able to achieve the 36. Addressing these three setback scenarios, the unit count, and to the comment about bringing the open area/play structure area to the internal part of the development and make it more warm and secluded for the community. He said they achieve many of the major bullet points they received and they continued to communicate with Barnhart. To further enhance – although the City did not push for it – they wanted to fence this community with ornamental fencing and provide perimeter landscaping around the entire area. He noted the company did consult with their landscape architect in regards to a comment about the large amount of snow, wind, and salt, and how that would impact the arborvitaes along Wayzata Boulevard. With the kind of setback in being more than 30 feet from the pavement, their architect believes the arborvitae will do well. Mr. Saddiqui said they are open to any suggestions or comments, and if that needs to be changed, they would love to accommodate that. He showed on screen a street-view from Wayzata and what one would be looking at while driving as they are 10-foot arborvitae with a five-foot fence. To Mr. Libby’s point about the reasoning behind why they need to flip the units – the company is not opposed to that – they felt for the homeowners, why not give them that sense of enclosed, one community if they are all facing that open area. He noted they are not opposed to flipping those units and it is open for discussion; they did provide one concept of that plan. Mr. Saddiqui said the company feels very strong because they improved the plans from the last meeting and are continuing to work on it. He thinks their elevations are very attractive today and noted they added a bunch of gables and character to the garage door, and are still trying to improve them. If they go back to the color scheme setup, they had an excellent call with the neighborhood and there were about 15-20 guests and many had questions. A majority of them wondered how the color schemes would work, if the entire community would be all grey, beige, etcetera. He showed a color drawing on screen and noted it helps everyone understand how the patterns and character of the buildings will work. He noted all windows are surrounded with the hardy board, the siding, and trim boards, with stone surrounds; he said it will support and compliment the neighborhood and they are feeling good about how this would turn out. As he said last September, they are introducing this product in June in Burnsville, and want to bring the same product to Orono. He added from the neighborhood comments, there was one person who felt very strong about where they were coming in and out on Kelley Parkway and Mr. Saddiqui feels they chose a very ideal spot. After the call, the company went back to the traffic engineer and spoke with him about it, looked at the grades, and that is the highest peak on the street. For traffic purposes, when coming out, it has a proper visibility to avoid any accidents in that area; the traffic engineer felt good about it and wrote a memo based on his study relating to the intersection of Kelley and Willow versus where they are today. If the company was to move that location and get closer to Kelley – and he believes they did try that with the engineer and planner – Mr. Saddiqui is fearful that they might end up losing one or two units because of the way it curves at the bottom. Ideally it worked out for the unit count and they did play around with it but felt that this is the best option. He believes they have put all the points together for the Commissioners to look at. Gettman asked with the parking situation, he likes everything the company has done, and said with the latest concern about the headlights, have they considered a right-turn only coming out that would eat into some of that space on Kelley. It would literally angle the folks and prevent the headlights from going directly into the house. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 10 Mark Rausch, with Alliant Engineering, approached the podium and asked to share a graphic of the site plan on screen. He wants to show how the road aligns with the cul-de-sac across the street; if they do turn the traffic to the right, they will actually start to angle the headlights right at the home. Right now, the elevation of the intersection is at 27 feet and the house and garage on the east side of the cul-de-sac is 30, so it is about 3 feet higher and the house on the other side is actually 34 so it is actually 7 feet higher. He noted they have some grade separation. He showed another photo from Google Maps on screen of what the headlights look at today. Mr. Rausch said as Mr. Barnhart noted it is a tough spot, they have looked at it, and there is an intersection to the east they are trying to stay distanced from. They are on the outside of a curve so it is actually really good from the horizontal location; the vertical curve is exactly where it is set and actually stubbed water and everything like it was set up to be a road connection. There has been a lot of thought about it and it is ideal for the site plan as well, and the Commissioners have seen a couple of different iterations. He asked if Gettman would like to see something that is angled to the east. Gettman replied no, he is asking if they have considered a right-turn only lane out of it and actually eat in to some of the park or sidewalk area they have and that would force people to not have to have the headlights while waiting to turn right or left facing straight in there. It would literally have them guided to the right and it would also guide the traffic – instead of cutting through the rest of the neighborhood – it would actually guide them directly onto Willow Drive, rather than cutting through the back area. Mr. Rausch said they have not looked at a right-in, right-out. They could look at how the headlights aim, noting they would have to aim them quite a bit to the east. Libby wants to let the Applicant know how much he appreciates their willingness to discuss the idea of flipping the front to the back, and so on. In all respect for the planner, that may be something that needs to be done. From an engineering standpoint, he has dealt with a lot of these developments that build this type of row house. He asked if they were to move the driveways to the rear, they would really need to move the entire front of the row houses closer to the street; he does not know how much sidewalk they are willing to lose but the idea of a walkway around the front is very popular and common in the newer developments. However, they would end up having to move the entire row towards the street side, sidewalk, and road, and lose a substantial amount of area in the back where they must have driveways even as short as they can make them. Mr. Saddiqui noted that is one reason Mr. Barnhart made a comment that if the company was willing to do that, there might be more exceptions for the setbacks on Wayzata Boulevard because that will be shrunk quite a bit. Libby understands and said from an engineering standpoint his point is valid, they will have to move all the townhouses closer to the sidewalks in the front to accommodate the driveways in the back. They are then going to have to accommodate pick-ups for waste and recycling and will lose a substantial amount in the rear. Mr. Saddiqui said talking about the trucks coming in for service purposes, he is not opposed to the other suggestion, but this particular plan will eliminate the aesthetics in the neighborhood by keeping the internal part of the neighborhood clean. It will be on the outside and will be all screened, so it will be less optical aesthetic. From a practical standpoint, this is a good flow as a development and is what they would like to leave behind; however, they are not opposed to the other idea. McCutcheon asked if the garages are 21 feet deep. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 10 Mr. Rausch believes they are 22 feet. McCutcheon noted this is truck country so they just need to be sure a truck will fit. Ressler opened the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ressler closed the public hearing at 8:40 p.m. Ressler noted he cut off Libby’s comments so brought the discussion back to him. Libby said no, Ressler was following decorum and he appreciates that, no criticisms on his part. He said he was not second-guessing or criticizing their planner’s suggestions; he has been on-site, boots on the ground on both of these designs before and there is always a give-and-take, especially with a limited lot size, even at the density they are at now. Some utility providers are willing to work with smaller vehicles, but they have to come back more often because they don’t have the capacity to take the entire neighborhood at once. Barnhart asked to comment and clarify, his proposal is that Road A, instead of looping to the outside of Blocks 5, 6, 7, and 8, would loop around the center feature and provide frontage or access to these lots. He noted Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard will not provide any access to any of the lots from a service standpoint. The reason his comment was made about flipping the lots is to provide a front door appearance to this neighborhood onto those public streets, which are pretty important public streets here in the community. If a utility truck or FedEx truck can access Road A for Blocks 1-4 here, they will be able to do it for these other blocks. There is really no change in character. Libby understood that and the handout with a drawing looks exactly how he pictured it, if the net effect was having to move all of the townhouses closer to the front, sidewalk, walkway, and exterior service road, which is exactly what his point was. Mr. Saddiqui said from a developer and builder’s perspective, or more importantly, if he is a buyer in this neighborhood, would he want to be in his home with the front door looking at Wayzata or Kelley every morning. That would be the question he would ask…or would he rather park his car and be looking at an open space internally. From the marketing aspect, he is not sure which one will sell and how the market will receive it, but it is something to think about. Barnhart commented that the Planning Commission and City Council made it very clear they want to see setbacks of a certain dimension during the sketch plan review. His proposal “ignores” that recommendation because it does require waivers against what they had discussed earlier; he thinks the tradeoff is beneficial to the City in the long-term, but it is completely up the Planning Commission if they want to support those types of waivers. Kirchner said one of the feedback questions was specific to the orientation and he would agree with Libby, not so much for the service vehicles, but for the exact reason the Applicant has just mentioned. He has the floor plans up and a walk-up unit that feeds directly into an outlot with a family room that would be next to those walk-up unit doors. They spoke earlier about a family in a backyard and he sees that as a way for this community to do that; one could be in the family room and have kids out in the greenspace. He has concerns if they were to put Road A across and flip the orientation, he feels they lose greenspace MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 10 in the center which he believes is important to Orono residents and is something they value. He also then sees children walking across the street to get to the park where right now they can walk out a door and are on a sidewalk. He actually prefers this design and thinks Wayzata Boulevard is a major thoroughfare with a speed limit of 50 mph, there are gas stations, a McDonald’s, and he does not know that people will care too much that they are looking at garage doors when driving by. He does not know about Willow, but again said he appreciates this design and thinks it creates a bit of a community within this development. If Erickson imagines himself as a potential buyer for one of these, he would prefer the one on the screen over this one. The reasoning is by having the garages facing Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard, it creates a better community feeling in the interior. The “backyard” is a relatively private recreational area which gives a backyard feeling in sharing with the neighbors. With the high traffic on Wayzata and Willow, that is where the garage is; to him it would be much more inviting and that would be a much easier sell. He also wants to commend the Applicant for making a tremendous improvement over what they were looking at last year, which was not terribly bad, but was not as good as this. He recalls in the Planning Commission meeting garages backing up to each other and if someone backs up and there is a car there it could be a conflict; that has all been eliminated by this loop road which is a wonderful improvement. Another comment made, originally the recreational area was over on Kelley and again, in creating a community with an element of privacy but still shared with neighbors, these are all improvements and he really likes it. Bollis agrees with Staff about the orientation, as aesthetically he thinks it would look more pleasing driving along Highway 12 or on Willow in looking at fronts of units similar to Stone Bay. Most of those units along Kelley are looking at the front of the unit or the “pretty” face of the house. As a resident of the community, he thinks it would look better, but he tends to agree with the Applicant that the flow and engineering-wise isn’t quite there if they flip them. Mr. Saddiqui did complement that by having the fronts on Kelley to Stone Bay. Bollis said in looking at the two plans, he would prefer the one on screen if he were going to be living there. If he was not living there, he would prefer the aesthetics of the secondary plan. He said it is just a comment and he does not know how he feels one way or the other for a vote on that. He asked if the Applicant has explored staggering the blocks a bit instead of having them in a straight line, particularly Blocks 8, 7, 6, and 5. Mr. Rausch said they could definitely stagger 6, 7, and 8; 7 could sit back and obviously it gets tighter between 5 and 6 and they are trying to keep a separation there. He noted 8 gets a little tight, but maybe there could be something done with 7 to create some relief from Wayzata Boulevard. Bollis said he is not in love with that view from Wayzata Boulevard of the backs of the units and a big straight line of units. Mr. Saddiqui said the goal is, it is almost like a gridlock, as they are locked with the setbacks of 50 feet from Wayzata Boulevard and that is the line they need to work with. Anything they do gets pushed and cramped into the back area. He noted they are really in a tight spot from all corners in there. He said given what they have, the company thought this is the best they could come up with, but are open to suggestions to improve and make it better. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 10 Bollis said on the landscaping plan, he appreciates what was done on Highway 12 with the idea of fencing and screening. Personally, he would prefer something more like they are doing on Kelley where it is a little more of a natural look, rather than a fenced line with arborvitaes. McCutcheon thinks this is a lose-lose instead of a win-win, so they must compromise somewhere; he noted he could look at this next week and have a different opinion. From a safety point of view and flow, Amazon is such a big part of everyone’s lives now and he tends to agree with the builder’s design, as it is safer and flows better. He thinks of kids trick-or-treating and the sense of community, and said they deserve that right, too. He understands on Willow Drive it will be different, but he thinks it is a compromise. Ressler has looked at this three times now and always tries to come up with constructive criticism because just saying one does not like it doesn’t work. He said they want to make this work and need to provide feedback on what they think works. The Commissioners have done a nice job of providing that constructive feedback and he thanked them for that. Some of Ressler’s concerns, he recognizes they have an issue here where if they reduce the density any further, they have to now reallocate that somewhere else, and that is a real problem. The other hard part is whether they are creating a problem by avoiding another; regarding snow removal, when they have those setbacks or cushions there is relief, but when they tighten those boundaries it can create problems. He noted it does not look like there are a lot of places to put snow. As far as where the traffic goes, it is a tough spot because any of them who have spent time in that area during school times, it is a really tough area to get in and out of. Psychologically, it is difficult to think about adding another 37 homes to an area that can already be congested at different times. He said that is difficult because what is his constructive criticism about that; they add more traffic to Kelley Parkway and it is guided to. He does not think there is a better place to put the entrance, if they put it out on Willow it relieves Kelley Parkway but now there is a problem on Willow. He recognizes that and does not have a better idea. He has concern over the setbacks and agreed that Wayzata Boulevard is the identity of the community and he recognizes that things like McDonald’s and gas stations are also part of that as it is an urban area. What the Planning Commission cannot do is change that, but they can provide feedback on what the future will look like, if there is proper screening being provided. Ressler said one of the illustrations provided was hard to tell the scale because it did not look like 9 feet unless it was a 3- foot man and a 2-foot dog. His constructive feedback would be to better understand the scale to help the Planning Commission and City Council feel more comfortable about what that really is. His question is if this is the minimum without having to change how they guide a lot of things in this area, where were they planning on going when they guided it…because how do they add more? Knowing the traffic that goes in and out, knowing the area, knowing how difficult it is to egress and ingress. He thinks okay, what would they rather see here, an apartment complex at 3-4 stories? He does not know and said that does not solve the traffic. Ressler still does not like that small of a buffer between Wayzata Boulevard and the proposed development; he does not have a constructive answer about what would do it without reducing the number of units. Knowing that they need to add massing and housing, he noted they had a proposal further west that they kicked around that also would have helped with that exchange and that is not what this application is. He does not know, but if they asked him, he would rather see a taller structure that has more greenery to provide some clearance for enjoyment and less pavement and massing of structure than one-level living. However, one-level living seems to be more in alignment with the community and that is where he struggles. For whatever it is worth that is his perspective. Libby said to add merit and credence to the planners and several other members perception about that front-facing Wayzata Boulevard and the impression of the community, there is great validity to that. Being the only person here other than the developer that has sold hundreds of units like this over the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 10 course of 30 years and listening to the voice of the consumer in a year than most people in the room deal with in a lifetime, he can tell them that they are conjecturing on what the garage side of these would look like. He said they have not really looked at it or seen a perspective and how attractive, like a single- family home, the garage side entry to an architectural design can look. It is not as unwelcoming as the Commissioners are proposing and they have not even seen the design of the garage side of one of these units. Again, there is another serious concern he has regarding the change to Road A, and he thinks the developer was very open-minded and had an ear to the environmental aspects of moving a gathering place for children or kids to the center from the outside. What do they do then? They take an area that now is kind of a safe spot in the middle of the living center of the community and by adding Road A, they intensify noise pollution, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide pollution into an area where they will disturb everybody every time. Whether a UPS truck, a garbage truck, or a recycling truck going on to that road; they may not disturb the people on the backside on Kelley, but certainly will have a high concentration of just about every kind of pollution as long as they have high combustion engines delivering packages and picking up garbage. They are moving all of that to the inside versus having it dispersed widely on the outside. He noted they can make a garage approach architecturally very attractive and look very nice from the street side. That is Libby’s perspective and he said they are exacerbating a problem that they have already kind of solved by turning these around and flipping them to the other side. Ressler said until they go to the next generation of electric powered heli-taxis, they are all in this conundrum together. He said again, he is trying to be constructive here because it is kind of a tough one. Libby said they can do the environmental metric fairly easily as they have the capacity to do that, engineering and design people do that all day. Ressler does not think environmental is necessarily the biggest concern here, that is a personal opinion. He struggles with buffering to a busy road and traffic; he does not know how they fix that. He is not going to recycle the same comments he has already made in essence of efficiency and wants to clarify he is not arguing, either. Erickson made a comment on traffic, and would like to make a little historical background as he first looked at this area in 1971. He said it was 80 acres for sale between Willow and Old Crystal Bay Road and many years before the City showed any interest in building this building. They were occupying the same building that Mr. Gronburg the surveyor has, that was City Hall in Orono. Eventually the guide plan developed into something other than 2 acre lots and it first became commercial, because Long Lake had commercial, on the south side was the Harvest Moon, and Otten Brothers before that. So, they figured if they have commercial on 3 corners, they must have commercial on the 4th corner. The first proposal that came along was a Cub Foods store and that did not develop but was seriously discussed for some period of time. In thinking about traffic, think about how much traffic would be generated by a Cub Foods store; as it turned out, that was not approved. Erickson said one that was approved was 2 office buildings, with one of the office buildings having a bank with a drive-in teller. Apparently somewhere in the process the prospective banker changed his mind about it and it never happened; again, thinking about a couple of office buildings with a bank, how much traffic would that be? More recently in the last few years, in talking about a medium density residential on that corner, they are talking about less traffic than other alternatives might be. Granted, they can take some units out and there will be a little less traffic, but where do they stop with that? The most impractical statement Erickson has ever heard in this room (and this was many, many years ago) was from a Councilman who suggested they can have 2 acre lots on the whole frontage of Wayzata Boulevard. Erickson had done a lot of work in other cities such as Long Lake, Minnetonka, Wayzata, and that was before there was even any discussion of a bypass and State MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 Highway 12 was right there. To his mind, 37 units here is moderate density and is moderate traffic compared to anything else that might be there. He said it works for him. Gettman asked the Applicant, regarding the targeted prices, especially as compared to across the street, so Stone Bay versus this new development; with the 43 properties there was one price range they were targeting. With the 37, has that price range changed for each of the homes. Mr. Saddiqui said the labor and the material has gone up significantly in the last 6 months and that is one impact, and also the unit count. He said the kind of elevations they are doing and the cost related to that; they are targeting $430,000 or $440,000 to $470,000, and said again, it is in the works and is not set. Gettman understands and just said for the City Council. Ressler said this was good feedback from everyone and unlike some applications that are very clear and concise as to the direction they are going. Gettman asked if they want a motion for each or if he is comfortable with one motion. If Gettman has a suggestion, Ressler is all for it. Gettman moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA21-000014, PID 33-118-23-11-0060 (NW Corner of Willow and Wayzata Blvd) Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Site Plan, reducing the density; Zone Change to the Residential PUD; the Preliminary Plat and Master Plan approval of the development as applied with Staff recommendations. Barnhart asked to confirm the five conditions Staff put in the memo. Met Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment, City Council approval of the Zone change to R-PUD, City Staff comments Exhibit G, City Engineer comments satisfied Exhibit H, and MC-WD approval of storm water. He asked if those are correct. Gettman replied yes that is correct. Ressler clarified all criteria that Staff recommends as a contingency. He asked Kirchner if he could clarify that he seconds that. Kirchner said he does. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 1 (Ressler). Commissioner Gettman excused himself and left the Planning Commission meeting. Date Submitted January 20, 2021 Date Complete January 20, 2021 120 day review expires May 20, 2021 60 day review period extended to May 20, 2021 To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: #LA21-14, Mark Rausch and Aziz Saddiqui o/b/o University of St. Thomas and David Weekley Homes, NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd., Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Preliminary Plat, and Master Development Plan approval. Background The Planning Commission and City Council reviewed the sketch plan related to this proposal as application LA20-52 in September and October of last year. At the time, the project was for 43 units in a different configuration, with two entrances off of Kelley Parkway and an internal road network. The City Council’s reviewed focused on the Planning Commission comments regarding private recreation, external setbacks, and impacts to the Comprehensive Plan. The Council acknowledged that a decrease in density below 10 units an acre would require the identification of higher density elsewhere in areas not suited for higher density, and suggested that at least 37 units be included in the development. The applicant revised their plans and prepared engineering documents to support a new layout that shows 37 units in 9 buildings. All building will be served with municipal water and sewer. Stormwater management plans have been provided to manage water on site; eventually stormwater will funnel to the regional pond as originally intended with the Stonebay development. Access to the units will be via a single, private road off of Kelley. No access onto Willow or Wayzata is proposed or supported. The internal road will loop around the private recreation area and blocks 5, 6, 7, and 8. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting Comprehensive Plan Amendment (reducing the density to 10-20 units per acres), Zone Change (from RR-1B (PUD) to RPUD), Preliminary Plat, and Master Plan approval for a 3.69 acre/ 37 unit townhome development at the NW corner of Willow Drive and Wayzata Blvd. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone change to RPUD, Master Development Plan, and Preliminary plat, subject the several conditions. Council Exhibit D FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 2 of 8 The applicant proposes to connect each front door to a sidewalk, establishing a pedestrian network, similar to the Stonebay development. Blocks 1-4 will ‘face’ Kelley Parkway, and a sidewalk will connect at three points to the existing public sidewalk along Kelley Parkway. Blocks 5-8 face the internal green space. Block 9 will face the stormwater pond to the west of the proposed development. The applicants propose a decorative fence along the East, West, and South property lines, to define the edge of the development. Analysis: There are 4 actions requesting approval: Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Master Development Plan Approval, and Preliminary Plat. Comprehensive Plan Amendment. The proposal with 37 units provides a density of 10.02 units per acre. This reduction in density will require Met Council approval of a formal amendment. Proposed Amendment #4 "Orono Crossing" Proposed Develop- ment impact Total Net Residential Acres Total Number of units Calculated Density 2021- 2030 Growth 2031- 2040 Growth "Affordable Housing" Acres A B C D E F G 1 Met Council Mandated requirements 3.0 523 340 15.4 2 Original Comp Plan results 214.2 891 4.16 547 343 15.4 3 Current Comp Plan results. Reflects addition of 135 Orono Orchard Road) 227.2 897 3.95 553 343 15.4 4 Reducing Land use to Urban Medium High (10- 20 u/a) Reduce to 37 from 74 units 227.2 860 3.79 590 269 15.4 5 Reducing Land Use to Urban Medium (3-10 u/a) Reduce to 12 from 74 units 227.2 835 3.68 565 269 11.71 6 Surplus/ (Deficit) 42 -71 Generally speaking, most residents and the City Council would prefer to preserve a community of low densities. However, the City must, in adopting its Comprehensive Plan, include the following: 1. Provide a minimum average density of 3.0 units per acre in the sewered areas (Column D). The City exceeds this density with high density options in areas best suited for higher density, served by water and sanitary sewer, near other high density developments, and near high capacity roadways, to name a few. The reduction in density proposed will not drop the city’s density calculation below the 3.0 units per acre. (Row 4, Column D) 2. Provide “Affordable” Housing Units (Column G). The City is required to provide for 154 ‘affordable’ housing units in the current comprehensive plan. The City achieves this goal by FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 3 of 8 guiding 15.4 acres in the city for densities greater than 10 units per acre. Development of those parcels at the minimum provides the minimum number of ‘affordable’ units, satisfying the requirement. The reduced density does not impact our affordable housing numbers (Row 4, Column G). Having less than 37 units will drop the density below 10 units per acre, requiring identification of other areas appropriate for densities greater than 10 units per acre (Row 5, Column G). 3. Provide opportunity for housing growth at least equal to the growth predicted by the Metropolitan Council. The city must identify opportunities for 523 new units between 2021-2030, and 340 new units between 2031-2040. Presently, there is a surplus, but when the density for the subject parcel drops below 10 units per acre, there is a deficit, requiring the identification of other areas for higher density Row 5, Column E and F. Staff recommends approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment as proposed, reducing the density from 20-25 units per acre, to 10-20 units per acre. Zone Change. The zone change to RPUD is necessary to accommodate the proposed density and project as city code does not have a stand alone zoning district for this type of development. The proposed project conforms to the purpose for the RPUD district, and staff supports the rezoning. The following analysis incorporates comments related to the zone change, the master development plan, and the preliminary plat. Applicable Regulations: Section 78-627 outlines the review procedure for RPUD development. This project is at the second stage for development of a RPUD, Master Development Plan approval and rezoning. All of these applications are public hearings. After these approvals, the developer will make an application for a final site plan and building plan approval, to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. The RPUD standards are summarized in the table below, based on Section 78-626, Development Standards: Section Standard Conforming? 1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or tied to adjacent RPUD Conforms to the exception: The property is directly adjacent to or across a public street from property which has been developed previously as a RPUD and will be perceived as and will function as an extension of that previously approved development. 2 Uses. Multifamily residential uses are conforming 3 Sewer availability Yes. 4 Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. Conforms to the guidance of the Comprehensive Plan. The 2040 CMP requided the property from Commercial to high density residential FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 4 of 8 5 Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. None requested 6 Floor Ratio, up to 1.0 Calculated preliminarily at 0.53 (1.98 acres of floor area/ 3.69 acres of gross land) 7a Setbacks. Setbacks are 35’ to Kelley, 50’ to Willow and Wayzata. Drive lanes 20’ from exterior property lines. No. All buildings are at least 36 feet from Kelley. Most buildings are 50 feet from Willow Dr., though Lot 4, Block 4 is 36’. Blocks 6-8 are 50’+ from Wayzata, Block 9 is 50’ from Wayzata. The drive south of blocks 6-8 is 10 feet from the property line. Staff supports waivers. 