Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-13-2023 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, February 13, 2023 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 January 9, 2023 2. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2023 3. Claims/Bills 4. Approval of Social Media Policy Update 5. Approval of Rental Licenses 6. Approval to Dispose of Bicycles 7. Authorization to Hire Jennifer Lyrek – Police Officer 8. Authorization for Big Island Dock Repair 9. Approve Rehabilitation of Grinder Station 8 (1023 Old Crystal Bay Road) and Lift Station 10 (115 Orono Orchard Road South) 10. Approval of Seasonal Weight Restrictions – Resolution No. 7338 11. 2021 Road Maintenance Project – Final Payment and Project Closeout 12. LA22-000051 – Paul Taunton, 3600 Ivy Place, After-the-Fact Variances – Resolution No. 7339 13. LA22-000071 – James & Juli Hillier, 1224 Briar Street & 1245 Arbor Street, Variances – Resolution No. 7340 14. LA22-000066 – Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, Variances – Resolution No.7341 15. LA22-000067 – Jon Byington, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, Variance – Resolution No. 7342 Community Development Report 16. LA22-000065 – Tim & Leslie Oare, 2967 Casco Point Road, Variances 17. LA22-000060, John Grzybek o/b/o Ward Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, Sketch Plan 18. LA22-000069, Brett and Amanda Larson, 2480 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Finance Report City Attorney Report City Administrator/Engineer Report 19. Orono Firefighters Relief Association 20. Fire Department Needs Assessment 21. 2022 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Public Comments – (Limit 3 Minutes per Person) Agenda Council Meeting Monday, February 13, 2023 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 This is an opportunity for the public to address the City Council. 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. Mayor/Council Report Adjournment Upcoming Events 2023 02/20 City Offices Closed 02/21 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) 02/27 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 02/27 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 03/06 Park Commission Work Session, 6:00 p.m. 03/13 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 03/13 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 03/20 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 03/27 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 03/27 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 04/03 Park Commission Work Session, 6:00 p.m. 04/10 Council Work Session. 5:00 p.m. 04/10 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 04/17 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Alisa Benson) 04/24 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 04/24 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 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 Matt Johnson, Alisa Benson, Richard Crosby III (left the meeting at 7:15 p.m.), and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, City Administrator/Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, Public Works Superintendent DJ Goman, Fire Chief James Van Eyll, Police Chief Correy Farniok, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. OATH OF OFFICE 1. Oath of Office A. Council Member Matt Johnson B. Council Member Alisa Benson Mayor Walsh administered the Oath of Office to Matt Johnson, re-elected council member. City Clerk Carlson administered the Oath of Office to Alisa Benson, newly-elected council member. Each signed their Oath of Office in the presence of the assembly. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 12, 2022 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. 2022 INTERFUND TRANSFERS & LOAN PAYMENTS This item was removed from the consent agenda 5. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – HELMSLEY CHARITABLE TRUST – RESOLUTION NO. 7330 6. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – WILLIAM AND ANASTASIA HOEFT – RESOLUTION NO. 7331 7. AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE HUNTER BUCHANAN – PART-TIME CSO (CADET) 8. AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE MELISSA KLUKAS – POLICE OFFICER 9. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF FIREARM 10. APPROVAL OF 2022 SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT CLOSEOUT (22-014) 11. ENGINEERING AND DESIGN SUPPORT APPROVAL FOR 2023 SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT (23-014) MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 10 12. SHORELINE ESTATES (LA21-000055) - ACCEPTANCE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 7329 13. APPROVAL TO PURCHASE TIRE REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT 14. APPROVAL TO PURCHASE PARKS EQUIPMENT 15. APPROVAL OF FIRE LADDER TRUCK REHAB AND EQUIPPING This item was removed from the consent agenda 16. WATERMAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT (22-023) – CHANGE ORDER #1 17. SHORELINE ESTATES (LA21-000055) - STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT This item was removed from the consent agenda for a future date. Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as revised with items #4, #15 and #17 removed from the consent agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 18. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – CRIME PREVENTION FUND – RESOLUTION NO. 7332 19. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – CRIME PREVENTION FUND – RESOLUTION NO. 7333 Craig Anderson, secretary/treasurer of the Crime Prevention Fund, gave a history of the fund and outlined current activities. Steve Anderson, board member, said one of the purposes of the organization is to provide extra funding for specific items and connect the police department with the community. Seals moved, Crosby seconded, to accept the two donations from the Crime Prevention Fund Resolutions 7332 and 7333. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0 4. 2022 INTERFUND TRANSFERS & LOAN PAYMENTS Council Member Benson asked for an explanation on the funding for this item. Finance Director Olson explained the 2021 State bonding bill provided funding for Big Island Improvements including ADA accessible trails, toilet facilities, picnic facilities and signage and the money was received into the general fund. This action moves the money to the park fund. Seals moved, Benson seconded to approve the 2022 Interfund transfer. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 15. APPROVAL OF FIRE LADDER TRUCK REHAB AND EQUIPPING Nancy Brantingham, 3185 County Rd. 6, said she was at the Long Lake Fire Dept meeting that was held before the holidays. A number of citizens in Orono asked that the council provide an opportunity to meet and have information about this. She would like to know what the council’s response is to that request MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 10 and would like to add her voice to theirs. She noted the City of Orono does not have approval from Long Lake that they will go with Orono’s proposal and yet here we are with a fire truck. She said feel like “we have gotten out in front of our skis”. She would like to know more about this whole fire situation and doesn’t feel like residents have gotten enough information. Seals said both she and Council Member Johnson are on the negotiation committee and you are right that there is no agreement in place between the two cities (Orono and Long Lake) but between the cities served by Long Lake Fire there is no back-up engine. This truck would serve as back-up for an engine and as a ladder for the taller buildings in the City. One of the city’s greatest responsibilities we have is to provide fire service to our residents. A lot of equipment servicing this area is really old. Orono still has the opportunity to work with Long Lake and the City would be willing to put this truck on loan to them. While this might seem like putting the cart before the horse, this is making sure your fire fighters have the tools they need to get to your house when there is a fire. There are still ongoing talks. Matt and I met with the committee last month. They are supposed to be giving us a response after their next council meeting but that is in their control. Johnson said what’s in front of us right here is the conversation about rehabbing of that equipment. He and Seals ttend Future fire services meeting that neighboring communities attend. There was a proposal coming from City of Waayzata. When we have a big fire then our neighboring communities assist with that fire and we do the same thing on the police side too. When the City of Orono has a fire that requires a ladder truck mutual aid comes. The Cities don’t pay one another for mutual aid. The other departments wanted Long Lake Fire to pay $700,000 for 10 years to contribute to their new ladder truck. That spurred a conversation and a great piece of government work. The City found a used ladder truck for $350,000 and it is being refurbished for under $200,000 and Orono will own it. We’ll get 10-plus years of service. He said it would allow the City to provide a better level of service to the community since it will be inside the City, instead of coming from abutting cities, adding it is the fiscally responsible thing to do. He said Orono has been paying for 85 percent of the equipment purchases through Long Lake Fire so would be paying 85 percent of this regardless. He said it’s a piece of equipment we understood that we need and we did a terrific job as a community creating a solution that saves the taxpayers money. Ms. Brantingham again asked the council to pay attention to the request that was made at the Long Lake meeting for a meeting for our city to continue to provide residents with information on this Long Lake/ Orono whole Fire Department situation. We just need information. Johnson said that time will be most appropriate when we know what Long Lake is going to do. We are waiting for their response. Right now we’re in limbo. In the meantime, we have to make sure you have fire service. Mrs. Brantingham thanked the council for the clarity but said I’m just asking again that the council commit to holding an informational-type meeting like was done in Long Lake for citizens of Orono so we understand what is at stake here and what it will cost Orono residents. Benson asked where the truck is currently and was told it is at the public works building. She asked if this dollar amount for rehabbing is for all of the items needed. Johnson explained the $70,000 cost was for refurbing by the manufacturer, multiple vendors are providing equipment for $115,000, and graphics for another $6,600 are included in the refurbishment and equipping costs. He said once it is ready it can be offered for training. Fire fighters would like to have MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 10 access to this vehicle as soon as it is fully operational. He noted acquiring a ladder truck has been on the capital improvement plan for a number of years. Edwards clarified the $70,000 included the cost of refurbishing by the manufacturer and work the city could do in-house. Benson noted that in reading the packet there seemed to be different gradations of rehabbing. Edwards said when ladder truck was first purchased the City had McQueen Equipment do an assessment of the vehicle and was provided a comprehensive list at the staff level. The first list is what had to be done to put the truck into service; secondly, what would be good to do if the city had the funds, and a third category that was more aesthetics, like $70,000 to change from one shade of red to another. We didn’t think that was necessary so we said we weren’t going to do that. There were items on the list we already had as a city or could use existing vendors. Tires went from $9,000 to under $4,000 as an example. Benson asked if $182,000 for rehabbing includes the first two categories but not the third, the aesthetics. Edwards said correct, there were items we decided not to do. The first item, $70,000, those are all of those maintenance-type items. The $115,000 for equipping is all of the stuff thing you need on an engine like hoses – all the things that make an engine do what it needs to do. The graphics are just that. Benson asked if the intention is that when the fire truck is done it becomes part of the fleet and is used right away. Johnson said that would be the ultimate goal but we would need an agreement with the city of Long Lake. Edwards said the truck has to be refurbished and equipped before it can be offered for training. In unofficial discussions with Long Lake, once it is at that point they would entertain idea of using it. My understanding is the fire fighters would like to have access to this vehicle as soon as possible. Seals pointed out the lead time to order a new ladder truck is three years and the cost is about $2 million. At the future fires services meeting they were saying in the area all departments are at risk. Just having it as a back-up is a huge value to all the communities. Benson asked if this has been in the works for a while. Edwards said the idea of having a ladder truck has been on the capital improvement plan for a number of years. Existing engines are nearing their end of life. This vehicle could become an engine to replace the ones that are aging out. Benson asked if this ladder truck issue is part of the negotiations with Long Lake or something we have been working on for some time. Fire Chief Van Eyll said when he was chief of Long Lake Fire Department they had a ladder truck on the capital improvements plan but it was moved around to be able to satisfy the limited capital funding. In future fire service meetings they found out both Wayzata and Maple Plain departments were talking about possible replacement of their apparatus and how much they were thinking about charging other MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 10 surrounding cities to share this equipment. That led to a discussion of is there a way to better utilize those funds and actually own this equipment. Long Lake’s two engines are running at about 20 years. A typical engine you want to keep it about 20 years. The last one we bought in 2017 was $475,000 and now they are close to $1 million apiece. Benson said she doesn’t argue at all that it makes perfect sense to look at rehabbing something instead of purchasing something new. She asked to be reminded when this truck was purchased. Edwards said in November or December. Benson asked if the expense for the truck was budgeted in 2022. Edwards said no, the truck was in the capital improvements plan and the opportunity to purchase presented itself. Benson asked if the improvements were budgeted for this year Edwards said the costs were added to the 2023 Fire CIP once the city knew it had the truck. Dave Dursen said he doesn’t question the value of the truck but does question the process. He said residents just found out at this meeting what it will cost to refurbish the ladder truck -- almost $200,000 on the refurbishing and about $350,000 on truck itself. To spend $500,000 on this even though it is a good deal, he said, the process seems odd because no one in the community knows what is going on. He went on, it seems to him there ought to be a way to include the voters in what the council is doing. He asked if this engine can go into the fire station. He added that Orono has indicated it wants to get out of the deal with Long Lake by 2025 and asked if it is possible the City won’t be able to use the new ladder truck until 2025. Johnson said the City of Orono has purchased 100 percent of some of the equipment so this is not unprecedented in the existing relationship with Long Lake Fire. He said this isn’t a foreign concept in Orono’s longstanding relationship with them. Orono owns 100 percent of fire station number two and 50 percent of fire station numberone1 and he doesn’t see a path of not using this truck until 2025. Mr. Dursen said he was talking about a legal path to use the truck if Orono and Long Lake can’t come to an agreement. He asked if the City had gotten bids or done an RFP for the ladder truck. Johnson said the truck was purchased from another department that was selling it so there were no bids but bids were taken for the refurbishment. He said this is not the first time the council has had public discussion at a council meeting about purchasing this equipment and the cost for refurbishing. The initial estimates were higher. He said this might be the first time for you but not the first time the council has had public discussion on this topic. Mr. Dursen said many people in the community have said they don’t know what is going on. He said there should have been a survey and a town hall meeting to ask people if they are aware that Orono and Long Lake are looking at going to separate fire departments in 2025. Why don’t we have the right to know how our money is being spent? MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 10 Johnson responded that the city records these meetings, and put them out live. I’m encouraged by the fact that you are here and learning more. That’s what we like to see. Meetings are on video and all the documents are online. Mr. Dursen asked about a town hall meeting to address why are we doing it, what’s the cost, what’s the alternative? He pointed out the action was on the consent agenda at this meeting. When did the public have a chance for input? Mayor Walsh responded the public had had a chance for input in August. September, October, November -- pick a month. It is on consent agenda now for refurbishing. He said Orono is the most transparent council. We’ve had these conversations consistently. Mr. Dursen said what you are saying is the public isn’t engaged. It’s your responsibility to get them engaged. He again asked for a town hall meeting, pointing out the city was having one the next night on pickleball. Johnson said the City doesn’t have anything for you right now until Long Lake makes a decision. They have told us that after the next council meeting they hope to have a counter or reply to our offer we gave them in October. Where the existing department is going to go is the first question that has to be answered. In meantime we have to go ahead and make sure we have adequate service for our city regardless of what long lake decides to do. We hope they are our partner. We have been very clear we hope going forward we have a relationship with them and keep the fire fighters together. I’m still very optimistic that Long Lake is going to come back to us realizing that very same thing but it’s in their court. Mr. Dursen said the City is spending money now on this equipment, $5000,000 to 600,000, and have a fire chief hired at $120,000 a year for three years. He’s not going to be fire chief for three years but we’re going to pay him. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong but I think we as a community have the right to at least have the council present to us what is going on. Crosby said if the ladder truck had stayed on the CIP Orono’s cost would be about $1.8 million. Instead of spending $1.8 million the City is getting a good value on a used piece of equipment we are getting to refurbish that has really been a need going back 15 years. I was on the department for ten of those years. We should have had this years ago. This truck was a good value without waiting for the build. We are the budget. This isn’t costing us much more money. Orono is the budget for Long Lake Fire. That’s primarily where the money is. Mr. Dursen said he is not arguing the need but arguing the process. To me you need to let the community know. Ms. Brantingham said she appreciates the council wants to have all the details sewed up but when Long Lake had its meeting they acknowledged they didn’t have all the information yet but explained what they were wrestling with and asked for citizen input. You have to come out to your citizens and say here’s what we’re wrestling with. “The community is in an uproar about this thing. Please reach out and do a council presentation about where you are at. You don’t have to have everything finalized. I would urge you to do more sooner rather than later”. Seals said one of the things James (Van Eyll) is here for is to do a needs assessment. Is he going to be working? Yes, he’s working. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 10 Johnson said the time is coming when there will be a lot more information to share. We’re just short of that. We’re doing an assessment. Long Lake has got to make a decision, whatever it is. When those two things come together there will be a lot to talk about. Kim Carswell, 261 Cygnet Place, said she feels like every time she comes to a meeting this is on the agenda so maybe it would behoove the City to have a separate meeting to put it all together. Seals moved, Crosby seconded to approve the fire ladder truck refurbishing and equipping. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Benson). COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 20. LA22-000055, ESKUCHE DESIGN O/B/O TRAVIS & SARA WILDENBERG, 3838 CHERRY AVENUE, VARIANCES Staff presented a summary packet of information. New owners are requesting variances to conduct a major home addition. City Planner Curtis explained the current home on the site is situated 20 feet from the high-water level of the lake almost entirely within the 75-foot setback. The project would require a 75-foot lake setback, average lakeshore and hardcover variances. Initially the plan included two small footprint additions and a second story proposed to extend all the way to the foundation of the lake side of the home. Staff recommended denial. The planning commission at its November meeting conducted a public hearing and voted 3 to 1 to recommend denial of the application. After the meeting the applicant removed the footprint expansion in the 75 foot setback and pulled the second story addition back 12 feet from the lake. The footprint for hardcover was increased on the street side to make up for the reduction on the lake side. Staff has changed its recommendation to approval on the revised plan, which still reduces hardcover 275 square feet. Sara Wildenberg, currently at 1421 North Arm Drive, the applicant, said they had been looking at lake property for a long time, noticed this one had been vacant about five years and contacted the previous owner and purchased it. She said she and her husband love the design of the house but it is not laid out for a family at all. The Planning Commission in November gave them a lot of good feedback, she added. The proposed addition would be stairs to get to the upper level that will extend over the garage. The area is hardcover right now. Sven Gustafson with Stonewood Renovations explained there were a few other removals lakeside including a planter wall near the lake and a patio and the second level was pulled back 12 feet which does change the impact from the lake quite a bit. Council Member Johnson stated this was a good example of the planning commission making recommendations that improved the plan. He said he was comfortable with the revised plan. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to ask the staff draft a resolution to approve LA22-000055, Eskuche Design O/B/O Travis & Sara Wildenberg, 3838 Cherry Avenue, Variances VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 10 In further Community Development reporting, Community Development Director Oakden said the department is wrapping up end of year reporting and finished the year with just over 1,400 total permits. They are working on the planning commission packet for next week. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson gave a presentation on the final total for 2022 for building permit revenue which he said far exceeded the budget for building permit revenue which was $565,000 but came in at $713,737. The department is still working on overall totals for 2022 for the General Fund. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick had nothing to report. He said he would have a report at the next meeting in closed session. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT City Administrator/Engineer Edwards updated the City Council that Parks and Public Works have been very busy with snow and ice removal to make room for the next batch coming. Walsh thanked the Public Works Department for their work on plowing and clearing the streets for Orono during the past snow events. Johnson said he had received two resident calls thanking the City for taking over the snow removal on the Dakota Rail Trail, adding that it is a great public service. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Walsh recessed the meeting at 7:08 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:16 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Rd., stated it was unfortunate Mr. Crosby felt compelled to run out again tonight. He said he would need to clear up a few things to set the record straight and bear witness for his grandparents. He said his grandparents were born in Holland, married in 1939 and in less than a year the Nazis invaded and subjected them to things that were unthinkable, so when you send him videos invoking the deaths, the extermination of 6 million Jews you have opened a door you will not close. Moving onto Mr. Crosby, there are a few things he said he needs to clear up after his (Crosby’s) diatribe a month ago about me (Erikson). He called me a clown. He said I’m bistrating him and degredating him. Those are not words but I have been berating him. He passed around a handout for the City that stated that Crosby was crowdfunding for the Proud Boys and showed a picture taken at the State Capitol steps that he said showed Crosby, asking what he was wearing on his knee here and his tactical gear. “He hasn’t been a fire fighter in four years but he is down there fighting BLM in and a tifa? Give me a break. This is a Stop the Steal rally; this isn’t a mask mandate rally.” MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 10 Mayor Walsh informed Mr. Erickson he had had his three minutes and the microphone was turned off and remained off for about two minutes. Janie Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Ave. said she was there to talk about development of historic land in Orono. She said the proposed project targets public land in Orono that has been dedicated to public golf since 1924. Orono Public Golf has the oldest golf league in Minnesota formed in 1948 and still active and was the first course in the state to have grass greens. The course is located in a quiet residential neighborhood. There has been no direct engagement strategy deployed by the City to enlist feedback from the neighborhood, golf community or the citizens other than the two scheduled open houses announced on Jan. 3. The project will decrease City open spaces and increase traffic and noise levels. Noise levels will go from seasonal golf and pedestrian sports to year-round noise levels of high-impact sports. Pickleball has been the subject of lawsuits across the country. Because it is a fast-growing sport courts have been built without adequate consideration for community impact. It is becoming increasingly known that pickleball construction is a project with serious community impacts when built in the wrong location. Already there is not enough parking at the golf course on league nights or busy days. Currently within 6 to 12 miles of Orono there are 85-plus public pickleball courts so it is already well-supported in the community and surrounding area. In 2019 the Orono Activity Center was built and has opened pickleball for the community. Communities around the metro area are looking into retro-fitting tennis courts and making better use of infrastructure that already exists. Casco Point is three miles away and has a skating rink used by youth hockey. A need for youth hockey ice time cannot drive City-wide spending. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Benson stated in her first council that “it is an incredible honor to sit before you tonight as a member of the Orono City Council and the privilege is one of great responsibility and inspires both humility and gratitude. I was elected to serve as a representative of the people of Orono. It is important to acknowledge this position required continuous support and guidance and many people I want to acknowledge Orono City staff who has been welcoming and generous with their assistance from the moment I was a council member-elect.” She noted that she had participated in an orientation and thanked staff members individually. She added she plans to attend the League of Cities elected officials training the next month. She mentioned the importance of interpersonal relationships in city government. She said she would commit to listening and learning and treat with great care the trust that has been placed in her by the community and thanked everyone watching the meeting in person or on video. Seals said they have been working on the needs assessment for fire to get a fuller picture of what’s happening and get it out to the public. Thanks to DJ and the team because they had a lot of snow and the roads were better in the City than they were in the County. Johnson noted he and Seals had attended a future fire services meeting the previous week. There was talk of hiring another consultant but there didn’t seem to be a lot of interest in that. He said his recommendation is that the City not send any more staff to these meetings as there isn’t any real progress occurring. That could change but it’s general conversations you could get off the agenda. He thanked the community for re-electing him. He encouraged the public to continue to come, ask questions and read packets. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 9, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 10 Edwards said he would appreciate it not being a mandatory meeting but would like to keep the door open to attend to meet with staff counterparts in other communities on fire and other issues. Mayor Walsh congratulated Johnson and Benson and commended police and public works for handling of the snow and Long Lake Fire and first responders for taking care of people. He said he hears a lot about the transparency issue. Going back six to eight years the City didn’t have videotaping. This is the council that has brought videotaping of the City Council, parks and planning commission meetings. He stated this is the most transparent council the City has ever had. He added they also brought budgeting for sewer, roads and water and infrastructure that weren’t budgeted for before. They brought technology into the City the last eight years. It used to be everything was paper and it would take a few weeks. This council put website and permitting online and all the file cabinets they used to have at the city are gone. Papers have been scanned. People now can click on a property and know everything that has happened on a property. The city also bought 3-D technology for public works and now has information on every project done on those roads so it can budget and plan. The code review committee has updated and reviewed codes and looked at what has worked and what doesn’t in other cities. The City went through the comp plan a few years ago. The old plan would not vacate land. This council said it would look at every opportunity of old roads and alleys and things going through peoples’ yards and in the middle of the lake that shouldn’t be there. “We’re not giving away land we are solving problems – things that got done a long time ago that doesn’t make any sense.” There are two open houses coming up. People used to say this is Oro-NO. This council brought “yes” back to Orono simplifying processes and bringing down costs. ADJOURNMENT Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:40 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 12 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Matt Johnson, Alisa Benson, Richard Crosby III (left the meeting at 6:28 pm), and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, City Administrator/Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson and City Planner Melanie Curtis. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2023 This item was removed from the consent agenda 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2023 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. APPROVAL OF 2023 TOBACCO LICENSES 5. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSES 6. 2020 SANITARY SEWER I&I GRANT – RESOLUTION NO. 7334 7. APPROVAL OF PUBLIC WORKS MAINTENANCE RETIREMENT AND RECRUITMENT 8. ACCEPTANCE OF HENNEPIN COUNTY TREE INVENTORY GRANT 9. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY – RESOLUTION NO. 7335 This item was removed from the consent agenda 10. LA22-000055 – ESKUCHE DESIGN O/B/O TRAVIS & SARA WILDENBERG, 3838 CHERRY AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7336 11. JOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR USE OF FIRE PERSONNEL AND EQUIPMENT – RESOLUTION NO. 7337 12. HENNEPIN COUNCIL JOINT POWERS COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Benson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda with items 1 and 9 removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 9, 2023 Council Member Benson stated that in reviewing the notes, there were several areas where the minutes did not reflect the audio recording. There was no video for that meeting on Jan. 9 but there were some MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 pretty big issues with it starting with, there was no record of the discussion with the city attorney and myself regarding my request to abstain from the vote on the refurbishing of the fire truck. That whole section was not there. There are several other sections related to fire where details are lacking. So I'd like to understand more about how we can either send these notes back whether it's me making a motion to do so or whatnot, because it's really not an accurate representation of the meeting. City Administrator/Engineer Edwards said the City can send the minutes back to the contractor who prepares them and then bring an amended set back to the council the next meeting. Walsh responded that we'll just leave the minutes off for the time being and we'll just table it. Edwards clarified the council can table it or direct staff to send it back to the contractor. Walsh directed staff to send the minutes back and then bring them back and make sure they are correct. 9. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY – RESOLUTION NO. 7335 Jane Delaney, 1315 Woodhill Avenue, said her question was curiosity on her part. How does that work? Has the property already been paid for? Or was it paid for when it was bought? Walsh said he believes that when the City did the agreement a long time ago that it paid for it and this is just the transfer of title. City Attorney Mattick said the Council at the time had been interested in pursuing this parcel for a while so they did buy it from the property owner who by my recollection was still living there. They reserved for themselves what's called a life estate, meaning that the city went ahead and paid for that property, but they got to stay there for in essence, the remainder of their life and or until they moved away from the property. Their attorney did contact me and said they're moving so pursuant to the agreement that had been negotiated a while ago, then what remains of that property gets transferred to the city so that it's totally the city's at this point. Ms. Delaney asked what Mattick meant by what remains of it. Mattick said they reserved for themselves what's referred to as a life estate which is the ability to stay in that property as long as they lived, or until they moved which is what was negotiated. So they still have that right. Walsh stated, we don't owe them any money at this point. They just ended their rights basically. And so now the transfer was fully done by accepting this and then it'll be back in the Parks hands to say let's see what we need to master plan this whole fabulous park to suit what we're going to do now to put it all together. Seals moved, Crosby seconded to adopt Resolution No. 7335 Transfer of Property. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 13. LA22-000051 – PAUL TAUNTON, 3600 IVY PLACE, AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES City Planner Curtis said this application is regarding after-the-fact variances to permit newly-installed hard cover within the 75-foot setback from the lake. The city received a complaint in September regarding a parking area under construction at 3600 Ivy Place. Staff confirmed that a new approximately 1100 square foot paver parking area had been installed within the 75-foot setback without permits.. Two new unpermitted patio improvements were also constructed within the 75-foot setback totaling approximately 1,000 square feet. The property was platted in 2018, and the home was constructed in 2020. The original development plans contemplated a shared connected backup area between the two properties. The property at 3570 Ivy Place installed their portion of this shared driveway connection. When the home was constructed at 3600 Ivy Place the builder chose not to install their portion of the shared driveway connection. No hardcover is permitted within the 75-foot setback from the lake with only few exceptions. The new parking area is 31 feet from the ordinary high-water level, and the two new patio areas are setback 43 feet and 50 feet from the lake. At the November Planning Commission meeting, the Commission held a public hearing and voted four to zero to deny the after-the-fact variances for the improvements. Following the planning commission meeting, the applicant provided an exhibit demonstrating turning radius as well as a stormwater management report in an effort to support their unpermitted improvements. Those were included in your packet. We received one neighbor comment and it is in your packet. Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances. Additionally, because this application originated as a property violation, staff further recommends the applicant be provided a timeline for removal should the Council vote to deny the variances. We're asking council to direct staff to draft a resolution for denial. Walsh asked since staff recommends a timeline for removal what timeline would you have as your recommendation? Curtis said she would suggest that that they be removed at a time when the vegetation can be reestablished so that the lake doesn't experience any sediment from the removal. They could be removed now; it just would be open and bare at that point until the spring. Council Member Seals said it's been since 2018 but between the two properties was there not a turnaround at one point that was in the development plans? Curtis said in the landscape plan submitted with the development it does show a connection kind of a turnaround circle drive between the properties. The neighbor to the south did construct that backup area to be connected. 3600 Ivy planted arbor vitae along the property line and chose to put a backup apron kind of in this location. Seals asked if all of the everything was removed that was out of scope, not approved, if they were to connect that would they still have enough ability to do it with the hardcover ratio. Curtis said the hardcover total on the property is not over what is permitted. It's just the location in an area that we don't allow hardcover, so I believe they'd be able to accomplish that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Paul Taunton, 3600 Ivy Place, the applicant, said he didn't know that he needed to pull permits. I wasn't trying to do something underhanded or disrespectful to the City of Orono on the eight-foot entrance going into my driveway. I moved into the house on June 27. Denali was the builder. That turnaround that you're referencing was never presented, nor does my neighbor talk about it other than my neighbors saying, hey, you're just an accident waiting to happen. Your family, there's five people that live in my home, your family cannot park on that easement that we've been given and you cannot turn into my driveway with a vehicle. Unless you're driving a golf cart, you cannot make that turn into my driveway. I am concerned about the pervious pavers that I put in, the driveway that I put in. I did not know that I needed to pull a permit or I would have pulled a permit. When it was brought to my attention I immediately got in line and followed the protocol to pull the permits. I am also concerned about the erosion of the property. It's a flat line. I hired a group of surveyors and engineers that came out to put the drainage tile around the whole property so that there would be no erosion or drainage into the lake. That was before we moved into our home. When I put in the pavers, the patios, I had another engineer company come out because I knew that I did not want to recognize that I had now exceeded or that there was some concern about erosion or from a massive rain. So they came out, a neutral party, and they made their declaration. They gave like a 45- page report stating there's absolutely no risk of any water runoff into the lake. The drainage tile that I put in was more than what was called for. I did that because I, like the City, want to protect the lake. I apologize that I did not pull permits in advance. That wasn't some strategy of mine to be that guy that does it and then asks for forgiveness. I went to a neighborhood party when I moved in and I had four different neighbors complain about where we were parking. When you take a left turn down Ivy it's a single road. Well, that's where we were parking. They were complaining, hey, you can't park on the road. My neighbor wrote a letter to me after numerous conversations saying you can’t park here. That's why I put in the driveway as a place for us to park, a place for cars. UPS couldn't make deliveries. Amazon could not make deliveries because it was just too narrow. And they weren't willing to walk 400 feet to the beginning of my driveway. So that's the situation that I was in. And again, I apologize for not pulling permits in advance. But if I hadn't put something someplace for us to park my neighbors would be going nuts. It's just how tight it is right there. My internet's been knocked out four times just from the plow just since I moved in, just from this winter. It's clearly an unusual circumstance here. When I purchased the lot we reduced the size of the house, we moved the house as close as possible to the neighbors to my neighbor. I'm literally right on the line. There was never any discussion about me using his driveway as a circular drive. That dialogue never happened. I know they don't want that. That wasn't even an option. The only option was when I put that driveway, that parking area. I was very conscious that I didn't go any closer to the shoreline than what was already allowed. I stayed that same distance. It wasn't excessive. It was just enough for a car to turn around and for us to park. I wasn't trying to be reckless or disrespectful or just flip my nose. It's a situation I was trying to be respectful for what I had learned. Council Member Johnson asked to clarify, they did their as-built, then we received complaints. And then we did a site visit. And the complaint was for the front driveway pad. And then during our site visit is that when we saw the other two places? Curtis said the City’s inspector went out and observed the construction that was just finishing up on the driveway and basically confirmed that violation. I contacted Mr. Taunton and when I received his updated current conditions survey, it reflected these two patio areas. So the initial violation wasn't addressing MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 those two additional patio areas but by the time we were at Planning Commission, we had included them in his after-the-fact hardcover setback variance for review. Johnson said at the Planning Commission meeting the representative of the of the applicant said that the patios were kind of new information to them at that time. Curtis said the city requires a hard cover permit to install patios and driveways. They would not have been approved at a staff level where they're located. But we did not know they were there when the driveway violation happened. Mr. Taunton said I was not aware that you needed to pull a permit for pervious, you know, that water sinks through it. So I was not aware that I needed to pull a permit. If I needed to pull a permit, I would have pulled one. They're not big patios. Again, I thought if it was pervious that you did not need to pull a permit. Johnson said with respect to my opinion on it, it wouldn't matter if he knew about a permit or not. This is not allowable hardcover. This is a design flaw. It's just not up to the city council to fix a design flaw. And I'm not sure if what Victoria brought up, that little extra extension between, I guess they don't have to actually have a drive-through --it could stop short but that. But again, it’s not our job to get into the design side of it either. From my opinion, this is not allowable hard cover and it needs to be removed. I would be supportive of waiting until the spring or until it can all be dealt with at one time, including the replacement hard cover. Walsh said he didn't think it's really a design flaw as much as we just know that developers want to maximize the amount of space they can build in. And sometimes they build too much house, and they don't leave enough driveway, or enough room for a really big fire pit. But the problem is, that's what they did is they maximized the house and didn't leave room for a lot of stuff. And there's lots of houses like that, that people buy and they find out after the fact they can’t add a deck and they can't do anything, because they made the house so big. That's what I think what you've got here is a brand-new house that just maximized everything you could do and left you at the bare minimum amount of driveway and not a lot of room except in that little itty bitty kind of point to build a put a fire pit. But I agree with Matt, that's a creation of the development itself. You can't create your own practical difficulty. Seals said she appreciates the applicant apologizing. I was just asking staff about codes and ordinances so I can see where that can happen. I don't think there's an assumption that you had malicious intent. I think we've been pretty consistent about the 75-foot setback. I remember this whole development very distinctively. There were conversations around whether there should even be a lot because there were conversations as to whether they filled in the wetland and all those things. I feel like there's been, I don't want to say a lot of giving, but we did talk through a lot of discussion around turning around with the fire truck, and all those conversations did happen. I did talk to the planning commission and understood where they're coming from. I do support that we need to remove those three and protect the 75-foot setback. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 12 Benson said what's needed to have been said on this issue has already been said. I'm in agreement that it's important to follow the code as it relates to the setback here with regard to hardcover. Crosby said he’d be in agreement. It's unfortunate, but I think you said it fairly well. If you’d shrunk the size of the house, you would have had more room for the things that you need as far as driveway is concerned. But it has to be enforced. It’s in the code. Mattick said in terms of that aspect, the resolution itself can deal with the land use item and the denial of the application. The rest of it is something that we can sort out at least administratively, once we start talking to the property owner about timelines, because that that is potentially an enforcement item. So I would leave that out of the resolution. Johnson moved, Seals seconded, to direct staff to prepare a resolution to deny LA212000051, 3600 Ivy Place, after-the-fact Variances VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Curtis said there was no further community development report. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson said he had nothing to report. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick said he had two items. We do have a closed session so I will leave those items alone. I do want to point out a correction, however, on the closed session. It does list Jay Nygard, with the city of Orono. That should be Kendall Nygard. Otherwise, the caption on that is correct. This second item I wanted to touch on is confusion or some follow-up discussion that I think needs to be had on the idea of an abstention. It came up on our vote last week with councilmember Benson. And what I wanted to clarify was that when I'm asked about an abstention, a council member has a right to abstain. But from my perspective, when I'm trying to figure out what the nature of abstention is -- is it I simply don't want to vote on it. I don't feel prepared. I don't have the information? Or is it a conflict of interest? And so at the last meeting, I did want to sort out whether there was a conflict of interest. There wasn't in my understanding and speaking with you. So a council member regardless has the right to abstain, but it does matter on the conflict side of things. Because if someone has a conflict, it reduces the number of the council. You sit here as a five-member council. If someone has a conflict that prevents them from voting, you become a four-member council, because you have a recusal. If it’s I don't feel prepared or I'm not willing to vote on it at this time the council remains as five which is why I talked about how it has the impact of being a no vote because we need so many affirmative votes. And if you don't get them either because of noes or abstentions, the vote can fail. So I did want to clarify, we cannot compel someone to vote; we cannot compel them to vote yes or no. They have the right to abstain. To me, it matters on why the abstention, which is why I started my analysis on that. Councilmember Benson, I don't know if there was anything else you wanted to address. Benson said she had her own thoughts on that, which she can do at the end of the meeting. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT Edwards said he had just a couple updates. Since our last meeting, we've held two open houses, one on golf course improvements through the Parks Commission, and the other on the Fox street resurfacing project. Those were on the 10th and 11th, respectively. And then just as an announcement, there'll be a repeat, it's just the same open house again, for those who weren't able to make the first one. There'll be a golf course, improvements open house tomorrow here in the council chambers from 6 to 8 pm. Seals said it was her understanding the council will get an update on the golf course improvements after Parks looks at it. When will we get an update from the Fox Street Open House? How did the open house go? Edwards said the open house was fine. We had a handful of residents show up to express opinions about the project. Pretty much everybody was in support of what we were proposing to do so there was really nothing controversial. We didn't really learn any new. Sometimes on the road open houses we'll learn about a drainage issue that’s particular to a certain part of the corridor or something like that. We didn't really get any of that kind of feedback. So right now, we're looking at just continuing to move the project forward. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Walsh recessed the meeting at 6:28 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 6:34 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS James Elder, 195 South Brown Road, Orono. I want to add my voice to the requests for an open and public discussion of the costs and benefits of establishing a go-it-alone Orono fire department. I'm a retired firefighter like Councilman Crosby. But I'm agnostic regarding the name that goes on the truck. I don't care what it is. But what I do care about is the cost and quality of fire service. Based on costs already incurred to date, but absent any information from Orono, I've estimated that the incremental costs from both operating costs and capital outlays could reach or exceed $4 million. As citizens and taxpayers of Orono we have a right and you the obligation to present to us a good faith estimate of the costs and to justify how this major expenditure improves our current and future fire protection. I think we need a public examination of this endeavor as Long Lake did two months ago. It may well be that after full disclosure of the costs of a go-it-alone Orono fire department, the best solution would be to return to the bargaining table with Long Lake and come to a mutually beneficial agreement. That is my hope. Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Road. It's very unfortunate that Mr. Crosby for the third time in a row found it necessary to run out of the meeting before I had a chance to speak to him. Walsh asked, and you live in Independence? Where do you live? Mr. Erickson said I live in Independence. My business is in Orono and has been. So don't act like this. You know where this is going. Let me share something with you, smart ass. This is the protest that your boy was attending down there at the governor's mansion. See this here? (holds up photo board) I don't have a problem with mask mandates. What I have a problem with is when people like you and he start MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 comparing them to the Holocaust. Okay, are we clear on this? Are we clear on this yet? This is one of the protests he was at. He wants to sit up here and throw me under the bus and call me a clown. Let's see here. Oh, shit. Little Red Riding Hood. Look there. There's your boy. That's him at the Capitol steps. Look how close his feet are to the steps, shit they are right there. Is that why they call him Capitol Steps Crosby? Where was he on January 6, I wonder, 2021? Walsh stated you can speak to the council. Speak to the council sir. Public comments are for the council. Mr. Erickson (turning to someone in the audience) asked are you Mr. Williams by the way? Is that you? You look like him. I understand you guys don't think it was a big deal, this January 6 bullshit. But it is a big deal. And he was there. And I know he was there. He knows he was there. When is he gonna start talking about it? Him and his tactical gear, bullshit weapons on his hip and shit. There he is some more. What's this Proud Boys shit? Some new Proud Boys shit now. Donate to their GoFundMe page. Mr. Crosby, look, he's standing right here taking pictures. Crowd funding for the Proud Boys. Right here in our city. What's this down here? Sorry, Connie, I had to link on Parler. Oh shit. Those sound like names that I'm familiar with. Aren't we all by now? He likes them on Parler. Look. He looks like a founding member. This is the new stuff -- 46 following the Minnesota Proud Boys. He's one of them. Crosby, Richard, Orono. Go figure, we are the Minnesota chapter of the greatest group in the US. Is that where we're at here at Orono? Are you part of this shit, Mr. Walsh? Because I think you are. I think you all know exactly what the hell's going on up here. There's so much I got some pictures on my phone that the FBI will be looking at. Okay. He was out there taking selfies on the steps of the Capitol in DC. Walsh said your three minutes are up. Your circus is over. You can sit down, sir. Mr. Erickson said this is the damn circus and you brought it here. Right here. I'll leave that for you. Follow your leader. Comparing our governor to Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Idi Ahmin, Hussein. What the hell's going on? Walsh said your circus is over. Sit down. He asked if there was anyone else for public comments. Hearing none, I’ll bring it back to the council. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Benson said she wanted to address something that happened at the January 9 meeting, my first meeting as a city council member here in Orono. Our city attorney Mr. Mattick touched on it early in the meeting -- abstention. I just want to talk about that a little bit. Because it matters how I vote, it matters what the perception is about my votes. And it matters how the record reflects my votes as a council member. And that's true for everybody sitting up here. The issue at hand at that meeting was the $192,000 refurbishing of a used ladder truck that Orono had purchased in December of last year. And it was my intention to abstain from that vote authorizing that purchase, because it was not an insignificant amount of money. and I did not feel at the time that I had enough information, being that it was my first meeting, being that I had not been a part of those negotiations, and being that there were and are a lot of questions around the expenditures of this fire department from the public. I did not feel that I had enough time at that meeting to give an informed vote either for or against. And that's why I had asked to abstain from that vote. And at MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 the time, there was a lot of focus in that meeting. And I know because I've listened to the audio recording, there wasn't a video, but I've listened to and actually transcribed the audio recording from that meeting. And I, in seeing it now, can recognize that attorney Mattick did leave open an option for abstention. At the time I was in that meeting, listening to the discussion from our city attorney, I felt that there was a lot of focus on financial conflict, which there was none, or an option to, as I think attorney Mattick had said, well, if you just don't want to vote, and it was neither a financial conflict or a lack of desire to vote out of any lack of preparation, on my part. It was a third category, which was not feeling that it was a vote that I could do well, in an informed way, which is what I pledged to do for this city. So that's why I asked for the abstention. The discussion that followed did not leave me to feel that the abstention was a viable option, because I didn't have a financial conflict. And essentially, as it was explained again, that it would essentially count as a no. Well, I didn't want it to count as a no, I wanted it to count as an abstention, which is what it was, I've contacted or I did contact the League of Cities about this. And it's clear after talking to or hearing from our city attorney today that abstentions are viable options, and that they will be counted as such. So in the future, that's very helpful information to have. And I just wanted to clarify this because it's very important that I communicate clearly in meetings and communicate clearly with our staff and our city attorney. Because these issues are not insignificant, they are complex and fire, in particular, as we heard again tonight, is one that is has gained a lot of public interest and attention for good reason. And I don't take any vote as something that is simple, or without significance. I also want to say that I'm incredibly supportive of all of our emergency services, and that goes for fire and police. And that no vote on January 9 had nothing to do with a lack of support for our first responders. It had to do with my feeling at the time that I need to be informed about issues, especially ones that involve large financial outlays before I make them. So that's all I want to say about that. And if at any time anybody has any questions for me or concerns about that you're welcome to contact me. On a different note, I also attended the first open house for the proposal, the US sports grant proposal, to look at building some pickleball courts and hockey infrastructure at the Orono Golf Course. I attended the first one and I will also be attending the second one tomorrow night here at City Hall at six o'clock. And I found that it was a really good opportunity to meet community members, residents, members of the public and hear from them directly, which is really important. In city governance we have the ability as residents and community members to affect a lot of change in our communities. And I really appreciate people showing up for these events and talking to staff and elected and appointed officials, regardless of your views on the issue. I always appreciate feedback. Johnson said Long Lake has their city council meeting tomorrow. As of last night, their agenda was on there, but not their packet. But the fire services is on there and they're having a closed session to talk about it. I think once we hear back from Long Lake and their decision based on our proposal, which we have not received that feedback, then we'll have more to share. It’s clear the residents want to hear more about that when we have more to share. That should be short coming here, hopefully. We've been saying that for a while, but that's what they've told us, Victoria and I, that after this meeting, they're going to hopefully send us a response to our proposal. Seals said not be redundant, but we are having another open house tomorrow, so if you can come, come. It’d be great to hear everyone's thoughts on the golf course. I think the one thing going into it, I do think it's important to look at, and Ron would be better at this, is that prior to COVID the golf course was in the red, so we were keeping it alive through general funds. If you had to look at like, one of the benefits of MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 going through a pandemic is the golf course had a new energy to it. I want to make sure we still have those conversations about how do we make our parks and places like the golf course more viable? It's not to say we do a pickleball court; it's to say, let's have a conversation about how do we get more people involved in using it? Because not too long ago, there was a golf course called Lakeview and it wasn't a city-owned golf course. But it was in the red and it got sold. And there's a bunch of really big houses over there. I don't think any of us want that. So I think the parks, not only staff, but the commission, is really trying to have good conversations about how do we make this a viable park? Because that's what it falls onto in the future. How do we get more people there? It doesn't mean that's where we land with pickleball. But how do we make it a place that we can never live without? Because looking back at that Lakeview conversation, hearing how many unhappy people were around, seeing it in the paper, I would have never thought it would have changed, but it did. So I think it's good that we have those conversations. And I think it's good that you hear the positive and the negative and the people that want it and the people that don't want it. There's people across all sides on this one. So glad to hear people are coming and sharing their thoughts. It's good to hear that also, even with Fox Street. I'm glad to hear that the plan makes sense. I've had a few of our neighboring cities reach out to us and trying to understand what we're doing with THC. Ironically, that was news to me that would be a hot topic. Most of them are in similar boats that we are to be quite honest, though, sitting with moratoriums, not sure what to do, waiting to see what legislature does. So I did share with Long Lake when I talked to them, I said you know what's ironic is I've had the most complaints about the Navarre smoke shop and the soon to come Long Lake smoke shop. So I think that's probably something coming our way, whatever we ended up deciding so it's a good conversation that I don't think we have the answers to. Walsh said he was also at the open house for the pickleball, hockey and golf. It was fun to meet a whole bunch of the golfing league people. I think it was maybe 30 or 40 people that probably came, and a bunch of them were league members, and there was a bunch of other people. I think we probably had half and half people who like pickleball and who don't want pickleball. So it's about 50/50, but it was a small segment of the population, for sure. The diehards that were there, and they're people from the leagues, and we obviously have to balance what's best for the citizens of Orono, which is first and foremost who we represent. But it was good to be there. I’ll be there tomorrow again, so it'll be good to see, I'm sure, some of the same people again, so maybe there's some of you out there that will be there as well. I’ve got my Orono Spartan shirt on tonight, ODT, my daughter's on the Orono dance team. They had a great competition this last weekend at Totino Grace with 12 other schools. And we have one this weekend and one the next weekend. So it's constant, but I just have to do a big shout out to them because I think the JV jazz took second place, JV blue jazz took first place, varsity jazz took first place, JV kick took first place and varsity kick took second, so they almost did a full sweep of everything. The girls were beyond excited. It was fun to watch all the hard work coming together over the season now we’re a good month into it as they've gotten better and better and sectionals are coming up soon. So hopefully they'll continue putting that together and we'll see more Orono teams moving forward going to state and that kind of stuff. And I just came also from an Orono hockey or the Orono Ice Arena, I'm on the board for the Orono Ice Arena and we're having a whole bunch of extra tournament games over there because it looks like the varsity girls and the varsity boys are most likely going to be ranked first, so they'll be hosting tournament games. There will be all these extra games and revenue coming into the ice arena, which is all positive. So lots of good things going on in Orono these days. Something our city attorney brought up to me because he does represent a number of other cities, that in the legislature right now, I don't know if everybody MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 knows, but there's legislators in session up at the state capitol. They're having about 30 to 40 meetings every single day and all the different departments or all the committees and one of the housing bills that I think everybody needs to pay attention to that is coming up that he alerted me to is they're looking at and right now in part of these some of these committees, they're passing these rules that they want to pass to make statewide, they're doing it without any amendments or any discussion. They're just saying, we control it. We're voting on it, we're moving it on. So they're doing a lot of stuff very fast. They're doing one in the housing bill that would eliminate single family zoning in the entire state of Minnesota, it would make every house automatically considered to be a two-family residence. That means in every neighborhood, you could have duplexes, essentially in your house, and there's nothing the City of Orono could do about it, it would take the zoning out of our control. So I'm telling you to maybe wake up on this item, call Andrew Meyers, who was our house representative on the Republican side and call our state senator Kelly Morrison and say you oppose this bill, that you want to make sure the zoning stays in the control of the local jurisdictions. If you want to see how it's turning out, go to Minneapolis. They've already eliminated single family zoning in Minneapolis. You can do quads in every neighborhood. But even if you just give away single family and you make everything essentially duplexes, you could have a whole lot more people living in your neighborhood and it will change the character of everything that you know of today. And if there's extra money in it. As my realtor professional over here will tell you, if there's extra money for developers as they're buying up houses and converting them to two families instead of one family it will be done. This big money will come in and they'll just start buying up swaths of houses and start renting out. So Kelly Morrison on the Senate side and Andrew Myers on the House side, call and make some noise and tell them you do not want this to pass. We only get one chance at this because once it gets passed you'll never put that rabbit back in the hat. Johnson said Andrew Myers is not in support of it. He was unsure about Kelly Morrison’s position. Walsh said he doesn't know her stance in general but I know the Democrats are all passing this stuff out of committees without any discussion and any amendments -- they're just passing it. And it's like a 45- page bill if I remember. And it's like that little paragraph in the middle of this housing thing that they're passing. So it's a small piece. But thank God, we got people who are looking for those things. And I think Soren had pointed out the cities that he represents too, like St. Louis Park and other cities, aren’t happy with that either because it takes all the zoning out of our control, and we can't do anything about it, which is not good. In my last Orono article, Orono Times or whatever we call it that we send out to everybody I talked about a number of different things. But I think one of the last things I talked about was social media, and that if you want to find out what's the truth about matters, it's probably best to call the City directly or call one of us and we can tell you or point you in the right direction. But another one was a very confusing post about the terms of the council and the mayor in particular, making it seem like we did something in the middle of the night that changed the term from two years to four years. Well, I posted on Next Door the facts about that. Back in 2018, after the election, in December, staff did come to us and say that they thought it'd be more consistent to change the mayor's term from two years to four years because the council is all four years, just put more consistency. And so we took their recommendation. And we did change that from a two-year to four-year term in December of 2018. But it wouldn't take effect until the next election in 2020. So that gave everybody two year’s notice -- nothing in the dark, the papers printed it, everything that was going on. But there was a very confusing post thinking that we're doing something in the dark that nobody knew about but everybody knew about and I just want to make sure MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 23, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 everybody was clear again, that social media is not the place to go get your facts. All you gotta do is call somebody. Call somebody at the City that's got all the facts and will point you in the right direction. 