7b Height, stories, roof style Conforming. Residential pitched roofs, two story buildings. 7c Outside storage No. None proposed. 11 10% Private Recreational Area (Active and/or Passive) Conforming, tot lot shown 12 Common Ownership Conforming. Association documents required. 13 Signage Signage located, plans not yet developed 14 Landscaping Conforming to the number of trees and shrubs. 15 Architectural Standards Details need to be codified, intended to be consistent with Stonebay regulations. 16 Flexibility from standards Requested, and supported 1 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested 18 Building Permits Expected 19 General regulations applicability Expected 20 Lighting Conforming. Photometric Plan provided. 21 Trails Sidewalks and public walks proposed 1. Waivers may be necessary to accommodate the Councils goal of townhome style development, rather than larger attached family buildings. Zone Change to RPUD. 10% recreation area. The plans show 0.371 acres of private recreation area, meeting the 10% requirement for PUD. Addressing PC and Council comments made earlier, the tot lot has been relocated to the interior of the site. As this property will be subdivided, park dedication will apply, in addition to the private recreation requirement. Setbacks, external. Noted above, some flexibility from the strict setbacks is requested, in particular for Block 4 (36 feet to Willow Drive) and the southern drive (10 feet to the southern property line). Waivers from the external setbacks will be necessary to accommodate staff’s recommended changes to the project. FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Setbacks, internal. In a townhome development, property lines are generally established at the border of the building, with at least one building wall shared by the adjoining unit. In these developments, the primary focus is the distance between buildings, and the distances between the garage door and the street. The plans show a minimum distance of 10 feet between the sides of buildings. The distance between the house pad and the edge of the private street is 20 feet, which will allow parking without encroaching into the street. This configuration is similar to the Stonebay townhomes, though those driveways can be as short as 18 feet. The townhomes in Stonebay have a variety of side yard setbacks, with the smallest at 14 feet. Roads. The private road widths does not conform to the road width requirements for this number of units. For roads serving more than 6 units, 28 feet pavement width is required, they propose 24 feet. 28 feet allows for parking on one side, less than that does not permit street parking. The code does require 50 foot right of way, which is provided. Parking. The proposal includes 10 spots for visitor parking. This is in addition to the 2 staff garage parking and the driveway parking for each unit. There is no code requirement for visitor parking. Given the width of the private road, there will be no parking on the road. Building design. The applicant has provided drawings of the proposed buildings, attached as Exhibit C. Staff has advised the applicant that the buildings should convey the same ‘character’ as those in Stonebay: colors, materials, roof pitch, etc. Staff has some concern from a design standpoint on the orientation of Blocks 5-8. These blocks feature the garage door side of the structure facing out, toward Willow and Wayzata. Often these sides are the utility side of a structure, where the garbage and recycling cans are kept, etc. While the applicant proposes landscape screening, staff recommends flipping these blocks, so that the buildings face Willow and Wayzata, and the internal road be on the ‘inside of these homes, forming the edge of the internal open space. To do so, though, requires further waivers from the external setbacks. Staff recommends that the Commission support a waiver to permit these blocks to be no closer to 30 feet from Willow and 35 feet from Wayzata, provided these homes face these street (and the garage doors are to the rear. Landscaping. The proposal includes a landscaping plan that conforms to the standards outlined in the RPUD district. The landscaping plan is provided in Exhibit B. Utilities. Utility plans have been created and the city engineer has provided comments. Typically, the preliminary plat and Master Development plan approval is conditioned on City Engineer approval. The Watershed will also need to approve the stormwater management plan. Fire Review. The Fire Chief recommended an adjustment to the location of one of the hydrants. This requirement was incorporated into staffs comment letter, Exhibit F. FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 6 of 8 Fees. The following fees will be required to be paid at the time of final plat approval: Unit fee x Units = Total fee Stormwater Trunk Fee $ 8,490.00 3.69 $ 31,328.10 Based on acres Sanitary sewer Connection $ 5,380.00 37 $ 199,060.00 SAC fees also due at time of Permit Water Connection $ 4,370.00 37 $ 161,690.00 Park dedication $ 3,250.00 37 $ 120,250.00 Total Fees $ 512,328.10 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Staff has fielded a phone call with concerns about parking and density, but nothing in writing has been received. The applicant held a a neighborhood zoom ‘meeting’ to introduce the plan on February 11th. Issues for Consideration 1. The Commission should comment on the following: a. General Building design b. Waivers from the external setbacks c. Staff’s recommendation to flip blocks 2. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the 4 applications, subject to the following conditions 1. Met Council approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2. City Council approval of the zone change to RPUD 3. City Staff comments, Exhibit G 4. City Engineer comments are satisfied, Exhibit H 5. MCWD approval of the stormwater management plan List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Plan set dated Jan 20, 2021 a. Cover sheet b. Existing conditions c. Preliminary Plat d. Site Plan e. Grading Plan f. Filtration basin sheet g. Filtration basin sheet h. Grading profile FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 7 of 8 i. Erosion control j. Detail sheet k. Sanitary sewer and watermain plan l. Storm sewer plan m. Landscaping n. Landscaping details o. Photometric plan Exhibit C. Arch Renderings Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Open Space and Amenities Exhibit F. Buffer graphic Exhibit G. Staff comment letter Exhibit H. Engineer comment letter Exhibit I. PC Minutes from sketch Plan Exhibit J. Mailing information FILE #LA21-14 February 21, 2020 Page 8 of 8 Exhibit K. Exhibit L. Section 78-621 regulations References Stormwater documents THE RESERVE at TWIN LAKES TOWNHOMES DAVID WEEKLEY HOMES : MINNESOTA 31AUG20 SCHEME 1 SCHEME 2 SCHEME 3 SCHEME 4 Council Exhibit E C NORTH 1/ 8 ' ' = 1 ' - 0 ' ' C NORTH 1/ 8 ' ' = 1 ' - 0 ' ' C NORTH 1/ 8 ' ' = 1 ' - 0 ' ' 3 3 ROAD A R O A D A R O A D A P A R K W A Y KELLEY WILLOW DRIVE (PUBLIC R.O.W.) ( P U B L I C R . O . W . ) OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES ORONO CROSSINGS L E G E N D O P E N S P A C E A R E A E X I S T I N G P U B L I C S I D E W A L K P R O P O S E D 5 ' P U B L I C S I D E W A L K P R O P O S E D P R I V A T E S I D E W A L K * O V E R L A P W I T H O P E N S P A C E N O T E S C o u n c i l E x h i b i t F BLOCK 8 432 51 BLOCK 7 4321 BLOCK 6 4321 BL O C K 9 4 3 2 5 1 BL O C K 5 4 3 2 5 1 BLOC K 2 4 3 2 1 BLOCK 4 4321 BLOCK 3 3 2 1 BLOC K 1 3 2 1 OUTLOT A OUTLOT D OUTL O T B OUTLOT B OUTLOT C R O A D A ROAD A ROAD A 1-25-2021 ORONO CROSSINGS - BUFFER GRAPHIC Orono, MN Building Dreams, Enhancing Lives. WAYZATA BOULEVARD WI L L O W D R I V E N ARBORVITAE HEDGE SIZE: 8’ B&B SPACED: 5.25’ o.c. Council Exhibit G ORONO CROSSINGS ORONO, MN 2-16-2021 N Council Exhibit H Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 1 of 6 ORONO CROSSINGS Orono, Minnesota January 20, 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING, SITE PLAN REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY PLAT SUBMITTAL NARRATIVE DEVELOPMENT TEAM Applicant/Developer/Builder: David Weekley Homes, Aziz Siddiqui Civil Engineer: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Mark Rausch Surveyor: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Peter Goers Landscape Architect: Alliant Engineering, Inc., Mark Kronbeck SITE INFORMATION Legal Description (per County records): OUTLOT A, STONEBAY, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Abstract. Address: Unassigned per Hennepin County PID: 3311823110060 Total Acres: Per County Records = 160,851 sf / 3.69 ac DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Requesting approval of a residential subdivision consisting of 37 multi-family townhomes. Development application request includes: a comprehensive plan amendment, rezoning, site plan review and preliminary plat PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS AND REVIEW HISTORY The Developer previously made submittal to the City of Orono for concept plan review of the proposed development on the site. The City’s Planning Commission reviewed the initial concept plan submittal and made recommendation comments to the plan, the two major comments were: defining the desired perimeter setbacks and relocating the proposed private playground. The Developer modified the plan to address the Planning Commission comments prior to the City Council review. The City Council reviewed the revised concept plan submittal and suggested the plan be allowed to move forward to preliminary review but required the plan to provide a minimum of 37 homes or 10 units/acre. The development proposal as submitted does address all comments/suggestions provided to date from both Planning Commission and City Council. Council Exhibit I Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 2 of 6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION The development property has a 2040 Comprehensive Plan guiding land use identified as Urban High Density Residential which has a required residential dwelling unit density range of 20-25 units per acre. The proposed multi-family townhome development plan includes 37 units and results in a proposed density of 10.03 units/acre. The density as proposed falls within the limits of the City’s Urban Medium High Density Residential / Mixed Use guiding density range of 10-20 units per acre. The development proposal does require a comprehensive plan amendment that would convert the entire 3.69 acre development site area from Urban High Density Residential to Urban Medium High Density Residential / Mixed Use. ZONING DESIGNATION The development site is currently zoned (RR-1B PUD) One-Family Residential - Planned Unit Development District. The proposed development application includes request to rezone the full property to the City of Orono’s (RPUD) Residential Planned Unit Development District zoning. The RPUD zoning does allow for the proposed development of the site and is compatible and consistent with the City’s goals and objectives for the property. EXISTING SITE DESCRIPTION The development property is in the northeast quadrant of the Willow Drive and Wayzata Boulevard intersection. The property is currently undeveloped with no significant trees and primarily covered with an open grassy area. The property is 3.69 acres in size and bound by an existing regional stormwater pond to the west, Kelley Parkway to the north, Wayzata Boulevard to the south and Willow Drive along the east side. The site is adjacent to available public infrastructure including sanitary sewer, water main, storm sewer, stormwater management and roadways for servicing the proposed development. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PLAN It is the applicant’s intent to provide a residential development that will have a similar neighborhood look to the adjacent Stonebay development. As proposed, the new subdivision would transform an undeveloped parcel into new development consistent with the abutting Stonebay and offer a suitable transition from the commercial development along the Wayzata Boulevard corridor. The project includes 37 new multi-family townhomes on individually platted lots with a private roadway network. The plan provides building setbacks to the development perimeter as recommended by the City’s Planning Commission. A private playground is proposed central to the site in a location that attempts to address a suggestion by Planning Commission. The development has been designed with significant pedestrian connectivity both internally and to the external trails and walks. The internal walks Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 3 of 6 will be private sidewalks, but the development plan also proposes a new public sidewalk along Willow Drive. All proposed units have direct pedestrian connection to the private walkway system which is then ultimately connected to a public walk. The development lots will be part of a Homeowner’s Association (HOA) which will provide care and maintenance of the private site amenities and private infrastructure. The HOA will be responsible for all snow removal within the development. The following is a summary of primary project elements or site features currently proposed: • 37 townhomes with varied architecture and similar features to the Stonebay development. • Creation of open space including a private outdoor recreational area/playground for use by the development residents. • Provision of an extensive private walkway network within the subdivision providing connectivity of each unit to internal walks as well as the new public walk and trail adjacent to the site. • Creation of a new public sidewalk connection along Willow Drive from Kelley Parkway southerly to Wayzata Boulevard and to the existing trail. • Enhanced development landscaping with perimeter decorative fencing, masonry columns and monument signage. • Provision of supplemental guest parking to ensure adequate parking for guests of the development residents. • Provision of additional stormwater management to additionally mitigate the new development impervious surface. Market We believe that development and home style provides a very nice for sale townhome product that is affordably priced and will enable us to attract first time buyers and families with young children. We also believe we’ll attract divorced parents with full or part time children. Architecture The townhome architecture will follow a theme of Farmhouse, Contemporary Farmhouse elevation styles. The product will feature 9-feet main floor ceilings and 8-feet 2nd floor ceilings. Consumer choice will allow a mix of master bedrooms in the front of the home or in the rear of the home depending upon the home site choice. Stone or masonry accents on the front of the homes will be complimentary to the specific elevation theme. On these elevations, we are proposing using the following exterior cladding materials to maintain affordability for our targeted consumers: - Vinyl Siding – Front, Sides, and Rear - Hardi or LP Smartside Window/Door Trim – Front and Rear - Vinyl Window/Door Trim – Sides - Aluminum Soffit and Fascia - Stone/Brick Accents – Per Elevations - Asphalt Shingles Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 4 of 6 These materials are an affordable maintenance-free solution and provide our customers with the maximum value for their investment. To address potential elevation monotony issues, we ensure that the front elevations are not able to be selected on either side of one another or directly across the street from one another. We’ll employ a color consultant to create a series of color palettes with pre-selected color schemes to enhance the elevations, to address color monotony issues, as well as to create an integrated, diverse, and attractive streetscape. Development Plan Area Gross Acreage 3.69 acres Net Developable Acreage 3.69 acres Net Density (37lots) 10.03 units per acre Typical Unit/Home Dimensions Width 22’ min. Depth 53’ min. Setbacks as Proposed in Concept Primary Building to Wayzata Blvd 50’ min. Primary Building to Willow Drive 36’ min. Primary Building to Kelley Parkway 36’ min.* *(Small building corner encroachment to 34’ min.) Primary Building to West Property Boundary 30’ min. Primary Building to Internal Lot Line or Outlot 0’ min. Primary Building to Private Road or Parking 10’ min. Other Plan Details Proposed in Concept Open space area provided XXX sf (xx.x%) Minimum Primary Building Separation 10’ min Minimum Centerline Driveway Length 20’ min. Minimum Private Roadway Width 24’ wide back/back curb** **(+ a short median entrance road section at access to Kelley Parkway) Parking Summary Private Off-street Guest 10 - (stall dimension 9’x20’) Private Driveway (2/home) 74 Private Garage (2/home) 74 Total Provided Parking (Internal) 158 Stalls (4.3 stalls / unit) Public On-street No public parking allowed along development frontage to Kelley Pkwy Willow Dr or Wayzata Blvd. Site Access, Pedestrian Circulation Vehicular access from public right of way to the proposed development will occur via a proposed road access to Kelley Parkway. The development will be providing a 4’ walkway connection to every unit’s front door. The 4’ walks will then connect to either; a 4’ private walkway network within the development or to a proposed 5’ public walk along Willow Drive or to an existing public walk along Kelley Parkway. Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 5 of 6 Grading The existing site area will be re-graded to shape in the proposed roadways, building pads, common area and all required stormwater management storage. The site will be graded to match elevations at the site perimeter and to capture site drainage as able. The elevation changes necessary to provide drainage within the site and to maintain maximum walkway and driveway slopes, does mean there will be situations where some private walkway connections to homes will require private steps. The steps will be provided by means of 7” maximum height risers with railings when more than 1 step is needed. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain The proposed development will connect to the existing public sanitary sewer aligned along the south property boundary of the site. One new connection to an existing sewer sanitary manhole is proposed to service the entire development. The development will obtain water service via connection to an existing watermain stub provided to the site from Kelley Parkway and via an existing watermain stub provided from Willow Drive along the east plat boundary. The development will extend public utilities within the development under the private roadway. The public utilities will be contained within an outlot that will be fully covered by public drainage and utility easement. Stormwater Management The development site falls within the Minnehaha Creek Watershed Management Organization (MCWD) boundary and will be subject to stormwater management regulations of the MCWD and the City of Orono. The site abuts an existing regional stormwater management pond. The pond has been previously designed to accommodate some of the stormwater management requirements for the development site. The pond was been designed to provide rate control and water quality for development of the proposed site at an 85% impervious surface coverage. Since the existing pond was constructed, stormwater management regulations have been updated to also require a stormwater volume control component. The proposed development does propose a much lower amount of impervious surface at 59%, so the existing stormwater pond does have the rate control and water quality capacity for the development as proposed. A stormwater management plan is proposed for the site to provide volume control of stormwater runoff from most of the sites impervious surface via filtration. A primary filtration basin captures the private roadway and driveway runoff from the site prior to discharging to the existing pond. Two shallow filtration swales are also proposed along Kelly Parkway to filter roof top and sidewalk runoff on the north side of the site. The stormwater management plan provides the required treatment to address MCWD and City regulations and is consistent with the design approach of the recently constructed Orono Senior Housing project west of the Orono Crossing site. Wetlands No wetland area has been identified on the development site. Preliminary Development Request January 20, 2021 ORONO CROSSSINGS Page 6 of 6 Tree Preservation/Replacement Site does not contain any significant trees to remove. Landscaping and Amenities The project proposes a significant landscape plan including perimeter buffering and decorative fencing along ¾ of the development perimeter. Trees and plants are proposed along Willow Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard and at other key locations within the site to provide an appealing exterior view and for amenity within the site. Primary development monument signage is proposed at the southeast corner of the site, but the signage could possibly be located at the northeast development corner at the intersection of Willow Drive and Kelly Parkway – final location to be determined. A secondary monument is proposed within the private road median at the site’s entry from Kelly Parkway. The development plan does include a central common space area, in which, the applicant is proposing a private play area with benches that will be available to the Orono Crossing residents. TIMING/PHASING The Applicant will develop the project in one phase. If the City reviews and approves the requested preliminary development request, it is the Applicant’s desire to proceed with an application for Final Site Plan and Plat with hope of obtaining development approval in time to begin construction of the project in Spring/Summer 2021. CONCLUSION The applicant respectfully concludes that the proposed development offers a residential land use that is consistent with City’s goals and objectives for this area. The multi-family attached townhome subdivision will provide a unique housing option for the City of Orono. From:Ann Ackman To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com Subject:FW: Orono Crossings - Comments for the Planning Commission and City Council Date:Monday, February 15, 2021 11:38:42 AM Hello Jeremy; Thank-you for your responses. I am recapping my concerns here, and re-attaching my husband’s, Stu Ackman, concerns so that you have both of ours in the same place. We understand that there is a meeting tomorrow evening to discuss this proposal. The sidewalk running in front of the homes is only 5-6 feet from the front windows. This is not adequate to provide a measure of privacy. There needs to be attractive landscaping between the public and private sidewalks on Kelley Parkway and Willow Drive. At this point, there is none. Additional comment to Stu’s about flipping all units to face outward: I am sure that the residents will like that better, too, so as to have as much light on their main levels as possible. Thank-you, Ann Ackman Ann Ackman annackman12@gmail.com 612-360-4551 From: Stuart Ackman [mailto:stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:11 PM To: 'Jeremy Barnhart' Cc: Ann Ackman Subject: RE: Orono Crossings - Comments for the Planning Commission and City Council Hi Jeremy, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me yesterday. It was most helpful. I do have comments, as follows: 1.Units with garages facing outwards towards Willow and Hwy 112, should be flipped so their front entrances face Willow and Hwy 112. This is more attractive to the neighborhood and passersby. 2.Please insure that exterior building materials are the same or better than the StoneBay Ramblers and Townhomes. 3.The plan seems very compact, dense 4.Is there a way to relocate the access road further to the east, so that current Stonebay residents are not impacted by headlights? 5.Good landscaping is important. Thank you, Council Exhibit J Stu Stuart Ackman Ackman Commercial Realty 612-280-2325 (office and cell) From: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:41 AM To: 'stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com' <stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com> Subject: Orono Crossings Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 From:Ann Ackman To:"Stuart Ackman "; Jeremy Barnhart Subject:RE: Orono Crossings - Comments for the Planning Commission and City Council Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 11:48:33 AM Hello Jeremy; My husband, Stu Ackman, and I missed the meeting last night because we had the wrong time on our calendars. You did speak with Stu at length on Wednesday and his synopsis is in the previous email below. I have some additional comments/questions: What is the distance from the private sidewalks to the front windows of the family rooms? Those windows and sidewalks are at eye level, so there needs to be adequate distance (and shrubbery) to provide some level of privacy as people walk by. What sort of landscaping have you planned between the public sidewalks and your private sidewalks on Kelley Parkway? In general, I don’t think we’ve seen landscape elevations, with plans for trees and shrubs. Thank-you, Ann Ann Ackman annackman12@gmail.com 612-360-4551 From: Stuart Ackman [mailto:stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com] Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:11 PM To: 'Jeremy Barnhart' Cc: Ann Ackman Subject: RE: Orono Crossings - Comments for the Planning Commission and City Council Hi Jeremy, Thank you for taking the time to talk with me yesterday. It was most helpful. I do have comments, as follows: 1. Units with garages facing outwards towards Willow and Hwy 112, should be flipped so their front entrances face Willow and Hwy 112. This is more attractive to the neighborhood and passersby. 2. Please insure that exterior building materials are the same or better than the StoneBay Ramblers and Townhomes. 3. The plan seems very compact, dense 4. Is there a way to relocate the access road further to the east, so that current Stonebay residents are not impacted by headlights? 5. Good landscaping is important. Thank you, Stu Stuart Ackman Ackman Commercial Realty 612-280-2325 (office and cell) From: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:41 AM To: 'stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com' <stuart.ackman@ackmancr.com> Subject: Orono Crossings Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 From:Rose Anna Bradford To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Orono Crossing - Weekly plans - Comments regarding plans Date:Sunday, February 14, 2021 5:31:21 PM Jeremy, The David Weekly representatives held a neighborhood informational meeting last Thursday. The plans presented indicted the exit for Orono Crossing was relocated farther West along Kelley Parkway than the original plans previously submitted to the City for review. The current plans have the exit positioned in such a way that the vehicles headlights exiting the Orono Crossing will be directed at the StoneBay Community homes at the end of the Sandstone Lane and Circle. This area within StoneBay along Kelley Parkway is void of shrubbery and trees because the PUD for The StoneBay Community identifies this area as an emergency fire truck entrance. Having the Orono Crossing exit as shown on the current plans will devalue the property units at that end of StoneBay. Thirty Seven units, two vehicles within Orono Crossing will create a lot of traffic. According to the StoneBay PUD, the community cannot add shrubbery and trees to block the headlights that would shine into the homes along that end of the community. The StoneBay Community asks that the City consider having Orono Crossing move the entrance to the previous location farther East along Kelley Parkway causing the headlights to shine into the wetlands rather than into StoneBay homes. Thank you for your consideration. Rose Anna Bradford 612 201 3591 From:Michael Cox To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Orono Crossings Date:Saturday, February 13, 2021 11:27:47 AM Orono Crossings Orono Planning Commission: My concerns are to urge the proposed project developer to consider further refinements critical to meeting expectations of the community and in so doing will help them create a better, more salable and valuable overall development. Other design commentary are provided to be considered for added value for needed design development. The following are comments that were discussed by myself and others at our meeting with the developers on February 11, 2021. Exterior quality materials Materials for Orono Crossing need to be of a similar quality to that of the surrounding community’s. Stonebay and others are using Hardi Board cement siding rather than the developer’s proposed vinyl siding. Suggest using the similar quality siding especially considering development’s price point. Vinyl siding looks like replacement siding and can age a development’s appearance. Holistic residential design qualities The presented development has : -Access issues which require visitors for many of the proposed residences to park at the rear of the unit with no easy path to the only entry point at the front door except a long walk. -Similar side by side design of the same basic proposed unit repeated 27 times can provide a flat monotony of sameness and will magnify the scale of an individual unit to be compared to one big large connected entity which needs to be segmented in order to reduce it to a residential scale. Suggest the developer try to solve many issues simultaneously or holistically to : -integrate objectives by breaking down the unit clusters with more individuality of a unit including roof articulations, color and detail by activating the facades. -Considering the many garage doors provide windows in doors as a nice feature and as a symbol of occupancy . -Consider separating some of the unit clusters either in number or by design articulation. -Consider resolving the entry access issues with more direct routes to the entry or provide an additional entry door through garages whereby creating an additional feature and symbol of a homelike element on the exterior especially considering the price point of the proposed homes -The corner unit at Willow and Wayzata and all similar corner conditions needs to be uniquely designed as a corner unit to enhance this very very prominent viewpoint and image for the development. Integrating landscape features As further integration and resolution of residential scale, the developers of Orono Crossings should look to natural features to also soften monotony and continue to add scale and texture with careful selection of high and low trees, bushes and seasonal perennial planting beds selected by a qualified and skillful landscape designer/contractor. -We were shown a continuous arborvitae screen wall the developer was proposing along Willow and Wayzata which would screen the busy streets yet its monotonous scale will amplify more of the same repetitious elements as the housing units. It is well intended. We only ask to use some care in large segments of these natural elements with punctuations of other plantings to carry out their concepts. -The pedestrian pathways interconnecting the pathway loop along Willow could wrap around Orono Crossing and connect to the asphalt lower pathway surrounding the pond as an added feature around this development. -The center green space was also discussed and providing the experiences from Stonebay, it was suggested to reinforce the center green-space with more passive landscape and focused seating and less little used jungle gym element. Lastly, we appreciate this opportunity to help with suggestions to develop an adjacent community given our experiences and observations. Michael Cox AIA, A registered architect and resident of Stonebay From:Laurie Morgan To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:Laurie Morgan Subject:Orono Crossings Date:Saturday, February 13, 2021 7:46:01 AM Hi Jeremy, I am a current resident of the Stonebay Community and have lived here since 2005. My townhome is located along Kelley Parkway within the 1st section of townhomes farthest east.. I participated in the Microsoft Teams meeting with David Weekly Homes & Alliant Engineering last evening, Feb. 11th, it was very informative. I would like to take this opportunity to express a few concerns to the Planning Commission so they can be addressed at their March 8th meeting. 1) The plans indicate the entrance/exit into and out of Orono Crossings directly across Kelley from existing Rambler and Townhome residences. The headlights from the cars will shine directly into dens, bedrooms and kitchens of these homes when it is dark. I would like to respectfully suggest the entrance/exit be located farther east on Kelley in order to alleviate this issue. 2) I would like to suggest that the exterior of the units not be all the same color. Stonebay has many integrated exterior colors and the result is very complimentary to our Community as a whole. I think Orono Crossings can achieve the same look with various exterior colors. 