14. Closed Session: Attorney - Client Privileged Discussion Walsh moved, Seals seconded, to enter into closed session at 6:58 p.m., as permitted by Section 13D.03 to discuss strategy and settlement negotiation status in the following matters: • Kendall Nygard v. Orono, Case No. 022-CV-03191-NEB-DTS • Schmidt v. Orono, Case No. 27-CV-21-7769 • T. J. Bonnett v. Orono, Case No. 27-CV-22-12243 and the LMCD Dan Gustafson item. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (The City Council was in closed session from 6:58 p.m. to 8:26 p.m.) Walsh moved, Johnson seconded, to reopen the Orono City Council meeting at 8:26 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Mattick noted that the council will now stand in open session and since it is still a regular council meeting the council can vote on items at this time. Walsh moved, Seals seconded?, to direct Orono’s LMCD Representative Richie Anderson to vote no on the Dan Gustafson Dock item on behalf of the Orono City Council if the item comes back for approval at the LMCD meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Walsh moved, Johnson seconded, to direct the city attorney to initiate litigation / injunction against LMCD if the LMCD board passes the Gustafson item with the nine docks. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Walsh moved, Seals seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:38 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Ck Reviewed By: RJO Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve payment of claims made on the City for services and/or products provided to the City. 2. Background. The attached claims for payment have been received by the City. Staff has reviewed the claims and is recommending approval of the listing for payment. The claims will be paid by checks 120511to 1200620 and ACH transaction 2013324 to 2013328 totaling $1,682,736.49. 3. 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: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Claims/Bills Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Century Link 01/24/2023 120437 01.2023 WP 601-49400-321 WTP PHONE/INTERNET 01/04/23-2/03/2023 Water 140.07- Century Link 01/24/2023 120437 2023.01 WT 601-49400-321 WTP PHONE/INTERNET 01/04/23-2/03/2023 Water 140.07- Total 120437:280.14- UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 01/25/2023 120500 JAN 2023 PD 101-41900-322 2023 PD PO BOX 86 RENTAL - 6MO Central Services 54.00- Total 120500:54.00- Century Link 01/24/2023 120511 2023.01 WT 601-49400-321 WTP PHONE/INTERNET 01/04/23-2/03/2023 Water 140.07 Total 120511:140.07 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/24/2023 120512 2014A SERI 322-47000-611 INTEREST 2014A 30,862.51 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/24/2023 120512 2014A SERI 322-47000-601 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2014A 320,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/24/2023 120512 2016A SERI 322-47000-611 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2016A 520,000.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 01/24/2023 120512 2016A SERI 322-47000-611 INTEREST 2016A 5,200.00 Total 120512:876,062.51 CENTRAL PENSION FUND SOU 01/24/2023 120513 CFP012623 101-21705 LOCAL UNION #49 1/9/22-1/9/23 992.74 Total 120513:992.74 FITZSIMMONS, KATIE 01/24/2023 120514 2022.12 101-41300-489 TABLE CLOTHS Administration 40.29 Total 120514:40.29 INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES 01/24/2023 120515 2022 CIPP FI 602-20600 2022 CIPP - RFP #2 FINAL 7,455.39 Total 120515:7,455.39 International Union Local #49 01/24/2023 120516 LOCAL49012 101-21707 LOCAL 49 DUES - 1/2023 420.00 Total 120516:420.00 NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS.01/24/2023 120517 NCPERS012 101-21710 PERA LIFE 1/2022 352.00 Total 120517:352.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount OPEIU - LOCAL 12 01/24/2023 120518 OPEIU01262 101-21707 UNION DUES - LOCAL 12 1/2023 717.50 Total 120518:717.50 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 01/31/2023 120519 01.2023 PD 101-41900-322 2023 PD PO BOX 86 RENTAL - 6MO Central Services 57.00 Total 120519:57.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVIC 02/01/2023 120520 Ladder Truck 405-48500-550 FIRE LICENSE PLATES UNIT 505 6.00 MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVIC 02/01/2023 120520 Plates for Ta 701-49800-441 FIRE LICENSE PLATES UNIT 506 6.00 Total 120520:12.00 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/01/2023 120521 2023.01 ub 601-49400-322 01/23 UTILITY BILLS Water 351.00 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/01/2023 120521 2023.01 ub 602-49450-322 01/23 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 351.00 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/01/2023 120521 2023.01 ub 651-49910-322 01/23 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 351.00 Total 120521:1,053.00 A LA CARTE CREATIVE GROUP 02/13/2023 120522 45007 101-42110-352 BUSINESS CARDS Police Department 105.00 Total 120522:105.00 Advance Auto Parts 02/13/2023 120523 6974-452435 601-49400-240 SOCKET FOR CURB STOP Water 5.78 Total 120523:5.78 ADVANCED FIRST AID INC 02/13/2023 120524 0123-933 101-42110-240 EXTRA AED PADS Police Department 354.00 Total 120524:354.00 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 02/13/2023 120525 492965918 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 01/20/23-02/20/23 132.76 Total 120525:132.76 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1C31-GCMW 101-43000-222 UNIT 428 MIRROR Public Works Department 152.99- AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-221 UNIT 425 BRINE TANK REPAIRS Public Works Department 163.62 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 UNIT 428 MIRROR Public Works Department 99.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-240 WASH BAY TOOLS Public Works Department 75.74 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 16 AWG CONNECTOR 4 PIN Public Works Department 29.92 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 1.5" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 46MM-52MM Public Works Department 11.96 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 13" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 81MM-91MM Public Works Department 12.96 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 3.5" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 95MM-103MM Public Works Department 12.70 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 2" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 56MM-65MM Public Works Department 11.90 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 4" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 108MM-116MM Public Works Department 15.94 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 2.5" T-BOLT HOSE CLAMP 70MM-78MM Public Works Department 23.92 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 HEAT GUN Public Works Department 22.61 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 651-49910-240 IMPACT SOCKET SET 3/8"-1-1/4"Storm Water 44.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 UNIT 110 SEAT SWITCH Public Works Department 18.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 UNIT 428 MIRROR Public Works Department 152.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-221 HARNESS PIN REMOVAL TOOL Public Works Department 21.79 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-221 HEAT GUN Public Works Department 53.07 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 HEAT SHRINK Public Works Department 38.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-240 TAPE GUN Public Works Department 12.59 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-222 18 AWG WIRE HARNESS Public Works Department 10.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-489 SHIPPING Public Works Department 8.45 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 02/13/2023 120526 1TQQ-9WD6 101-43000-489 DISCOUNT Public Works Department 1.89- Total 120526:689.23 AMERICAN ENGINEERING TES 02/13/2023 120527 INV-113834 440-48970-304 21-039 NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY 2,213.00 Total 120527:2,213.00 American Mechanical Co 02/13/2023 120528 01272023 601-49400-405 SOFTENER REPAIR Water 506.15 Total 120528:506.15 ASPEN EQUIPMENT CO 02/13/2023 120529 10245116 701-49800-215 DUMP TRUCK SALT CONTROL REPAIR PARTS 301.94 Total 120529:301.94 BOLTON & MENK INC.02/13/2023 120530 0305198 225-45200-304 22-059 GC PICKLEBALL AND ICE RINK STUDY 179.00 Total 120530:179.00 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 02/13/2023 120531 76921 322-47000-620 SERIES 2014A AGENT FEE 475.00 Total 120531:475.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOYER TRUCKS INC 02/13/2023 120532 003P32849 701-49800-215 4 WHEEL DRIVE ACTUATOR 381.82 Total 120532:381.82 CARGILL SALT 02/13/2023 120533 2907815654 101-43000-224 TREATED ROAD SALT - 2022-2023 SNOW SEAS Public Works Department 10,610.42 CARGILL SALT 02/13/2023 120533 2907824522 101-43000-224 TREATED ROAD SALT - 2023-2023 SNOW SEAS Public Works Department 2,615.45 CARGILL SALT 02/13/2023 120533 2907832967 101-43000-224 TREATED ROAD SALT - 2023-2023 SNOW SEAS Public Works Department 3,133.99 CARGILL SALT 02/13/2023 120533 2907913843 601-49400-216 NAVARRE WATER PLANT SALT Water 6,059.34 Total 120533:22,419.20 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/13/2023 120534 2023.1 1377 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICES 1377 VINE PL 12/21/22-01/21/23 Sewer 19.34 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 02/13/2023 120534 2023.1 1377 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICES 1377 VINE PL 11/21/22-12/21/22 Sewer 19.37 Total 120534:38.71 CERTIFIED CRIME FIGHTER 02/13/2023 120535 ORONO-PD-101-42110-433 TRAINING SOFTWARE MEMBERSHIP Police Department 2,604.00 Total 120535:2,604.00 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019506 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #266 OIL/FILTER CHANGE Police Department 146.43 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019509 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #268 OIL/FILTER/CABIN AIR FILTE Police Department 148.93 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019512 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #247 RPLMT REAR BRAKES/ROT Police Department 766.79 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019514 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #251 BATTERY REPLMT Police Department 63.92 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019519 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #271 BALANCE TIRES Police Department 77.33 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019526 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #260 RPLMT FRONT BRAKE/ROT Police Department 1,195.52 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 02/13/2023 120536 0019532 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #264 OIL/FILTER CHANGE Police Department 58.29 Total 120536:2,457.21 City of Orono Utilities 02/13/2023 120537 2023.01 CH 101-41900-382 JAN 2023 CH&PD Central Services 177.53 City of Orono Utilities 02/13/2023 120537 2023.01 PO 101-41900-382 JAN 2023- UB - PO Central Services 86.37 City of Orono Utilities 02/13/2023 120537 2023.01 PW 101-41900-382 JAN 2023 UB- PW Central Services 159.43 City of Orono Utilities 02/13/2023 120537 2023.01 WT 601-49400-382 JAN 2023 UB - WTP Water 156.74 Total 120537:580.07 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/13/2023 120538 JAN 2023 W 601-49400-387 JANUARY 2023 WATER Water 2,731.65 CITY OF WAYZATA 02/13/2023 120538 JAN 2023 W 602-49450-387 JANUARY 2023 SEWER Sewer 5,727.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120538:8,458.65 COMMERCIAL ASPHALT 02/13/2023 120539 22115 101-43000-224 ROAD PATCHING Public Works Department 204.15 Total 120539:204.15 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 02/13/2023 120540 1109561 101-43000-224 WINTER ROAD SALT Public Works Department 22,624.85 COMPASS MINERALS AMERICA 02/13/2023 120540 1110703 101-43000-224 NON-TREATED ROAD SALT Public Works Department 2,003.80 Total 120540:24,628.65 CORE & MAIN 02/13/2023 120541 S281125 601-49400-227 HYDRANT FLAGS Water 711.90 Total 120541:711.90 Curtis A Finch 02/13/2023 120542 082022 101-43000-489 PICK UP ROADSIDE DEER KILL Public Works Department 93.00 Total 120542:93.00 DENCO SERVICES HEATING & 02/13/2023 120543 20623 101-43000-404 HEATER VENTING REPAIR PUBLIC WORKS SHO Public Works Department 362.00 Total 120543:362.00 EBERT INC 02/13/2023 120544 PW PAY APP 440-48970-500 21-039 NEW PUBLIC WORK FACILITY CONSTRU 375,505.15 EBERT INC 02/13/2023 120544 PW PAY APP 440-20600 21-039 NEW PUBLIC WORK FACILITY CONSTRU 18,775.26- Total 120544:356,729.89 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 02/13/2023 120545 932301 602-16500 2023 CIPP BIDS 141.96 Total 120545:141.96 FASTENAL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120546 MNPLY1388 701-49800-215 NUTS AND BOLTS / SHOP SUPPLIES 213.83 FASTENAL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120546 MNPLY1389 701-49800-215 HOSE CLAMP RACK, MISC NUTS AND BOLTS, P 280.77 FASTENAL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120546 MNPLY1391 701-49800-215 NUTS AND BOLTS / SHOP SUPPLIES 820.65 FASTENAL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120546 MNPLY1392 101-43000-226 WINTER SAFETY GLOVES SIZE MEDIUM Public Works Department 101.27 Total 120546:1,416.52 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Ferguson Enterprises LLC #3326 02/13/2023 120547 0228324 601-49400-403 REPAIR METAL DETECTOR FOR UNIT 712 Water 333.83 Total 120547:333.83 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE INSU 02/13/2023 120548 EYEMED012 101-21716 VISION PLAN 2/2023 289.45 Total 120548:289.45 FUSION LEARNING PARTNERS 02/13/2023 120549 2023.01 101-42110-437 TRAINING - HOMELAND SECURITY Police Department 350.00 Total 120549:350.00 G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 02/13/2023 120550 00166427 701-49800-403 HYDRAULIC HOSE #604 SWEEPER 265.28 G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 02/13/2023 120550 00166561 701-49800-215 HYDRANT HOSES AND FITTINGS 47.22 G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 02/13/2023 120550 00166583 701-49800-403 HYDRAULIC HOSE #604 SWEEPER 208.66 Total 120550:521.16 GB Auto Service, Inc.02/13/2023 120551 10770 701-49800-402 FRONT END ALIGNMENT UNIT 710 129.71 Total 120551:129.71 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-559659 101-42110-402 HEADLIGHTS UNIT 256 Police Department 18.80 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-559852 701-49800-215 SERPENTINE BELT UNIT 504 29.69 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-559916 701-49800-215 WIPER BLADES #452 10.22 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-559976 101-42110-402 MIRROR TAPE Police Department 7.22 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560072 701-49800-215 AIR LATCH COUPLER FOR TAIL GATE #425 22.79 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560082 701-49800-215 ELECTRICAL CONNECTOR FOR DUMP BODY O 10.77 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560387 701-49800-215 POWER STEERING PUMP REPLACEMENT UNIT 230.66 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560743 701-49800-212 FUEL ADDITIVES 47.85 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560826 701-49800-215 AIR FILTER # 9902 82.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560827 701-49800-215 DOOR ACTUATOR 66.97 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 02/13/2023 120552 3270-560964 701-49800-215 TIE ROD ENDS UNIT 710 344.32 Total 120552:871.29 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14388 101-43000-489 ELECTRICAL PLUG WELDER REPAIR.Public Works Department 29.99 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14388 701-49800-215 MISC. NUTS AND BOLTS 5.95 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14399 701-49800-215 SPRAY PAINT REPIR WING ON 425 19.50 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14452 101-43000-404 DRAIN CLEANER Public Works Department 16.99 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14519 101-43000-404 PLUNGER Public Works Department 11.99 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14594 101-42110-223 RIVETS FOR LOCKER #'S Police Department 8.59 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 14626 101-43000-224 SCREWS Public Works Department 13.28 GOPHER ACE 02/13/2023 120553 15623 701-49800-215 BRINE TANK REPAIR PARTS UNIT 425 15.57 Total 120553:121.86 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/13/2023 120554 3000657 602-49450-227 LOCATES - SEWER Sewer 25.00 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/13/2023 120554 3000657 601-49400-489 LOCATES - WATER Water 25.00 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/13/2023 120554 3010657 602-49450-227 LOCATES - SEWER Sewer 48.60 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 02/13/2023 120554 3010657 601-49400-489 LOCATES - WATER Water 48.60 Total 120554:147.20 GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY 02/13/2023 120555 23-0073 405-48500-500 EMERGENCY LIGHTS INSTALL FOR NEW UNIT 4 3,424.35 Total 120555:3,424.35 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/13/2023 120556 1000196062 101-42110-414 RADIO LEASE Police Department 283.14 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 02/13/2023 120556 1000198579 101-43000-415 PW RADIOS Public Works Department 296.89 Total 120556:580.03 Hennepin County Public Works G 02/13/2023 120557 100097833 101-42110-319 SOCIAL WORKER 1/1/23-12/31/23 Police Department 8,600.00 Total 120557:8,600.00 HOLIDAY COMPANIES 02/13/2023 120558 0796010223 101-42110-402 CAR WASHES Police Department 220.00 Total 120558:220.00 HOLTON ELECTRIC CONTRACT 02/13/2023 120559 5297 101-43000-404 REPLACE ELECTRICAL OUTLESTS Public Works Department 329.03 Total 120559:329.03 IN CONTROL INC.02/13/2023 120560 S-INV00100 601-49400-405 N WATER TOWER TRANSDUCER AND GAUGE Water 3,001.52 Total 120560:3,001.52 James Nelson 02/13/2023 120561 01242023-Ja 101-43000-437 CDL LICENSE TRAINING PERDIEM, MILAGE Public Works Department 598.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount James Nelson 02/13/2023 120561 01252023 101-43000-441 CDL LICENSE - NELSON Public Works Department 20.25 Total 120561:618.25 JAMES VAN EYLL 02/13/2023 120562 2023.01 101-42260-437 PARKING REIMB Fire Protection Services 2.08 Total 120562:2.08 JP NIXON CONSULTING LLC 02/13/2023 120563 805 101-42110-437 TRAINING LANGE/SLIPKA Police Department 470.00 JP NIXON CONSULTING LLC 02/13/2023 120563 815 101-42110-437 TRAINING SPENCER Police Department 235.00 Total 120563:705.00 KYLE KIRSCHNER 02/13/2023 120564 2023.01 101-42110-318 XERXES - VET CARE Police Department 168.49 KYLE KIRSCHNER 02/13/2023 120564 2023.01 101-42110-230 XERXES - DOG FOOD Police Department 73.21 Total 120564:241.70 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 02/13/2023 120565 03-973110 701-49800-403 HYDRAULIC TUBES UNIT 604 156.47 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 02/13/2023 120565 03-973862 701-49800-403 REPAIR UNIT 451 813.04 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 02/13/2023 120565 03-973863 701-49800-403 HYDRAULIC FITTING AND HOSES, UNIT 452 82.58 Total 120565:1,052.09 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 02/13/2023 120566 LELS012623 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 40 1/2023 1,333.86 LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR S 02/13/2023 120566 LELS012623 101-21707 LELS DUES - LOCAL 168 1/2023 337.50 Total 120566:1,671.36 LOGIS 02/13/2023 120567 51318 710-49970-413 NETWORK SERVICES 125.00 Total 120567:125.00 LUBE TECH ESI 02/13/2023 120568 3124149 701-49800-213 PICK UP USED OIL FILTERS / FLOOR DRY 200.00 LUBE TECH ESI 02/13/2023 120568 3125647 701-49800-213 PICK UP USED OIL 166.00 Total 120568:366.00 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120569 23969280 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 1,508.24 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120569 23969291 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 785.71 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120569 23969296 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 2,213.31 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 02/13/2023 120569 23969319 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 1,141.78 Total 120569:5,649.04 METLIFE SMALL BUSINESS CE 02/13/2023 120570 METLIFE020 101-21709 DENTAL INSURANCE 1/23 5,673.77 Total 120570:5,673.77 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI 02/13/2023 120571 0001151498 602-49450-383 WASTWATER SERVICE 03/2023 Sewer 63,916.11 Total 120571:63,916.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/13/2023 120572 00104742 101-43000-224 OXYGEN, ACETYLENE Public Works Department 70.59 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/13/2023 120572 00104743 101-42110-221 OXYGEN Police Department 132.07 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 02/13/2023 120572 00104744 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 20.43 Total 120572:223.09 MINNETONKA SPORTSMEN INC 02/13/2023 120573 3272 101-42110-433 GUN CLUB DUES PASSIVE MEMBERSHIP DUES Police Department 250.00 Total 120573:250.00 MINUTEMAN PRESS 02/13/2023 120574 33654 101-41900-352 WINTER NEWSLETTER Central Services 2,531.44 Total 120574:2,531.44 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 02/13/2023 120575 13718 101-42110-433 MEMBERSHIPS Police Department 434.00 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 02/13/2023 120575 14174 101-42110-437 TRAINING Police Department 525.00 MN CHIEF OF POLICE ASSN 02/13/2023 120575 14204 101-42110-437 TRAINING HENNESSY Police Department 725.00 Total 120575:1,684.00 MN LAW ENFORCEMENT EXPL 02/13/2023 120576 5221 101-42110-229 EXPLORERS Police Department 150.00 Total 120576:150.00 MN OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH LB 02/13/2023 120577 419265 101-42110-319 PHYSICAL LYREK Police Department 697.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120577:697.00 Modern Power Solutions LLC 02/13/2023 120578 11295979 602-49450-403 GENERATOR REPAIR LS 9 Sewer 1,075.48 Total 120578:1,075.48 Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 02/13/2023 120579 31601164 405-48500-550 TIRE CHANGING EQUIPMENT 379.98 Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 02/13/2023 120579 31601220 405-48500-550 TIRE CHANGING EQUIPMENT 5,498.16 Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 02/13/2023 120579 31601308 405-48500-550 MECHANIC SHOP PRESS 862.00 Total 120579:6,740.14 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340604 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 11.77 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340611 601-49400-227 JARS FOR WATER SAMPLING Water 14.94 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340621 602-49450-240 SUPPLIES FOR POS Sewer 20.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340643 601-49400-227 JARS FOR WATER TESTING Water 16.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340652 101-42110-402 MIRROR TAPE Police Department 6.99 NAVARRE HARDWARE 02/13/2023 120580 340698 601-49400-240 PROPANE CYLINDER FOR TORCH Water 6.49 Total 120580:78.17 NELSON, GARY 02/13/2023 120581 01.2023 101-42400-437 SEPTIC TRAINING- TRAVEL AND FOOD Building & Zoning 719.05 Total 120581:719.05 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1205789405 710-49970-221 LAPTOP - CITY 419.99 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304306363 710-49970-221 MONITORS 519.98 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304306363 710-49970-221 credit on account 384.62- Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304309693 710-49970-221 WEBCAM - NATALIE 29.99 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304323313 710-49970-221 DOCKING STATION 75.00 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304323946 710-49970-221 SPARE CABLES - CITY 59.21 Newegg Business Inc 02/13/2023 120582 1304326481 710-49970-221 SPEAKERS - ANNA 45.08 Total 120582:764.63 NORTH PINE AGGREGATE 02/13/2023 120583 2023.02 999-10016 REFUND FOR OVER PYMT - BULK WATER 686.71 Total 120583:686.71 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount NORTH STAR EXPLORING 02/13/2023 120584 2023.02 101-42110-229 EXPLORERS - PRACTICE COMP Police Department 25.00 Total 120584:25.00 NORTHERN STAR EXPLORER 02/13/2023 120585 ORONO POL 101-42110-229 EXPLODERS - POST REGISTRATION FEES Police Department 638.75 Total 120585:638.75 Northland Petroleum Service 02/13/2023 120586 24780 701-49800-403 DIESAL PUMP REPAIR 3,135.07 Total 120586:3,135.07 NOVA COMMUNICATIONS INC 02/13/2023 120587 157378 710-49970-401 ANNUAL SERVER & SOFTWARE SUPPORT 4,100.50 Total 120587:4,100.50 OMANN CONTRACTING COMPA 02/13/2023 120588 2021 STR IM 435-20600 21-001 2021 STREETS PROJECT 26,520.00 OMANN CONTRACTING COMPA 02/13/2023 120588 2021 STR IM 435-48973-590 21-001 2021 STREETS PROJECT 2020 Street Improvements 2,085.00 Total 120588:28,605.00 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 02/13/2023 120589 2852975920 101-41900-221 WHITEBOARD Central Services 90.39 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 02/13/2023 120589 2852986600 101-45210-201 INK CARTRIDGE Golf Course 55.83 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 02/13/2023 120589 2894810620 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 7.89 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 02/13/2023 120589 2908065970 101-41900-201 POST IT DISPENSOR Central Services 12.22 Total 120589:166.33 OPTUM 02/13/2023 120590 0001402763 101-41900-319 HSA MAINTENANCE FEE 4TH QTR 2022 Central Services 305.50 Total 120590:305.50 ORONO STATION WEST LLC 02/13/2023 120591 202301 701-49800-212 DIESAL FUEL 2,070.73 Total 120591:2,070.73 PETERSON, DARRYL 02/13/2023 120592 2023.01 PET 999-10015 UB REFUND - 1921 FAGERNESS POINT RD 86.88 Total 120592:86.88 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 02/13/2023 120593 44325 602-49450-406 HEATER INSTALL GS#1 Sewer 746.00 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 02/13/2023 120593 44329 602-49450-406 INTERIOR PIPING REPAIR GS#1 Sewer 1,817.18 Total 120593:2,563.18 RAETH, MARY 02/13/2023 120594 2023.02 RAE 999-10015 UB REFUND - 480 DEBORAH DR 76.43 Total 120594:76.43 RELENTLESS LLC 02/13/2023 120595 128581 101-42110-437 CRIMINAL INTERDICTION TRAINING SLIPKA Police Department 649.00 Total 120595:649.00 ROTARY CLUB OF ORONO 02/13/2023 120596 189 101-42110-433 MEMBERSHIPS Police Department 1,200.00 Total 120596:1,200.00 SANDBERG, SCOTT 02/13/2023 120597 2022.11.29 S 999-10015 UB REFUND - 1380 N ARM DR 40.97 Total 120597:40.97 SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 02/13/2023 120598 474 602-49450-201 UTILITY BILLING ENVELOPES Sewer 233.50 Total 120598:233.50 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 02/13/2023 120599 0123231489 701-49800-240 DIE GRINDER AIR OPERATED 256.95 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 02/13/2023 120599 0203231495 701-49800-240 1/4" DRIVE RACHET MECHANIC TOOLS 181.00 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 02/13/2023 120599 0206231495 701-49800-240 SHOP TOOLS- SOCKETS 47.45 Total 120599:485.40 SPIKES 02/13/2023 120600 3770/15 101-43000-212 PROPANE Public Works Department 27.90 Total 120600:27.90 STAR TRIBUNE 02/13/2023 120601 01.2023 CH 101-41900-352 SUBSCRIPTION ACCT 1069427 11/18/22-11/17/23 Central Services 272.90 STAR TRIBUNE 02/13/2023 120601 02/02/23-02/101-43000-208 SUBSCRIPTION Public Works Department 236.50 Total 120601:509.40 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount STREET CRIMES 02/13/2023 120602 45124 101-42110-437 TRAINING SHERMAN/FOURNIER Police Department 900.00 Total 120602:900.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1611758 101-42110-228 TRAINING SUPPLIES Police Department 3,312.96 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1611848 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 379.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1611975 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 34.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1612479 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 43.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1612480 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS Police Department 25.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1613154 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - VEST FOURNIER Police Department 283.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1613281 101-42110-226 NEW HIRE KLUKAS Police Department 794.93 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1613286 101-42110-229 EXPLORERS Police Department 50.97 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1613288 101-42110-226 NEW HIRE UNIFORMS - KLUKAS Police Department 13.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1614378 101-42110-226 NEW HIRE KLUKAS Police Department 109.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1614379 101-42110-226 NEW HIRE KLUKAS Police Department 78.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 02/13/2023 120603 1614715 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - STRUM Police Department 398.95 Total 120603:5,526.74 SUBURBAN RATE AUTHORITY 02/13/2023 120604 2023.01 1ST 101-41110-433 2023 MEMBERSHIP ASSESSMENT - 1ST HALF Mayor & Council 479.00 Total 120604:479.00 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/13/2023 120605 STDISABILIT 101-21714 STD- JAN/2023 1,036.80 SUN LIFE FINANCIAL 02/13/2023 120605 SUPPLEME 101-21710 LIFE INSURANCE - 1-2023 1,426.36 Total 120605:2,463.16 TALLEN AND BAERTSCHI 02/13/2023 120606 JANUARY 20 101-41600-306 PROSECUTION SERVICES-1/2023 Law/Legal Services 3,307.90 Total 120606:3,307.90 THE HARTFORD 02/13/2023 120607 HARTFORD 101-21713 LTD 1- 2023 1,886.66 Total 120607:1,886.66 THEISEN, BENJAMIN 02/13/2023 120608 01/25/2023 101-43000-441 CDL LICENSE REIMB Public Works Department 20.25 THEISEN, BENJAMIN 02/13/2023 120608 01242023 101-43000-437 CDL TRAINING LICENSE, PERDIEM, MILAGE Public Works Department 582.28 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120608:602.53 THOMAS REUTERS - WEST 02/13/2023 120609 847748450 101-42110-311 INV DATABASE Police Department 270.53 Total 120609:270.53 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 02/13/2023 120610 M27769 101-45200-319 PARKS COMMISSION MTG Parks 227.00 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 02/13/2023 120610 M27956 101-42400-319 PC MINUTES Building & Zoning 287.25 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 02/13/2023 120610 M27956 101-41300-319 CC MEETING MINUTES Administration 238.50 Total 120610:752.75 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT Water 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0745314 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT Water 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0746674 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT Water 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 38.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 02/13/2023 120611 090 0748053 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 38.78 Total 120611:671.37 US Bank Equipment Finance 02/13/2023 120612 493025829 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120612:596.76 VALLEY RICH CO 02/13/2023 120613 31633 601-49400-405 3865 N SHORE DR MAIN BREAK Water 4,931.00 Total 120613:4,931.00 VESSCO INC 02/13/2023 120614 089889 601-49400-405 WATER PLANT INJECTORS Water 782.10 Total 120614:782.10 VON BANK, JASON & PAIGE 02/13/2023 120615 2023.1 VON 999-10015 UB REFUND - 3065 JAMESTOWN RD 105.36 Total 120615:105.36 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 02/13/2023 120616 0100176-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 2/2023 17,944.60 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 02/13/2023 120616 0100176-280 603-49500-301 RECYCLING JAN 23 ORGANICS 86.81 Total 120616:18,031.41 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 02/13/2023 120617 920470 701-49800-402 TIRE REPAIR UNIT 430 81.29 Total 120617:81.29 WILLIAMS TOWING INC 02/13/2023 120618 #23-14147 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT - TOW/HOOK FEE 2017 FORD Police Department 149.00 Total 120618:149.00 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-45210-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Golf Course 206.87 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 601-49400-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Water 7,885.66 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Parks 53.54 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-43000-386 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Public Works Department 2,973.59 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Public Works Department 248.28 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Police Department 40.23 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Police Department 3,106.97 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 602-49450-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Sewer 3,965.25 XCEL ENERGY 02/13/2023 120619 814561985 101-41900-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 12/21/22-1/22/23 Central Services 1,099.26 Total 120619:19,579.65 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount ZAYO GROUP LLC 02/13/2023 120620 19169938 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 01/23/2023-02/22/2023 Sewer 163.61 ZAYO GROUP LLC 02/13/2023 120620 19169938 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 01/23/2023-02/22/2023 Police Department 306.77 ZAYO GROUP LLC 02/13/2023 120620 19169938 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 01/23/2023-02/22/2023 Central Services 429.47 ZAYO GROUP LLC 02/13/2023 120620 19169938 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 01/23/2023-02/22/2023 Water 71.58 ZAYO GROUP LLC 02/13/2023 120620 19169938 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 01/23/2023-02/22/2023 Golf Course 51.12 Total 120620:1,022.55 INNOVO BENEFITS ADMINISTR 01/24/2023 201303 1247985 101-15998 HEALTH INSURANCE 01/23 - COBRA NON EMPL 3,180.52 INNOVO BENEFITS ADMINISTR 01/24/2023 201303 1247985 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 01/23 71,710.36 INNOVO BENEFITS ADMINISTR 01/24/2023 201303 1255094 101-15998 HEALTH INSURANCE 02/23 - COBRA NON EMPL 3,180.52 INNOVO BENEFITS ADMINISTR 01/24/2023 201303 1255094 101-21706 HEALTH INSURANCE 02/23 66,610.24 Total 20130324:144,681.64 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 601-39610 WATER METER SALES 12/22 37.