3) Is there a possibility of Weekly building these units with altered roof lines or some kind of difference with the building frames so these units don't have the appearance of an apartment complex? Thank you for your consideration. Laurie Morgan 655 Sandstone Circle From:adv-ergo@bitstream.net To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Orono Crossings Date:Friday, February 12, 2021 4:10:46 PM Hi Jeremy, I live in Stonebay of Orono, right on Kelley Pkwy. Here’s how I feel about the proposed development at the corner of Willow and Kelley: I can see the builder has a long history and seems like a respectable outfit. The homes on paper look nice enough, but I wish they had some variety. I’m just not a fan of the cookie cutter, everything-the-same look. I like different colors and designs on townhomes, like an old Washington DC or Philadelphia street. I think the bigger issue is the number of homes. I realize the builder has to make a profit, but 37 units, each with two cars would equal 74 more cars at the corner of Kelley and Willow, and at the traffic light at Country Road 112. I know I’m not a traffic engineer, but that seems like it could be too much. Also, the development exit/entrance on the map is just over the top of a little blind area on Kelley. Maybe in addition to that entrance, have a right hand turn off of 112 into the homes, just immediately west of Willow, with a designated right turn lane, built using the developer’s budget. Thanks, Jeremy. Steve Noonan January 29, 2021 David Weekley Homes VIA EMAIL Attn: Aziz Siddiqui asiddiqui@dwhomes 7513 Maplewood Dr. Minnetonka, MN 55343 Re: Orono Crossings File # LA21-000014 Mr. Aziz, The City has received and completed its’ review of plans for the proposed development of Orono Commons. At this time, I’d like to offer the following comments based on this initial review. I note the project is proposed as a RPUD development. The RPUD code allows for certain flexibilities, but also includes its own standards. These comments are based on those standards and Staff’s anticipation of Council goals for the property. 1. Any preliminary plat approval will be subject to approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone change, and Master Development Plan approval. 2. MCWD approval of the plan is necessary and a conditional of approval. It is advised to obtain their approval as soon as possible. 3. Perhaps the biggest issue staff has concerns with (and anticipates Planning Commission and Council comment on) is the orientation of the garage side of the house toward Willow and Wayzata Blvd. It is recommended to reorient these buildings. Fronts of structures should face “out”. This is more consistent with the character of the Stonebay development to the north, where public faces are shown for public streets. I think that can be accomplished by having the road cut inside blocks 5-8. I prepared a rough sketch, showing the homes at about 36 feet setback from Willow and Wayzata that does not reduce the number of homes but provides for a more supportable orientation. I can recommend a waiver from the front setback for homes with a residential front. As shown, it is difficult to support as a RPUD. 4. Please provide a section drawing showing the elevation of Wayzata Blvd, the corresponding ditch, fence, arborvitae, access road, and building elevation. 5. Initial City engineer comments include: Streets 1.Sheet 4 depicts a road section with 24’ back of curb to back of curb however the city standard is 32’ from face of curb to face of curb for residential streets with over 10 units. 2.Sheet 3 depicts the width of out lot B, the roadway out lot, at 40’wide however the city standard requires a 50’ wide for a residential road. Council Exhibit K 3. Intersection will require a Street name sign conforming to the city standards. Storm 1. Sheet 5 depicts and emergency overflow route into the public ROW. Storm water should not be directed onto the public ROW. Utilities 1. Standard city utility detail sheets should be included in the final plan set. 2. All non-metallic pipe will require tracer wire 3. Final plans will need to have the profile view for sewer, water and storm sewer. Additional comments received related to engineering will be forwarded. 6. The fire chief recommends that the fire hydrant proposed for the east side of road A, at its intersection with Kelley Parkway, be shifted to the other side of road A. 7. RPUD development standards. The numbered items refer to the corresponding standard found in Section 78-626. Items in bold reflect requested changes or information. 1. Minimum area. As noted previously, while the area of this project does not meet the minimum standard, however combining with the Stonebay character would allow the zoning. 2. Uses. The proposed attached family dwelling units are a permitted use. 3. Sewer Availability. The project complies as it is proposed to connect to sanitary sewer. 4. Density. The 37 units on 3.69 acres equates to 10 units per acre, consistent with the proposed Urban Medium High residential land use. 5. Incentives. No financial incentives are requested or proposed. 6. Floor Area Ratio. Please prepare an exhibit that shows a FAR anticipated for the lots. 7. a. Setbacks b. Height. The proposed two story buildings are not expected to approach the 30 feet limit. I note that no waiver from the height limit is requested. c. Outside storage. A covenant will need to be provided that prohibits outdoor storage. 11. Private Recreational area. I note sheet 4 shows the 0.71 acre open space. 12. Single Ownership. Homeowners association documents will need to be prepared to management maintenance of the grounds, roads, play area, and other common features. 13. Signage. I note the plans show two monument signs. Please provide a detail of these signs. 14. Landscaping. The landscaping plan appears to meet the code requirements in terms of number of plants. The planting legend does not include plants labeled as WN. Please advise. Staff recommends an alternative to Arborvitae along the southern property line. (Another reason to reconfigure these homes). I note the comment about adding fencing along the south wall of the retaining all at the SW corner, the retaining wall in this area is 4 feet. 15. Architectural standards. Please provide further detail on the proposed homes, building materials, height, color palette. 16. Flexibility. The RPUD standards allow for flexibility from city standards, but it is important to understand where flexibility is requested. 17. Traffic studies. City Staff is not recommending a traffic study at this time. 20. Lighting standards. Please provide a detail of the lights proposed. I assume they are LED shoebox style. 21. Trails. A sidewalk is shown is shown, proposed along the west side of Willow Drive at 5 feet wide. This will connect to an existing trail along the north side of Kelley Parkway, which is 7 feet wide. This section should also be 7 feet wide. Additionally the County will install a trail along the south side of the property, in the County Rd ROW. Connections to this trail should be provided. I will be preparing a staff report for the Planning Commission the week of February 8th. If you would like to submit any changes to the plan or provide supplemental information, please provide no later than the February 8th. Please feel free to contact me at 952.249.4626 or by email at jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us if you have any questions on the above requirements. Sincerely, CITY OF ORONO Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Cc: Adam Edwards, City Engineer Mark Rausch, Engineer H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Orono Crossing\OronoCrossing_PrePlatReview_2021-02-03.docx February 3, 2021 City of Orono Attn: Jeremy Barnhart 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 RE: Preliminary Plat Application Orono Crossing Engineering Review #1 Dear Jeremy: As requested, I have completed an engineering review of the revised documents submitted for the above referenced project. We offer the following observations, comments, and recommendations for your consideration: 1. Three filtration basins are proposed on-site to meet regulatory requirements for stormwater runoff management. The following must be considered regarding stormwater management: a. Per City requirements, the proposed stormwater management system must limit proposed peak runoff rates to that of existing for the 1, 10, and 100 year – 24h hour events. Per NPDES MS4 requirements, the system must treat the water quality volume, calculated as 1” times the sum of new and fully reconstructed impervious surface. b. The Stonebay regional pond located to the west was constructed to provide rate control for stormwater runoff from this parcel. Due to rule changes since the pond’s construction though, additional measures must be installed to meet current State (NPDES) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) requirements limiting discharge of runoff volume and Total Suspended Solid (TSS). c. Even though the regional pond was constructed to provide rate control, the additional measures (filtration basins) are maintaining estimated peak runoff rates from proposed improvements to that of existing conditions for the site. d. Water quality calculations have been provided. Due to site soils not being conducive to infiltration, filtration has been provided, in addition to the detention in the regional pond, to treat the water quality volume. Proposed measures will remove more than the required 80% TSS load. e. The condition of the regional pond west of the site must be reviewed by the City and Contractor prior to any work. The pond bottom must be verified with survey prior to any work, and once work commences, the Contractor shall be responsible for removing any sediment added to the pond due to site construction. 2. Storm sewer has been adequately sized to accommodate runoff from the 10-year event. 3. Final Plans must include the following: a. Grading, Drainage, and Erosion Control Plan b. Street Construction Plan c. Utility Plan (profiles must be provided for sanitary sewer, water main, and storm sewer) Council Exhibit L Preliminary Plat Application Orono Crossing Page 2 H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Orono Crossing\OronoCrossing_PrePlatReview_2021-02-03.docx d. Landscape and Restoration Plan e. SWPPP meeting NPDES requirements 4. The following permits will need to be obtained and copies provided to the City conditional to City approval: a. Sanitary Sewer Extension Permit b. Water Main Extension Permit c. NPDES Permit for Stormwater Discharge d. MCWD Permit e. Hennepin County, Work in ROW/Utility Permit 5. The applicant will be required to submit a Maintenance Agreement for all stormwater management structures and facilities. The agreement must define maintenance responsibilities following completion of project, specify types and frequencies of inspection and maintenance activities, designate who will conduct inspection and maintenance activities, and outline reporting requirements. The Agreement will be recorded with the County per the City’s approval process. 6. The condition of Kelley Parkway and adjacent sidewalk must be reviewed by the City and Contractor prior to any work and verified with video or pictures. Any damage to the street or sidewalk after work commences shall be deemed to be caused by the Contractor and the Owner’s responsibility to repair. 7. All work within public right-of-way and connections to watermain must be coordinated with the City. Contractor must provide a minimum 48 hour prior notice. 8. Drainage and Utility Easements msut be provided as follows: a. Over all stormwater management facilities used to meet regulatory requirements. b. Over all sanitary sewer main. c. Over all water main and hydrants. d. All swales and piping providing drainage for multiple properties. 9. A sump manhole should be provided upstream of inlet to Filtration Basin #3 to provide pretreatment and maximize life of basin. Installation of a sump manhole would eliminate the need for a forebay and provide a cleaner looking design. 10. Retaining walls 4’ or greater in height must be designed by a licensed Professional Engineer. Wall plans must be submitted for review prior to construction. 11. The City requires a right-of-way width of 50’ and road width of 28’ from face of curb to face of curb for private residential streets serving more than 6 units. Plans should be revised accordingly. 12. Tracer wire must be installed with all non-metallic water main. 13. A street identification sign, stop sign, and stop bar will be required at the intersection with Kelley Parkway. 14. Standard City Details should be included with the Final Construction Plans. 15. The final location of fire hydrants, valves, and fire connections must be reviewed by the Fire Chief. Preliminary Plat Application Orono Crossing Page 3 H:\ORNO\_Surface Water Management\MS4 Administration\MCM-5_Post-Construction Stormwater Management\2_Site Plan Reviews\Orono Crossing\OronoCrossing_PrePlatReview_2021-02-03.docx If you have any questions or comments, please contact me to discuss. Sincerely, Bolton & Menk, Inc. Robert E. Bean, Jr., P.E. Water Resources Engineer CC: Adam Edwards, Director of Public Works / City Engineer From:Adam Edwards To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:RE: Orono Crossing Date:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 11:31:48 AM Jeremy, I believe the constraining factor is the distance of the proposed intersection from the intersection with Willow Drive. As such a left turn out of the proposed intersection is the most challenging. Kelley Parkway is a 30 MPH roadway so the design sight distance for a left hand turn from stop is 335 feet. The intersection should be no closer than 335 feet from the Willow intersection. Adam From: Jeremy Barnhart Sent: Wednesday, March 3, 2021 10:35 AM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Orono Crossing Adam, Public comments for the proposed Orono Crossing development have included concern with the location of the entrance road, and its potential to introduce headlights into these homes. Can you provide me with some guidance as to how far east (or the minimum distance from the intersection of Kelley and Willow) you would support the driveway shifting? Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 Council Exhibit M WAYZATA BLVD. WEST (COUNTY HIGHWAY NO. 112) PAR K W A Y KELL E Y W I L L O W D R I V E (P U B L I C R . O . W . ) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) (PUBLIC R.O.W.) R O A D A ROA D A ROAD A EXISTING ELEVATION 927.1 EXISTING CUL-DE-SAC EMERGENCY ACCESS FROM CDS ORONO CROSSING - DEVELOPMENT ACCESS EXHIBIT ORONO, MN Council Exhibit N From:Jason D Gottfried To:Jeremy Barnhart Cc:Ashley Morello; Timothy Bruers Subject:Orono Crossings proposed plat - HC staff comments Date:Thursday, March 4, 2021 10:27:56 AM Attachments:3 - Orono Crossings - CSAH 112.pdf Hello Jeremy, One of our team members saw the Orono Crossings plat on a recent planning commissionagenda, and in anticipation of our reconstruction of this segment of Wayzata Blvd, we wanted topass along the following comments for your team’s consideration: Access ·We recognize and appreciate the minimal impacts to Wayzata Blvd, with the guided siteaccess to Kelley Parkway Right-of-way ·It appears as though we have sufficient right-of-way already along this segment of CSAH112 (130’ full ROW). We do, however request a small ROW dedication in the shape of atriangle (pref. 25’ x 25’) for the corner (Willow Dr/Wayzata Blvd) for ADA/signalmaintenance needs/sight distance preservation Bike/Pedestrian ·We appreciate the developer’s inclusion of this sidewalk amenity along Willow Dr. Wesupport city’s preference of a 7’ sidewalk as opposed to 5’ ·Would the city/developer consider connecting the proposed internal sidewalk on westside of the site to the future Wayzata Blvd trail? We appreciate any further consideration Jason Jason Gottfried Transportation PlannerTransportation Planning Office: 612-596-0394 Cell: 612-719-8073jason.gottfried@hennepin.usHennepin County Public Works1600 Prairie DriveMedina, MN 55340(working remotely) Disclaimer: If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please immediately notify the sender of the transmission error and then promptly permanently delete this message from your computer system. Council Exhibit O AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 1. Purpose. Provide non-binding direction regarding a proposed development north of the Long Lake Fire Station and Community Garden. 