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 601-20806 WATER TAXABLE SALES 12/22 697.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 101-37910 GOLF COURSE GREEN FEES 12/22 49.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 101-37920 RENTALS - SALES TAX 12/22 10.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 101-37930 BEER - SALES TAX 12/22 45.00 MN DEPT OF REVENUE-WIRE 01/24/2023 201303 DEC 2022 S 101-37940 CONCESSIONS - SALES TAX 12/22 14.00 Total 20130325:852.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-439 MEETING EXPENSE COMM TEAM439 Police Department 86.69 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-439 MEETING EXPENSE WCC Police Department 20.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-240 DRUG TEST KITS Police Department 98.10 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-240 MISC SUPPLIES Police Department 359.83 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-437 TRAININIG SLIPKA Police Department 375.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/2022-1 101-42110-439 MEETING EXPENSE Police Department 108.59 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 01/31/2023 201303 11/22/22-12/2 101-41110-439 HR COMMITTEE MEETING LUNCH Mayor & Council 92.37 Total 20130326:1,140.58 ALLSTREAM 02/03/2023 201303 19084424 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 12/23/2022-01/22/2023 Golf Course 50.15 ALLSTREAM 02/03/2023 201303 19084424 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 12/23/2022-01/22/2023 Police Department 300.89 ALLSTREAM 02/03/2023 201303 19084424 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 12/23/2022-01/22/2023 Central Services 421.25 ALLSTREAM 02/03/2023 201303 19084424 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 12/23/2022-01/22/2023 Water 70.21 ALLSTREAM 02/03/2023 201303 19084424 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 12/23/2023-01/22/2023 Sewer 160.48 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 17 Check Issue Dates: 1/24/2023 - 2/13/2023 Feb 09, 2023 01:42PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 20130327:1,002.98 MEDSURETY LLC 02/13/2023 201303 21068 101-41900-319 VEBA/FSA/COBRA HSA FEES 2/23 Central Services 302.50 Total 20130328:302.50 Grand Totals: 1,682,736.49 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A.Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carslon Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action item is to update the city’s social media policy and to gain approval for ArchiveSocial software to assist with the retention needs for the city’s social media sites. 2. Background. The city passed the Orono Social media policy at their April 13, 2020 City Council Meeting. Since then, Council has shared goals for maximizing the city’s communication efforts and public outreach through the use of social media and other communication channels. Since 2020, the city’s efforts have shown a significant increase in social media used for communication. For example, the city’s viewer reach on Facebook alone has gone from reaching approximately 2,700 in 2020, to reaching nearly 36,000 annually; similar patterns resemble this same growth on other city social media channels, respectively. The increase in reach invites the opportunity for more comments and/or participation from the public; which in turn creates more government data that should be systematically organized. Social media is a public record and the city’s social media accounts are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices act. Staff has reexamined the current processes and policy related to social media and has updated the policy to better align it with the city’s needs and has found an archive program, ArchiveSocial, that can assist with maintaining the data that is and will be created on the City’s social media sites going forward. 3. Funding. Funding for 2023 would be used from the IT Fund. Subscription Period Total Annual Cost 3/1/2023 to 12/31/2023 $2,792.00 1/1/2024 to 12/31/2024 $4,188.00 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the updated Social Media Policy and of the ArchiveSocial subscription. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the updated Orono Social Media Policy and for the subscription to ArchiveSocial. Exhibits A. Orono Social Media Policy Draft B. ArchiveSocial Quotes for 2023 and 2024 Item No.: 4 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Approval of Social Media Policy Update Presenter: Anna Carlson City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 City of Orono Social Media Policy & Guidelines Updated February 13, 2023 Section I: Purpose & Polices Section II: Guidelines for City of Orono Departments Section III: Examples of Social Media Platforms and Potential Usage Section I: Purpose & Policies Purpose The City of Orono encourages the use of social media to further the goals of the city and the missions of its departments where appropriate. The City Council and the City Administrator have an overriding interest and expectation in deciding who may “speak” and what is "spoken" on behalf of City of Orono on social media sites. This policy establishes guidelines for the use of social media. The City of Orono’s City Clerk will approve what social media outlets may be suitable for use by the city and its departments. The city’s communications division will post to and monitor city social media outlets, and serve to educate departments on how to best use various outlets to achieve their goals. Social Media Policy A. All official City of Orono presences on social media sites or services are considered an extension of the city’s information networks and are governed by the Personal Communications and Use of Social Media and City Technology sections contained in the City of Orono Personnel Policy. B. The City Clerk will review department requests to use social media sites. C. The communications division will advocate using social media to help departments reach their stated goals by assisting departments in developing appropriate uses for social media, assisting in the selection of appropriate social media outlets and helping departments define a strategy for engagement using social media. D. Departments that use social media are responsible for complying with applicable federal, state, and city laws, regulations, and policies. This includes adherence to established laws and policies regarding copyright, records retention, Freedom of Information Act and Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, First Amendment, privacy laws and information security policies established by City of Orono. E. Wherever possible, links to more information should direct users back to the city’s official website for more information, forms, documents or online services necessary to conduct business with the City of Orono. F. Employees representing the city government via social media outlets must conduct themselves at all times as representatives of the City of Orono. Employees who fail to conduct themselves in an appropriate manner shall be subject to the Disciplinary Procedures outlined in the City of Orono Personnel Policy. G. The communications division will monitor content on each of the department social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use, messaging and branding consistent with the goals of City of Orono. H. Violation of these standards may result in the removal of department pages from social media outlets. The City Clerk will retain the authority to remove information. Section II: Guidelines for City of Orono Departments 2 Authorization to Use Social Media The City of Orono delegates the review and approval of social media usage to the City Clerk and Management Assistant, who may then authorize individuals to represent the City of Orono departments on social media to support the mission and overall goals of the city. Notice Regarding Use This policy regarding social media specifically points out that the City Council and the City Administrator have an overriding interest and expectation in deciding who may “speak” and what is “spoken” on behalf of City of Orono through social media sites. • All official City of Orono presences on social media sites or services are considered an extension of the city’s information networks and are governed by the Personal Communications and Use of Social Media and City Technology sections contained in the City of Orono Personnel Policy. • Employees representing the city government via social media outlets must conduct themselves at all times as representatives of City of Orono. • The communications division will monitor content on each of the department social media sites to ensure adherence to the Social Media Policy for appropriate use, messaging and branding consistent with the goals of City of Orono. Commenting Policy The City of Orono social media comment policy is below, and is posted on its social media sites: City of Orono Social Media Comment Policy The City of Orono uses social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, to provide two-way communication with the public about matters of public interest identified and raised by the City for discussion. The City of Orono welcomes participation and comments that are on topic from the public on its social media sites. However, these sites are limited public forums limited to specific topics identified and raised by the City. City staff monitor these social media sites and the city reserves the right to hide posted content on Orono social media sites, including but not limited to the following: • Posts and comments that contain obscene, indecent, or profane language or pornographic images or links to obscene or pornographic content and Direct threats • Prejudiced or harmful comments that encourage discrimination or discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex, age, religion, gender identity, ethnicity, marital status, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation • Solicitation, promotion or endorsement of specific commercial services, products or entities • Links to any site or content posted by automatic software programs (i.e., “bots”) • Posts and comments that advocate illegal activity • Personally identifiable information or sensitive personal information that if released violates federal or state law • Political statements that endorse or oppose political campaigns or candidates • Information that could compromise the safety or security of the public or public systems 3 • Information that directly interferes or compromises ongoing investigations, public safety tactics, or the safety of public safety officers • Confidential or private information or data in violation of state or federal law • Information that appears to violate the intellectual property right of the City or a third party under federal or state law • Comments that are not directly related to the topic of the Facebook or Twitter discussion to which the comment is responding. We also reserve the right to delete spam, posts that advocate illegal activity and posts that infringe on copyright. Please note: Comments expressed on the city’s social networking sites do not reflect the opinions or positions of the City of Orono, its employees or elected officials. The city’s following of a particular social networking user does not equal endorsement or support. In the event of an emergency, call 911 for a police, fire or EMS response. The City of Orono cannot guarantee a timely emergency response to comments posted on social media sites. Uses for Social Media Uses for social media includes: 1. Sharing news from the City of Orono, including services, holiday closings and other information normally found on the city website. 2. Publicizing events and programs sponsored by the City of Orono or by other government entities, local utilities necessary for Orono residents, or nonprofit agencies or organizations that receive funding from the City of Orono. 3. Issuing emergency alerts, road closures or weather alerts affecting large numbers of residents. 4. Engaging with residents, local businesses and other relevant local groups and organizations, and responding to questions and inquiries. Social Media as Public Record Social media is a public record and the city’s social media accounts are subject to the Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act. The City of Orono uses ArchiveSocial for backup of social media. Responses to data practices requests received for social media posts or comments should be coordinated with the city clerk’s office, which is responsible for responding to data practices requests. Guidelines for Following Others on Social Media 1. City of Orono departments using social media should follow other City of Orono departments using social media. 2. City of Orono departments using social media may follow other groups and organizations of local relevance, including local businesses, area nonprofits, other government entities and news media. 3. In order to limit the appearance of favoritism or bias, the city’s social media accounts include a statement that following a particular social networking user does not equal endorsement or support (see the City of Orono Social Media Comment Policy referenced earlier in this section). Naming Conventions 4 City of Orono departments should use account names that maintain the city’s branding and consistent identification with City of Orono. Account names should also include “Minnesota” after City of Orono wherever possible to differentiate the city from similarly named cities. Legal Considerations The Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act guarantees citizens of the State and representatives of the media access to public records held by public bodies, public officials, and public employees. A public record is any writing or recording - regardless of whether it is a paper record, an electronic file, an audio or video recording, or any other format - that is prepared or owned by, or in the possession of a public body or its officers, employees or agents in the transaction of public business. All public records are presumed to be open, and may only be withheld if a specific, statutory exemption applies. In consideration of the Freedom of Information Act and the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, see Backup Policy above. Note on Tone and Presentation The City of Orono should be as personable and approachable as possible when using social media, as this registers best with users. Messages should generally be conversational and concise. City of Orono social media pages should also have brief descriptions that include details on the city and are consistent with the city’s brand. These descriptions should include comment policies. They should also explain the city’s policy on following or otherwise engaging with other entities on the social media site, when applicable. See “Guidelines for Following Others on Social Media” above for more details. Appeal City of Orono social media sites are not intended to operate as traditional open public forums. When the City opens a site for public comment it does not intend to open the site for all purposes but to open the site for limited discussion of only those topics specified by the City on that site. In some cases sites may be non-public forums, that is, not open to public comment at all, and in other instances, sites may be designated limited public forums. When the City Clerk determines to remove content of a person who is not an employee and who was not acting on behalf of the City, the person may appeal the decision. When a post or comment has been removed, anyone aggrieved other than a City employee may seek to have the City Clerk reconsider the decision to remove a comment