2. Background. The subject property is a slender 1.71 acre parcel north of the Long Lake Fire Station and the city lot that houses the Community Garden. The applicant is seeking direction on a proposed development that would provide 12 townhome style residential units in 6 buildings. The proposal is consistent with the land use guidance for the property, Urban Medium Density Residential (3-10 units per acre). The 6 buildings front a new private road. The lots will be served by sanitary sewer and water. Future utility connections may require Long Lake approval. At this early stage in the sketch plan process, Staff had identified several foundational issues that have great impact on the design and use of the project, including: Zoning. There is no zoning district for this type of density, and the size of the parcel is not consistent with the RPUD minimums. The Commission supported granted the waivers necessary for an RPUD zoning, rather than create a new zoning district. Access. Originally, the plan for access for the areas surrounding the Fire Station included the public road, Rettinger Drive. The Planning Commission supported a direct access onto Willow. The applicant has revised his plan to accommodate this direction. The City Engineer supports the location as proposed. Stormwater management. Stormwater is typically managed on site. Due to the uniqueness of the parcel, the applicant wants the City ‘to keep an open mind’ on having some of the stormwater management facilities occur on the city lot. The Commission was generally reluctant, but agreed to keep an “open mind” as appropriate. Any use of property outside the control of the developer will require that property owners approval, easements, and Watershed district approval. Use. The Commissioners felt the twin home concept was appropriate for the area. Design standards. Commissioners did not add any additional design standards, other than those included in the RPUD zoning district. The attached staff report to the Commission (Exhibit D) provides additional analysis. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal on February 16th and provided direction, summarized above. A draft copy of their minutes is provided as Exhibit C. 4. Public Comment. No comments for or against the proposal have been received. Item No.: 27 Date: March 8, 2021 Item Description: LA21-000015 – William Stoddard o/b/o Miller Living Trust PID 34- 118-23-32-0002 – Sketch Plan Review Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: RJO 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff seeks Council commentary. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should review the approval resolution and adopt or amend. Exhibits A. Development proposal B. Elevation information C. Planning Commission minutes - draft D. Planning Commission staff report E. Sight distance information F. City Engineers comment RE access References Planning Commission Exhibits 2-16-21 N89° 25' 19"W 660.00 FT S0 0 ° 0 4 ' 1 5 " E 11 5 . 0 0 F T S89° 25' 19"E 277.02 FT S89° 25' 19"E 382.98 FT N0 0 ° 0 4 ' 1 5 " W 11 5 . 0 0 F T 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0002 Land Use Cat.: VACANT LAND Land Use Desc.: RESIDENTIAL Lot Area: 74,488.00 sqft (1.71 ACRES) Owner: MILLER LIVING TRUST 340 N WILLOW DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0050 Land Use Cat.: COMMERCIAL Land Use Desc.: MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL Lot Area: 88,862.00 sqft (2.04 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0051 Land Use Cat.: VACANT LAND Land Use Desc.: RESIDENTIAL Lot Area: 148,540.00 sqft (3.41 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 72 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-31-0077 Land Use Cat.: MISCELLANEOUS Land Use Desc.: TRANSPORTATION, AIR, RAIL, BUS Lot Area: 354,326.00 sqft (8.13 ACRES) Owner: BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 2400 WOODHAVEN DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 33-118-23-41-0004 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Building Area: 1844 sqft Lot Area: 248,292.00 sqft (5.7 ACRES) Owner: FORWARD REAL ESTATE LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Parcel No. (APN): 33-118-23-32-0002 Land Use Cat.: MISCELLANEOUS Land Use Desc.: TRANSPORTATION, AIR, RAIL, BUS Lot Area: 838,151.00 sqft (19.24 ACRES) Owner: BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 307 HARRINGTON DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0056 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Lot Area: 125,453.00 sqft (2.88 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 285 HARRINGTON CIR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0020 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Building Area: 1092 sqft Lot Area: 27,443.00 sqft (0.63 ACRES) Owner: DROEN, BRIAN M PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE WI L L O W D R N U.S. 12 RAILROADBRIDGE 66.00' (ROW) 11.00'44.00'11.00' 66.00' (ROW) WALL WOODEN AREA WALL 1 SHEET #: 3 REVISION #: W E S N VICINITY MAP 0 SCALE=1":60' 60 12030 0 1"2"12"14" 180 ft 3" EX I S T I N G S I T E P L A N 38 A D D R E S S U N A S S I G N E D O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 PA R C E L # : 3 4 - 1 1 8 - 2 3 - 3 2 - 0 0 0 2 AR E A : 7 4 , 4 8 8 . 0 0 s q f t ( 1 . 7 1 a c r e s ) 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 PARCEL #:34-118-23-32-0002 AREA:74,488.00 sqft (1.71 acres) LEGAL INFORMATION:THAT PART OF W 42 RODS OF SW 1/4 LYING N OF A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH AND 2263.8 FT N FROM S LINE THEREOF EX ROADS AND EX RR SUBDIVISION: - LEGAL LOT: - LEGAL BLOCK: - ZONING: - LAND USE CATEGORY: VACANT LAND LAND USE DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL OWNER NAME: MILLER LIVING TRUST OWNER ADDRESS:6766 FRANCE AVE S # 709 EDINA, MN 55435 DESIGNED BY: SCALE:1":60' DATE: FEBRUARY 2.021 Council Exhibit A N89° 25' 19"W 660.00 FT S0 0 ° 0 4 ' 1 5 " E 11 5 . 0 0 F T S89° 25' 19"E 277.02 FT S89° 25' 19"E 382.98 FT N0 0 ° 0 4 ' 1 5 " W 11 5 . 0 0 F T 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0002 Land Use Cat.: VACANT LAND Land Use Desc.: RESIDENTIAL Lot Area: 74,488.00 sqft (1.71 ACRES) Owner: MILLER LIVING TRUST 340 N WILLOW DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0050 Land Use Cat.: COMMERCIAL Land Use Desc.: MISCELLANEOUS COMMERCIAL Lot Area: 88,862.00 sqft (2.04 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0051 Land Use Cat.: VACANT LAND Land Use Desc.: RESIDENTIAL Lot Area: 148,540.00 sqft (3.41 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 72 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-31-0077 Land Use Cat.: MISCELLANEOUS Land Use Desc.: TRANSPORTATION, AIR, RAIL, BUS Lot Area: 354,326.00 sqft (8.13 ACRES) Owner: BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 2400 WOODHAVEN DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 33-118-23-41-0004 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Building Area: 1844 sqft Lot Area: 248,292.00 sqft (5.7 ACRES) Owner: FORWARD REAL ESTATE LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED Parcel No. (APN): 33-118-23-32-0002 Land Use Cat.: MISCELLANEOUS Land Use Desc.: TRANSPORTATION, AIR, RAIL, BUS Lot Area: 838,151.00 sqft (19.24 ACRES) Owner: BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 307 HARRINGTON DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0056 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Lot Area: 125,453.00 sqft (2.88 ACRES) Owner: CITY OF ORONO 66.00' (ROW) 285 HARRINGTON CIR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0020 Land Use Cat.: RESIDENTIAL Land Use Desc.: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE Building Area: 1092 sqft Lot Area: 27,443.00 sqft (0.63 ACRES) Owner: DROEN, BRIAN M PROPERTY LINE WALL PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE WI L L O W D R N BRIDGE 11.00'11.00'44.00' 66.00' (ROW) WOODEN AREA 24' WIDE ROAD STORM WATER POND 30.50' 3. 0 0 ' 24 . 0 0 ' 28 . 0 0 ' 40 . 0 0 ' 20 . 0 0 ' 44 . 0 0 ' (R O W ) PROPOSED DUPLEX (40' x 40') 1,600 sqft EMERGENCY VEHICLES ONLY ACCESS RAILROADUS-12 ≈1 2 0 . 5 0 ' TO R A I L R O A D ≈2 2 3 . 0 0 ' TO U S 1 2 ORONO FIRE DEPARTMENT 270 N WILLOW DR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0004 Land Use: RESIDENTIAL Building Area: 1260 sqft Lot Area: 166,399.00 sqft (3.82 ACRES) Owner: MILLER, RONALD E 275 HARRINGTON CIR ORONO, MN 55356 Parcel No. (APN): 34-118-23-32-0019 Land Use: RESIDENTIAL Building Area: 1250 sqft Lot Area: 17,860.00 sqft (0.41 ACRES) Owner: BEAM, KRISTOPHER 30.00'80.00'10.00'80.00'10.00'80.00'80.00'80.00'10.00'80.00'10.00'80.00'30.00' 24' WIDE ROAD STORM WATER PONDSTORM WATER POND ACCESS ROAD DI R T R O A D 24.00' 26.00' Lot: 1 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 2 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 3 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 4 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 5 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 6 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 7 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 8 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 9 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 10 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 11 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) Lot: 12 Area: 3,195 sqft (0.07 acres) S89° 25' 19"E 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' N89° 25' 19"W 45.00' N0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " E 71 . 0 0 ' S89° 25' 19"E 45.01' S0 0 ° 3 4 ' 4 1 " W 71 . 0 0 ' MAIN ACCESS PAVER BRICK ROUNDABOUT “OPENING 6 FT. WIDE ACCESS TO PARK." 24 . 0 0 ' 26.00' Ø60.00' Ø28.00' R4.00' TYP R30.00' Ø40.00' R4.00' TYP 24 . 0 0 ' 0. 5 0 ' CU R B 16 . 5 0 ' 11 . 0 0 ' R10.00' R10.00' 29.00'20.00'40.00'20.00'10.00'20.00'40.00'20.00'10.00'40.00'11.00'15.00'15.00'11.00'20.00'40.00'20.00'10.00'20.00'40.00'20.00'10.00'20.00'40.00'46.50'4.50' 0. 5 0 ' CU R B 2. 5 0 ' 6. 0 0 ' PR O P O S E D S I T E P L A N 38 A D D R E S S U N A S S I G N E D O R O N O , M N 5 5 3 5 6 PA R C E L # : 3 4 - 1 1 8 - 2 3 - 3 2 - 0 0 0 2 AR E A : 7 4 , 4 8 8 . 0 0 s q f t ( 1 . 7 1 a c r e s ) 2 SHEET #: 3 REVISION #: 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO, MN 55356 PARCEL #:34-118-23-32-0002 AREA:74,488.00 sqft (1.71 acres) LEGAL INFORMATION:THAT PART OF W 42 RODS OF SW 1/4 LYING N OF A LINE RUNNING PAR WITH AND 2263.8 FT N FROM S LINE THEREOF EX ROADS AND EX RR SUBDIVISION: - LEGAL LOT: - LEGAL BLOCK: - ZONING: - LAND USE CATEGORY: VACANT LAND LAND USE DESCRIPTION: RESIDENTIAL OWNER NAME: MILLER LIVING TRUST OWNER ADDRESS:6766 FRANCE AVE S # 709 EDINA, MN 55435 DESIGNED BY: SCALE:1":60' DATE: FEBRUARY 2.021 W E S N VICINITY MAP 0 SCALE=1":60' 60 12030 0 1"2"12"14" 180 ft 3" From:Bill Stoddard To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Additional Information Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 4:08:13 PMAttachments:PastedGraphic-1.png As we do not have a good twin-villa rendering ready at this time, here is what a three-unit would look like (however we desire twin-villas). We will not be able to have a new clean rendering in the next couple days for your sketch plan review. If we proceed we will for sure Jeremy. This is just an fyi “stocking stuffer” for your eyes Jeremy. This concludes our application unless more is requested by you. Bill Stoddard From:Bill Stoddard To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:Stoddard SketchPlan Application Date:Monday, January 25, 2021 3:50:06 PM Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.png Jeremy I am awaiting a clean front elevation for our proposed twin-villas for the property north of the Fire Station. Until they arrive this will be its holding card, and would complete our application at this time unless you desire anything additional or more details. Thanks for your consideration of our application jeremy! Bill Stoddard From:Brian Tutt To:Bill Stoddard Cc:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:RE: Recent Rendering of front of Proposed Twin-homes for Orono Date:Thursday, February 4, 2021 3:59:29 PM Attachments:image001.png Jeremy, Photo of proposed townhome is attached. Exterior material list LP Siding on front elevation. Vinyl siding on rear and sides Aluminum soffit and fascia Vinyl windows Steel garage door and front entry doors Asphalt driveways. Let me know if you have any questions, Brian Tutt President/Broker/Realtor T/C Homes Inc. 13501 Balsam Lane N. Suite 100 Dayton, MN 55327 www.tchomesMN.com C612-221-2704 From: Bill Stoddard <Bill@iBill.us> Sent: Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:22 PM To: Brian Tutt <btutt@tchomesmn.com> Cc: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Recent Rendering of front of Proposed Twin-homes for Orono Brian please forward DIRECTLY to Jeremy (the community development director of Orono) the rendering and recently revised proposed materials list for our application. For some reason it is condensing the photo I keep trying to forward and he gets "tall-skinny fantasyworld" pics to look at lol. I did really get a chuckle when Jeremy sent me what he got from me I have to admit, but I tried 3 times now. Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 7 OTHER BUSINESS 12. LA21-000015 WILLIAM STODDARD O/B/O MILLER LIVING TRUST, PID 34-118-23- 32-0002 (SE CORNER OF HIGHWAY 12 AND WILLOW DRIVE), SKETCH PLAN (STAFF: JEREMY BARNHART) Bill Stoddard, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. He noted this is a sketch plan or concept review and is the first step of a residential planned unit development. The proposed project is for 12 residential units in 6 twin-home style buildings; all buildings will face south in the linear configuration as shown on screen. The use and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comp Plan does guide this property for urban medium high density which is the 3-10 units/acre range. The 2030 Comp Plan had this property as higher density with 10-20 units/acre, and the committee suggested reducing the density because it did not seem appropriate to put that much density on a relatively small piece of property with no other density around it. Access to this project is via public road that terminates at the southeast corner of the fire station lot; they are proposing a private road that connects there and feed the new private road that runs along the front of the buildings. This is one issue Staff wanted the Planning Commission to provide feedback on. Barnhart pointed out a parcel called outlot H which is a City owned property and currently houses a community garden. The City Council had expressed concern from encroaching development on that issue previously and extended the license agreement for the community garden. This proposed road will not impact the garden other than that it will be a road nearby, and will require Council authorization for an easement; they are looking for Planning Commission and City Council feedback on that issue as it impacts the development of this site. The alternative to this driveway route is a direct access onto Willow Drive. Staff has concerns from an engineering and planning perspective because a driveway here is relatively close to a bridge over the railroad and Highway 12 and there is some concern from a sight/visibility standpoint. They are trying to keep that intersection away from the bridge as much as they can and that is why Staff supports the configuration as shown. An easement will be necessary through the City property. Typically, when transitioning from a public road to a private driveway or road they look for some sort of cul-de-sac so they can prevent people from driving on the private road; they also look for feedback on that. Putting a cul-de-sac at the eastern terminus of Redinger Drive it will impact more of the City lot there and feedback would be appreciated. Barnhart said this property is 1.7 acres and is not big enough to be considered its own R-PUD, so the City Council and Planning Commission would have to support waivers from the very beginning for this to be developed as an R- PUD because it does not meet the 5-acre size requirement and none of the adjacent properties are zoned R-PUD so this could not be considered an extension of that. The other option is to create a zoning district for this parcel; they could create their own standards for a project of this scope on the property and Staff looks for feedback on that. The benefit of creating a new zoning district is they can create all their own standards, establish the setbacks, establish things from a regulatory standpoint. Barnhart would not recommend tailoring or adjusting the standard of an existing zoning district and rezoning it to the same RR1A, for example, as it introduces problems down the road for those existing subdivisions. He does not recommend the third option that he outlined in the memo. He provided some preliminary comment on the R-PUD analysis on page 3 of the memo and mentioned the minimum size for the project is not 5 acres. The uses, multi-family residential is permitted only when consistent within areas of the City designated as urban in the Comp Plan. Regarding the project before, that property was originally guided as commercial; this property has not been guided for commercial, nor is it on Highway 12 so some of the other options are not available. The property is anticipated to be sewered but do not expect it to be designed at this stage. The floor ratio has to be above .5 and no higher than 1and Staff has not done the Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 7 calculations as they do not have final plans but anticipate it to be less than the ratio of 1. R-PUD requirements are 35 feet from the local street, 50 feet from a railroad, 35 feet from the exterior side lot lines, and parking and driving lanes are to be 20 feet from the exterior lot lines. Barnhart said this lot is very long and narrow so meeting those setbacks is somewhat challenging, therefore waivers will be necessary for any type of development of any scale. The property shows 21 feet from these buildings to the north property line and the drive is 10 feet where it is supposed to be 20 feet. The R-PUD zoning district requires 10% private recreational area and none is shown on this project and that will factor in to how this project lays out and Staff will look for feedback on that. A private road is proposed along the front of the buildings and will serve each unit; the road shows a termination into a cul-de-sac, which is really just a widened area of the road and not wide enough to be considered a cul-de-sac. The Planning Commission should provide feedback on the cul-de-sac size and right-of-way width. The end of each of these is driveway and there is really no opportunity for Amazon trucks or other utilities to turn around within that private driveway. The Applicant has requested feedback on the expectation for storm water management; the preliminary plan shows 3 ponds on the property that are intended to provide for storm water management. Barnhart said the site drains to the east and to the south so it seems like a potential for a regional storm water pond on the City property. Staff’s expectation of storm water management is that it would occur all on-site, but look for feedback as requested by the Applicant. The developer has provided elevation of potential buildings which suggests two-story buildings with residential-style pitched roofs. The Planning Commission is asked to provide feedback regarding expected design styles. Barnhart said this is kind of an early stage of an R-PUD project and normally they will review a project 2- 3 times before something really sticks in terms of a proposal so they really understand the Planning Commission and City Council’s goals for that property. This is the first application Barnhart is aware of for this property since 2012 which was a high-density subsidized project which the Council did not support. Barnhart is anxious to hear the Planning Commission’s feedback on the zoning, the access, the storm water management, the use of the property, and the design standards. The Planning Commission can either provide the Applicant the feedback and invite him to move forward to the City Council, or ask him to address those comments in a new plan that the Planning Commission would review at a sketch plan level. McCutcheon asked the current zoning. Barnhart replied RR1B which is the 2-acre zone. McCutcheon asked what it is guided for. Barnhart noted urban medium density, which is 3-10 units/acre. A change to the zoning must occur to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. McCutcheon asked for the history on the high density and what the complaint was. When he looks at it, it is right against the highway, why wouldn’t they consider a high-density apartment building in this spot. Barnhart does not think this site is big enough to support a higher density than that. To do an apartment building it would likely require use of the City outlot A, and whether it was intentional or not, the City Council did not want to include development of the City lot for that. He said it is still guided for that, but not guided for high density. McCutcheon does not know if the community garden has a high utility but if it does, he can see the City Council’s reluctance to put high density there. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 7 Bill Stoddard, 440 3rd Street, Excelsior, approached the podium. He appreciates the Planning Commission’s time in giving feedback on this application and noted it is a very unique site; he is a smaller developer than some of the other parties seen today and he has done things such as a 172-unit apartment building, assisted living facilities, and in downtown Excelsior the 10-brick row-houses, and the 18 twin villas. He has heard some historic comments and has lived in Orono for 20 years and is still in the same zip code in Excelsior, he was on the Planning Commission for 7 years in the 1990’s. Barnhart told him he could remind the Planning Commission of the times in the past, but not keep them here until, 1:00 a.m. like they did with Spring Hill. He noted this is a very funky site and he has it under purchase agreement, he has talked to a number of builders, some said no way, it’s right on the highway, guided for residential. He said Barnhart laid out some of the comments and feedback and Mr. Stoddard noted it is right on the highway and looks at boat storage. To make the site even have a chance of working, they first proposed having the access right off of Willow Drive, and that was massaged and changed with City Staff. That doubles the length of road they have to put in, and still may probably be a deal breaker for the Planning Commission. Another comment is having a cul-de-sac and two 90-foot cul-de-sacs at each end of the property line, which are designed so fire trucks can turn around. He said this is right on the fire station property and they have worked with fire departments in the past to see where they can place fire hydrants; this project cannot support three 90-foot cul-de-sacs. Mr. Stoddard was told when the fire station went in there, their storm water was designed for the size of their building. However, he would ask the City to allow them to engage that ownership to see if they can enlarge that storm water and pipe some of it to that site. That would leave some drier land for him to have some recreational land. He requested some green light/red light about talking to neighboring properties about increasing that. Bollis looks at this and prefers the access to be off of Willow Drive; he recognizes it is close to the overpass but he would be favorable of a variance for a side yard setback for that road so it could be closer to the fire station and farther from the overpass. That way they don’t have to use the really nice vacant City lot for access of this private development. In fact, that vacant lot looks like it might be a good place for a municipal building instead of across the highway on Old Crystal Bay Road. He believes the access should be within its own site and they have less storm water to worry about. The cul-de-sac issue, the City has required cul-de-sacs for two private homes on 10 acres, so it is hard to say they would not require a full cul-de-sac for this. Regarding storm water, Bollis feels it should be on site, especially if the road can be on site. He feels like extending fire station road through kind of ruins this lot where the community garden is for any potential future use the City may need it for. Ressler asked Barnhart if they have any feedback from the City Council as far as what the eventual use of that City lot will be. Barnhart said it is the Community Garden and he thinks if they asked the City Council today, they would say the future use of that property is a Community Garden; he does not think there are plans or support to change that. Ressler asked if this creates an opportunity to provide a roadway that makes it a little more accessible where there might be some street parking for people who actually go visit the Community Garden…he said it is an open-ended question. Is there a place they could have a water feature that could give some relief to storm water. He was born and raised in Orono and he doesn’t know what he has even visited the Community Garden, but if there is street parking maybe it makes it a bit more approachable. He sure likes this location a lot better than the last application they were trying to circumvent. Ressler agrees with Bollis, he is not entirely against going directly on to Willow Drive, because of the number of units and he MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 7 knows any road gets busy during certain times of the day but Willow Drive certainly has a lot less traffic than the other side. Kirchner said specific to the zoning, he thinks they get into the weeds a bit to create their own individual zoning district for this specific parcel. He thinks it would be easier to find a plan they agree with and then grant the waivers for that plan as proposed rather than trying to create specifics for one parcel and zone it differently. Barnhart appreciates that comment, and said they have to give some guidance; when the project does not fit any zoning district, what guidance can they give. He said they should find something they like and create an ordinance for it. That opens them up to big problems down the road so he wants to give them some guidance on what they are working towards. Kirchner said that is understandable. As far as access, he agrees that there is a bit of a burden to extend fire station drive to the Applicant across the City parcel. He agrees that Willow Drive is perhaps suitable, although traffic engineering and study counts would need to be done. He has a bit of concern for the twin-home use and asked if the driveways are 10 feet instead of 20 feet. Barnhart clarified it is the setbacks. Kirchner said in looking at the drawing he has some concern for turn around with the service vehicles, he would imagine snow gets pushed to those two end cul-de-sacs which could cause issues for larger vehicles to turn around in the winter months. Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission supports access off of Willow Drive, this one cul-de-sac goes away so now they would just have one at the far side. Ressler asked the Planning Commission how they feel about the zoning. Do they feel the massing is the right density? He has heard comment about considering a higher density that creates some opposition and was addressed by Staff. He asked if anyone has a problem with the density here assuming they can meet all the standards for parking requirements. McCutcheon noted it is guided for urban medium and asked what that is defined as. Barnhart replied it is 3-10 units/acre. McCutcheon asked what this is proposed. Barnhart replied 7 units/acre. His question on zoning is more related to the mechanism to provide guidance for setbacks, design standards, and things like that. He asked if the Planning Commission is open to the number of waivers identified through the R-PUD analysis included in his Staff memo or would they prefer to pursue creation of its own zoning district. He believes Kirchner suggested the R- PUD is probably the way to go rather than creating its own zoning district. Kirchner clarified that was his feedback – he believes the R-PUD is better than the Planning Commission trying to carve out their own zoning district for one specific parcel in the City. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 7 Bollis agrees with R-PUD, as well. He said Barnhart is comfortable with this even though it is not allowed to be an R-PUD because of acreage, is there a mechanism where the Planning Commission can make it an R-PUD. Barnhart replied yes. Ressler asked if there is any opposition to the R-PUD. He is hearing none. He asked to talk about access. Barnhart has heard pretty consistently that they are open to an access directly off Willow Drive. Ressler does not have a problem with that and asked the Planning Commission if anyone has a problem. Erickson does. He has walked that from his office to chamber meetings at the fire station and when you are that close to the bridge, there are sightline issues. He can understand why that was problematic previously and thinks it is much safer to do the way it is shown. Similarly, to backtrack on density, he does not have any problem with it as shown here; however, he does have some concerns about all three of the cul-de-sacs that are substandard. He would be more comfortable if at least the middle one was closer to a standard size. He does not know how it will work out with storm water, either. Adding a cul-de-sac and digging for storm water may result in losing a unit. McCutcheon said as far as setbacks, his guidance would be to reduce hardcover as much as possible. He does not know if there is an opportunity to move the street closer than they normally would to a property line, especially since there is a fire parking lot right there. Anything they can do to achieve space and save hardcover. As it is drawn on screen besides the cul-de-sac, he asked what the setback is from where the road is. He clarified his question is how far is the road from the property line. Barnhart said it is about 10 feet. He has heard pretty consistent feedback with the exception of Erickson on the access location. He noted these five questions guide further refinement of the plan. If the Planning Commission can agree that access off Willow is preferred, great. He has heard from most of them that storm water should be managed on site. Ressler noted there is one Commissioner opposed to access via Willow and asked if anyone else feels that way. None of the other Commissioners felt that way. Ressler said regarding the storm water situation, he does not feel qualified to answer that. Bollis’ opinion on storm water would be if they are accessing through the site on Willow Drive, it should all be within the site. If they demand that they access through a City lot and there is a lot of hardcover on that road, they may be able to use storm water on that City lot, as well. He said that is one more reason to have access on Willow. Libby said in looking at the available area at the Willow Drive access, if that is properly radiused with an apron in either direction, he thinks there is more than adequate safety. He just drove by today and did not have any visibility problems during the day. He asked the developer if he has any plans for a Home Owners’ Association (HOA) within this development. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 7 Mr. Stoddard replied yes, this would be HOA controlled, so storage and lawn care will be regulated by the HOA. Libby’s main reason for asking is to find out how snow removal would be handled, not only on the thoroughfare to access the radiuses to turn into the garages, but if this other proposal for an access road. How would that be maintained with snow removal? Mr. Stoddard said they will have to prove that they can store the snow there or will have to prove them have a storm management plan to remove the snow in the events of large snowfall. He said they have been successful at doing that in their projects. The feedback received to extend across Willow Drive is wonderful, which gets them down to one cul-de-sac that meets those conditions. Libby thinks the access to Willow Drive would be the most practical from a management standpoint, whether it is an association with owners paying for snow plowing as part of their HOA dues. It sounds like Mr. Stoddard has plenty of track record at managing snow removal. He would be in favor of the Willow Drive access. Ressler said regarding storm water it sounds like it could be managed on site, especially if it is proposed to access on Willow. He moved on to use and said the Planning Commission has already covered it and thinks it is reasonable for the twin homes, especially as they have talked about finding ways to increase some density in different parts of the City. He is completely in support of that. He asked if anyone is opposed. No Commissioners were opposed. Ressler moved on to design standards and noted they are on a preliminary sketch so they have not gotten into a whole lot of detail. He does not think anyone is offended by how the design would be. Libby asked the developer if he has considered a development of detached townhomes rather than the twin home design and is it because of the economics of building two houses at one time. Mr. Stoddard noted their first go was detached HOA town homes and they could not get the density to make it work. He said it is very preliminary on the twin homes designs. He added regarding storm water that the Planning Commission would like to keep it on site, noting they have not done all the calculations and knowing how much that is going to be. He would like to ask the Planning Commission and Barnhart to keep an open mind as he has had discussions with the water shed district and they are absolutely fine if they brought it off site, for example, to the fire station. It is the ownership of that who would have to permit and it is all about the quantity of the storm event. He asked the Planning Commission to keep that crack open in case 1/3 of this needs to be for storm water if that is what the calculations show. Ressler noted this early on, he does not see anyone opposed to the design standards. He asked for feedback again regarding Willow Drive as the access point. McCutcheon had to make a compromise because he wants to reduce the hardcover and having huge cul- de-sacs everywhere; as long the City Engineers or whoever approves it says it is safe to turn on Willow, he is fine with it. Whatever the utility garden space will be 10 years from now, not having a road there is nice as it opens up options. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION Tuesday, February 16, 2021 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 7 Ressler has not walked the property but wonders if there is the possibility of future access to Holbrook Park there. McCutcheon wonders if the Parks Board should chime in on access to that lot as that is great feedback. Mr. Stoddard said the interesting thing is the little bit of property above the subject site and above the park is owned by MnDOT. He has a request in to purchase that and they like the request but it will take about 18 months to get back with a decision. It was extra, leftover land and the thoughts were to connect the site to the park through there. He noted they could always do one on the south, as well, and will propose it in one or the other of the areas. Libby asked if they would create a rain garden or what the methodology with the storm water will be. Mr. Stoddard said the storm water will take a significant area and that is why he is asking for openness to see if they can get access to do more on the south. They had three storm water/rain gardens on the site plan already and would like some kind of central feature and having a water feature around that. He noted in Village Lane there is a road with a T and all driveways and sidewalks are paver bricks, and there is a 50-foot roundabout in the middle that is authentic cobblestones. They were thinking about some kind of feature similar on this project, as well. He thanked the Planning Commission for their feedback. Ressler thinks Mr. Stoddard’s request for the Planning Commission to keep an open-mind on the storm water has been heard and he does not think anyone has a strong opinion one way or the other. Bollis said if they are talking about using a City lot for a portion of the storm water, they should be thoughtful of the future development of the City lot for City purposes and what sort of storm water management they would need for that lot. That is why he would be hopeful that it could all stay on site, either by reducing hardcover or density. Barnhart noted they are just looking for very high-level comments. Every time there is a sketch plan, the Planning Commission provides their wishes and goals. The Applicant chooses whether to apply those to a new plan or not. Barnhart’s final question is does the Planning Commission prefer to see the resulting sketch plan based on the comments given regarding access, storm water, use, before moving it forward. Ressler said the majority is open-minded to looking at what it would be as proposed from Willow Drive and they probably do not want to move forward yet as it is pretty preliminary, but to see a proposed plan that shows access from Willow, and a storm water plan. Barnhart said the Planning Commission can comment on it and move it forward and the City Council will see the sketch plan based on their feedback. Or they can suggest the Applicant apply the Planning Commission’s comments as another review for the sketch plan. Personally, Bollis is fine moving this to Council as a sketch plan with the feedback. Ressler is not opposed to that. Erickson would be comfortable moving it on to the City Council. To: Chair Ressler and Planning Commission Members Ron Olson, Interim City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Date: February 16, 2021 Subject: #LA21-15, William Stoddard o/b/o Miller Living Trust PID3411823320002 Sketch plan review Background The subject parcel is a long and narrow parcel 1.71 acres in size immediately north of the Long Lake fire station at 340 Willow Drive North. The subject property is guided for urban medium high density in the 2040 Comprehensive plan, which suggest densities in the 3-10 units per acre range. The project is the first formal development proposal for the subject parcel in several years. In 2010, the property was included in the CommonBond proposal (Case 10-3460). That project included development of the adjacent city lot immediately to the east of the Long Lake Fire Station and was ultimately withdrawn by the applicant. Proposal Use The proposed project is for 12 residential units in 6 twin home type buildings. All buildings face south in a linear configuration. The use and density is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Access This site is adjacent to the Long Lake Fire Station, and when that site was platted (Willowfire, 2002), it was anticipated that the new public road (Rettinger Driver) would provide access to ‘future development’. While the subject parcel is not part of Willowfire, staff has supported the connection to this road, in part to be consistent with the long term plan for the area, and in part to move a street intersection away from the bridge over Highway 12, which presents some safety concerns. To develop as proposed, an easement for access over a portion of the city lot (Outlot A) will be necessary. The history of the Fire Station lot is provided as Exhibit H. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting sketch plan comment on a proposed development on a parcel of land immediately north of the Long Lake Fire Station at 340 Willow Drive. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends feedback on 5 variables: (Zoning, Use, Access, Stormwater, and Design. The Commission may table action to allow the developer to address comments made. Council Exhibit D FILE #LA21-15 February 16, 2021 Page 2 of 5 Outlot A currently includes the community garden. The drive easement and improvements will likely need to include either a surmountable curb and/ or parking spaces to support users’ access to the garden. The Commission should discuss whether a conforming cul de sac is appropriate at the eastern terminus of Rettinger Drive. Typically, the city does require a cul de sac at the end of a public road when connecting to a private road. Zoning The property is currently zoned RR-1B, which does not permit twin homes, duplexes, or the density prescribed by the Comprehensive Plan. There are two options available to support the goals of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Rezone the property to an RPUD, which allows for flexibility from strict zoning rules in favor of a project that meets other city goals, or 2. Create a new zoning district. A third option, amend an existing zoning district to allow the project is not recommended as it may have unintended impacts to existing neighborhoods. Commonly, for higher density projects, the site is rezoned to RPUD. To do so for this project, several waivers will need to be supported, summarized in the table below. The purpose for the RPUD zoning district includes: Sec. 78-621. - Purpose. The purpose of the residential planned unit development (RPUD) district is to provide a district which will allow for the implementation of certain residential housing goals established in the 2000—2020 Orono Community Management Plan ("CMP" or "comprehensive plan"). The RPUD district is established to accommodate the densities and types of residential development contemplated in the CMP by incorporating the principles of the planned unit development concept. The RPUD district will encourage the following: (1) Flexibility in land development and redevelopment in order to utilize new techniques of building design, construction and land development; (2) Provision of housing to meet lifecycle, and affordable and moderate cost housing needs; (3) Energy conservation through the use of more efficient building designs and sitings and the clustering of buildings and land uses; (4) Preservation of desirable site characteristics and open space and protection of sensitive environmental features, including steep slopes, poor soils and trees; (5) High quality of design and design compatible with surrounding land uses, including both existing and planned; (6) Sensitive development in transitional areas located between different land uses and along significant corridors within the city; and (7) Development which is consistent with the comprehensive plan. FILE #LA21-15 February 16, 2021 Page 3 of 5 As a RPUD, the Commission and Council may grant waivers from certain standards, in favor of a project. The development standards found in Section 78-626 of the Code are summarized in the table below: Section Standard Conforming? 1 (1) Minimum area: 5 acres or tied to adjacent RPUD No. The parcel is 1.71 acres 2 Uses. No. Multifamily residential permitted use “only when consistent within the areas of the city designated as urban area in the comprehensive plan. 3 Sewer availability Yes. Sewer is available and the density is greater than 1 unit per 2 acres 4 Density. Each development in the RPUD district shall have a density within the range specified in the comprehensive plan for the specific site. Yes. 5 Incentives. The city may utilize incentives to encourage the construction of projects which are consistent with the city's housing goals. None requested 6 Floor Ratio, up to 1.0 To be determined 7a Setbacks. 35’ from local street, 50 ‘ from Railroad, 35’ from exterior side lots. Parking and riving lanes 20’ from exterior lot lines. No. 21’ from north property line, 10 feet for the drive, 30’ from Willow, and 30’ from the east property line. 7b Height, stories, roof style To be verified, expected to conform 7c Outside storage Yes. None proposed. 11 10% Private Recreational Area (Active and/or Passive) No private recreation identified. 12 Common Ownership Assumed 13 Signage Signage plans not developed 14 Landscaping Landscaping Plans not yet developed FILE #LA21-15 February 16, 2021 Page 4 of 5 15 Architectural Standards Final plans not developed 16 Flexibility from standards Allowed and requested 17 Traffic Studies Not suggested 18 Building Permits Expected 19 General regulations applicability Expected 20 Lighting No. Lighting plan not yet developed 21 Trails No Sidewalks or public walks proposed Roads/ Drives A private road is proposed along the front of the buildings, serving each unit. This road will terminate in a pseudo cul de sac at each end. These cul de sacs are illustrated with a diameter of 40 feet, the city code requires a 50 feet radius (100 feet diameter). It is not clear of the road size offers any turn around benefit. The right of way width proposed is 45 feet, the requirement is 50. The private road is shown at 24 feet paved width, which is consistent with the City Code for private roads serving 6 or less units. The Planning Commission should provide some feedback on the cul de sac size, and the right of way width. Utilities The project can be served by municipal water and sewer. There is sanitary sewer approximately 330 feet south of project site, in the city lot. A water main is located along the subject property, in the Willow Drive ROW. Utility plans are not expected at this stage. Stormwater The proposal shows three conceptual stormwater ponds located at the East, West, and north portions of the property. While engineering is not requested at this time, the applicant has requested feedback on the expectation for stormwater management: on site, or partially off site (Exhibit E). While the adjacent city lot includes a low area wetland and may be suitable for stormwater management improvements, it is not clear from the history that the city lot was planned to accommodate stormwater from the subject parcel. The Planning Commission should confirm their expectation. It is assumed that the storm water management facilities will be maintained by the association; that assumption should also be verified. Density The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for 3-10 units per acre. The proposed 12 units fits within that range. (7 units per acre) Design The developer has provided elevations of potential buildings. These elevations suggest two story buildings with residential style pitched roof. The Planning Commission should provide some feedback regarding the expected design styles. Staff would recommend high quality materials including brick or stone in earth tones, at minimum. FILE #LA21-15 February 16, 2021 Page 5 of 5 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. As a sketch plan, public comments are not expected. Analysis. There is a fair amount of work necessary to continue review. However, given the variables present that impact development on this site, staff felt it appropriate to get Planning Commission feedback prior to moving forward. These variables include: Zoning. Does the Commission support the waivers necessary to rezone to RPUD, or does the Commission support creating a new zoning district, with its own development standards, etc.? Access. Does the Commission support the access location as proposed? Stormwater. Does the Commission anticipate stormwater to be managed on site. Use. Does the Commission support the intended use of the property for twin homes? Design Standards. Does the commission have any feedback relative to the design of the buildings? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests feedback on the variables referenced above. The Commission may elect to table action on this request until the developer addresses Commission comments. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Site Plan Exhibit C. Elevation information Exhibit D. Location Map Exhibit E. Applicants Narrative Exhibit F. Hardcover information Exhibit G. Comment Letter Exhibit H. Fire Station History 1 | Page Willow Drive Villas, Orono, MN February 27, 2021 To: Stoddard Companies From: Vernon Swing, PE Re: Sight Distance Review for Willow Drive Villas, Orono, MN Per your request, Swing Traffic Solutions, LLC has reviewed the proposed access location for the 12-unit townhome project located to the north of the Fire Station on the east side of Willow Drive N. The proposed access would be approximately 60 feet north of the northern fire station access, and approximately 100 feet south of the bridge abutment for the Highway 12 overpass. Willow Drive N is signed for 30 mph in this location and includes one 12 foot travel lane and one 8 foot shoulder in each direction. This review is focused on the sight distance at the proposed access and whether it conforms to State standards. To determine the sight distance at the proposed site access a field review of the existing conditions was conducted on February 22, 2021. This review indicated the proposed access has more than 500 feet of sight distance to the north and south. This measurement was compared to the MN State standard in the Tables below. Council Exhibit E 2 | Page Willow Drive Villas, Orono, MN The first Table indicates that for a vehicle turning left from the access to Willow Drive N the minimum sight distance needed to safely execute this maneuver (for 30 mph road) is 335 feet, and the second Table indicates the safe sight distance required to turn right out of the access onto Willow Drive N is 290 feet. The measure sight distances exceed the minimum standards indicating there is sufficient sight distance to safely access the proposed site at the identified location. The identified access location for the proposed Willow Drive Villas has sufficient sight distance to safely ingress and egress the site. Please contact Vernon Swing at vswingtraffic@gmail.com or 612-968-4142 with any questions. From:Adam Edwards To:Jeremy Barnhart Subject:RE: Traffic Engineer"s Opinion Letter for Sight Distance Review for Willow Drive North Development Date:Monday, March 1, 2021 11:01:35 AM Attachments:image001.png Jeremy, As described the access would be on the south side of the property, which is fine. Ideally the development would use the access that was already constructed for the development on the south side of the fire station, thereby reducing the number of accesses. Adam From: Jeremy Barnhart Sent: Monday, March 1, 2021 9:32 AM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: FW: Traffic Engineer's Opinion Letter for Sight Distance Review for Willow Drive North Development Adam, The engineer for the proposed development at the Fire station offers the following comments related to sight distance. Do you have any comments to add? Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director City of Orono 952-249-4626 From: Bill Stoddard [mailto:Bill@iBill.us] Sent: Sunday, February 28, 2021 11:35 AM To: Jeremy Barnhart <jbarnhart@ci.orono.mn.us> Subject: Traffic Engineer's Opinion Letter for Sight Distance Review for Willow Drive North Development Jeremy attached is a sight distance determination letter from a Traffic Engineer regarding our proposed access location from the east side of Willow Drive North to our proposed 12-unit townhome development. Please consider this a part of my Application Supplement for the upcoming City Council Meeting. In addition I will be forwarding a revised proposed site plan tomorrow for your review and as an Application Supplement. Additionally confirming all supplemental materials need to be submitted only electronically tomorrow, March 1st, for the upcoming City Council meeting March 8th correct? Council Exhibit F Bill Stoddard