by providing the City Clerk with a written request stating the reason or reasons why the comments do not fall within those limitations established in this policy or offer other bases to establish a right to publish the comments or other communications on the City social media site. The City Clerk or other appropriate official must render a written decision on the request within one business day (excluding official City holidays) of receipt of the request noting the basis for the decision. The decision of the City Clerk or other appropriate official shall be the final administrative decision of the City. When a person other than an employee believes this policy violates their rights in ways other than removal of personally posted content from the City’s social media sites, that person may seek to have the City Clerk review all or part of the policy as applicable to that person by providing the City Clerk with a written request stating the reason or reasons why the policy violates the persons rights. The City Clerk must render a written decision on the request within five (5) business days (excluding official City holidays) and give the bases for the decision. For good cause, the City Clerk may extend the time for rendering a decision by five (5) additional days. The decision of the City Clerk shall be the final administrative decision by the City. 5 The rights to appeal created in this section do not apply to an employee when the employee is acting in an official capacity or as a representative of the City and may only apply when the employee is acting in the Employee’s personal capacity as a private party and when exercising rights accorded a person under the Constitution and the laws of the United States. An employee who feels aggrieved by any action under this policy not covered by this section should seek review through established grievance procedures, if applicable, or though the employee’s chain of command. Approved by: Anna Carlson City Clerk Date Updated: February 13, 2023 ArchiveSocial, Inc.P.O. Box 3330Durham NC 27702United States QUOTE #4901 01/31/2023 1 of 1 Bill To Ship To TOTAL (USD) City of Orono, MN City of Orono, MN2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 United States City of Orono, MN2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 United States $4,188.00 Quote Expires: 03/01/2023 Item Options Amount Economy - 1.6KR - 12A - $349 Social Media Archiving Subscription($349/month) - Up to 12 Accounts & Up To 1.6k Records Per Month Service Dates: 1/1/2024 - 12/31/2024 $4,188.00 Subtotal (USD)$4,188.00 Other Credits (USD) Tax Total (USD)$0.00 Total (USD)$4,188.00 ArchiveSocial, Inc.P.O. Box 3330Durham NC 27702United States QUOTE #4900 01/31/2023 1 of 1 Bill To Ship To TOTAL (USD) City of Orono, MN City of Orono, MN2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 United States City of Orono, MN2750 Kelley Parkway Orono MN 55356 United States $2,792.00 Quote Expires: 03/01/2023 Item Options Amount Economy - 1.6KR - 12A - $349 Social Media Archiving Subscription($349/month) - Up to 12 Accounts & Up To 1.6k Records Per Month Service Dates: 3/1/2023 - 12/31/2023 $3,490.00 Credit Credit of $698 applied for 2 months of service. ($698.00) Subtotal (USD)$2,792.00 Other Credits (USD) Tax Total (USD)$0.00 Total (USD)$2,792.00 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A. Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve Rental Licenses. 2. License Applicant(s) Name Address License # Period Dan McIntosh 1945 Fagerness Point RL21-000002 01/01/2023-12/31/2024 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Rental licenses listed above. The License Applicant has submitted all of the requested documents and has met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental license listed above. Item No.: 5 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Approval of Rental Licenses Presenter: Anna Carlson City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: CF Reviewed By: A. Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this council item is to approve the disposal through donation of bicycles. 2. Background. The Orono Police Department has 19 bicycles that have been turned in to the department. The bikes were found or abandoned within the city. The following bicycles have not been claimed. All of the bicycles and have been in the department’s possession for more than 60 days. The police department considers the bicycles as abandoned property and would like to dispose of them by donating to Free Bikes for Kids or similar program for repair and distribution back to children and young adults. The bicycles that cannot be fixed/used will be destroyed by Orono Public Works. Serial # Model Color Bike #1 DWAJ071047 NEXT Surge (8508-25E or F) Lime green, black, gray, white, orange Bike #2 N/A 20” Boys Kent Chaos Yellow (GS32038) Lime green with black writing Bike #3 EB120902758 Diamondback Cobra 20 Light blue and white Bike #4 SL03344136 8104-37 (2011.02.07) Pink with black and white writing Bike #5 SNFSD13AP9074 S1697TR Pink, green, blue and white Bike #6 DJFB033623 8106-80TJ Pink, purple and white writing Bike #7 80959HUFFY 8463? Huffy Main Street Light purple with black and white writing Bike #8 N/A 8504-35 (1999.2.5) Dark blue with white writing Bike #9 SNFSD09D82960 264135P Purple with black and white writing Bike #10 M0236644 Spalding Green with white writing Bike #11 5NFSD18L31 R4046WMM Black with gray and blue writing Bike #12 OSC3B0??? Schwinn - S2600TG Gray, red and white Bike #13 DM0312008 NEXT Shocker Red, gray, black and white Bike #14 98262799 Magna Excitor 8151-17 Yellow with black and white writing Bike #15 WSBC602177679F SPECIALIZED Gray with black writing Bike #16 6FA2451 Diamondback Green with white writing Bike #17 Gf892340 GIANT Yukon SE Red with black and white writing Scooter N/A Micro Red and black Pet Stroller N/A Pet Gear Blue, silver and black Bike #18 AC9A043583 Smith & Wesson Black with white and red writing Bike #19 1423859 TREK Black with white writing 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend donation of bicycles to Free Bikes for Kids or similar program to be repaired and distributed to children and young adults and those that cannot be repaired will be destroyed and recycled by Orono Public Works. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve the disposal of the bicycles listed above. Item No.: 6 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Disposal of Bicycles Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: CF Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to hire a full-time Police Officer. 2. Background. The Police Department is currently recruiting to fill 1 anticipated vacancy. A vacancy is expected in May 2023 with a current officer retiring. 3. Recruitment. The selection process for the position involved advertising the position, application screening, and interviews. First round interviews are completed by a panel of currently serving officers and second round interviews by the Chief of Police. Police Officer applicant must also successfully complete a Psychological Exam, a Physical (Pre-employment medical) exam and has pass the MN Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) licensing exam. 4. Recommended Candidate. Jennifer Lyrek is currently employed as a deputy with the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office assigned to water patrol. Lyrek has a BA in Criminal Justice from Upper Iowa University. She has taken the required examination and passed the POST licensing exam. Lyrek is excited about the opportunity to work for the Orono Police Department. 5. Recommended Compensation. I recommend to hire Jennifer Lyrek as a full-time police officer with an effective start date of February 27, 2023. a. Salary. Starting rate of $37.08/hour step 1 (LELS Local 40 Agreement pay scale). b. Benefits. As a full-time employee the position is eligible for benefits as outlined in the LELS Local 40 Agreement and personnel handbook. This includes enrollment in the Police and Fire Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of Jennifer Lyrek as a full-time police officer at the rate of $37.08 per hour with a start date of February 27, 2023. Item No.: 7 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Authorization to Hire Jennifer Lyrek - Police Officer Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Lemons Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1.Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to replace the pilings on the Big Island Park docks. 2.Background. The current wood pilings on the docks are worn down by almost 50% in some cases. With the pilings not fitting exactly, it has caused some damage to the dock platforms where the two meet. Pictures of the damage can be found in Exhibit D. Staff requested a quote for steel pilings as they are easier to install/remove, do not deteriorate, and can be serviced by multiple contractors. 3.Cost. Quotes are listed in the table below. Vendor/ Company Description Cost Tonka Built Steel Pilings w/roller guides $15,720.16 THN Enterprises Wood Pilings $12,450.00 4.Funding. This purchase will be funded through the Parks Fund. This was not included in the CIP for 2023. 5.Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the repairs by Tonka Built for $15,720.16. The upgrades to steel pilings and the roller bracket will help stabilize the damaged areas and will provide the city with more contractor options for the installation and removal year after year. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the repairs of Big Island Park docks from Tonka Built for $15,720.16. Exhibits A.Tonka Built Quote B.THN Enterprises Quote C.Image of piling and roller bracket D.Dock damage image Item No.: 8 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Authorization for Big Island Dock Repair Presenter: Joshua Lemons Parks and Golf Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Tonka Built, LLC 6225 Sunnyfield Road East Minnetrista, MN 55364 952-221-5340 Jake@tonkabuilt.com Ben@tonkabuilt.com ADDRESS SHIP TO Josh Lemons Josh Lemons City of Orono Estimate 1832 DATE 01/13/2023 DESCRIPTION QTY RATE AMOUNT Misc. Hardware 12" Wood Piling to 8" Steel Conversion Brackets W/Roller Assemblies 8 700.00 5,600.00T Misc. Hardware 8" Sch. 40 Galvanized Steel Pipe (To Replace Wood Piling) 21' Lengths 8 990.00 7,920.00T Misc. Hardware Pipe Caps 8 75.00 600.00T Deliver and Install Deliver Pipe and Install Pipe Brackets 1 500.00 500.00T SUBTOTAL 14,620.00 TAX 1,100.16 TOTAL $15,720.16 Accepted By Accepted Date Estimate Date 2/9/2023 Estimate # 362 City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway P.O. Box 56 Crystal Bay, MN 55323 Project Total Subtotal Sales Tax (6.875%) THN ENTERPRISES INC. 23400 Smithtown Road Excelsior, MN 55331 952-474-9454 952-474-6712-fax Tom Niccum 612-963-3237-cell Accepted by:__________________________Date_____ Description Qty Rate Total Supply and Install 8 new Piling for the Docks and re-install the floating docks at Big Island. Includes; disposal of old poles if necessary. 12,450.00 12,450.00 $12,450.00 $12,450.00 $0.00 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: SO Reviewed By: DJG Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to proceed with Lift Station Rehabilitation projects for 2023. 2. Background. The Sewer Department has developed a maintenance plan for the 46 lift/ grinder stations that are part of the sewer system. As part of the plan, each station is inspected annually to identify routine maintenance needs. In addition to routine maintenance, the plan also includes the upgrade of two lift stations per year. A lift station upgrade involves replacing discharge piping, pumps, and control panel and all electrical that operates the lift station. The lift stations that are upgraded are selected based on a number of factors: age, maintenance records, issues discovered during the annual inspection and the risks associated with the failure of the lift station. Grinder Station 8 (1023 Old Crystal Bay Road North) was reconstructed in 1992 and Lift Station 10 (115 Orono Orchard Road South) was constructed in 1999 and both lift stations surpassed their life expectancy. Maintenance costs are increasing due to their age and the outdated technology of the controls and pumps. 3. Project Scope. Installation of new control panels, two new pumps per station, discharge piping and all electrical work. 4. Cost. We have solicited three quotations for Grinder Station 8 and Lift Station 10 upgrades, listed below. The lowest quote from a qualified contractor was $108,600 from Quality Flow Systems Inc. Company Company/Model Cost Quality Flow Systems Inc. new control panel, two new pumps, discharge piping and all electrical work $108,600.00 Quality Flow Iowa Inc. new control panel, two new pumps, discharge piping and all electrical work No Bid Kriha Electric, LLC new control panel, two new pumps, discharge piping and all electrical work $127,970.00 5. Funding. This project will be funded through the Sewer Fund. Fund Cost CIP Estimate Projected EOY Fund Balance Sanitary Sewer $108,600 $120,000 $1,500,000 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend acceptance of the quote provided by Quality Flow, Inc for $108,600.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve in the amount of $108,600.00 from Quality Flow Systems Inc. of New Prague, Minnesota Item No.: 9 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Approve Rehabilitation of Grinder Station 8 (1023 Old Crystal Bay Road) and Lift Station 10 (115 Orono Orchard Road South.) Presenter: Scott Oberaigner Public Works Supervisor Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this council action is to update the City’s seasonal weight restriction resolution. 2. Background. Each year during the spring thaw (typically early-March to mid-May), State, County and local highway authorities impose axle weight restrictions to protect their roadways. The two primary causes for premature deterioration of asphalt streets are weather and traffic. As the frost is leaving the ground during the spring thaw, the gravel under the street has high moisture content, which affects the load carrying capacity of the asphalt pavement. Therefore, in order to prolong the service life of the streets and highways, axle weight restrictions are imposed during the spring thaw when streets are most susceptible to damage due to heavy loads. Staff has updated the resolution regarding seasonal weight restrictions on Orono public city streets that was last adopted in January of 2022 by Resolution. 3. Revisions. Fox street weight restriction seasonal only. It had been adjusted to year round pending its reconstruction. 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommending approval of the attached resolution. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Resolution No. 7338 Exhibits A. Seasonal Weight Restriction Resolution B. Seasonal Weight Restriction Map Item No.: 10 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Approval of Seasonal Weight Restrictions – Resolution No. 7338 Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Page 1 of 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7338 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SEASONAL WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS ON ORONO PUBLIC CITY STREETS Overview. The City of Orono ordains that axle weight limits are restricted on the following streets in the City of Orono to protect these streets from damage when road and weather conditions warrant in accordance with regulations as provided in Minnesota State Statutes Chapter 169.87. These weight restrictions are in effect during the spring thaw season. Streets may be posted for weight restrictions any time that road and weather conditions warrant weight limits to protect streets from damage. Notification. Impacted Streets will be signposted. The city follows MnDOT scheduling from imposing and removing spring road weight limit restrictions Dates are posted at - http://dotapp7.dot.state.mn.us/research/seasonal_load_limits/sllindex.asp or by calling (651) 366-5400 or toll free at 1-800-723-6543. These dates generally fall between March 1st and May 15th dependent on weather conditions. Exemptions. Exceptions to the seasonal load limits in Orono are made for emergency response vehicles, school buses and emergency utility repair vehicles/equipment. Refuse Collection. An exemption is provided for refuse collection vehicles to exceed the posted limits, except no refuse collections vehicles shall be operated during restricted times where the gross weight on any single axle exceeds seven (7) tons. Utilities. An exemption is allowed for utility companies providing utility service within the City when responding to an emergency. An emergency response shall include power outages, gas leaks, emergency communication, line down or severed, etc. Septic. An exemption to posted weight limits is also allowed for septic tank service companies, well drilling and service companies, and companies delivering fuel for heating purposes. An emergency response is limited to septic or sewer system failures posing an imminent threat to public health and safety, well failure resulting in loss of water supply, or lack of heating fuel. Process. All persons requesting an exemption to the posted weight limits for response to an emergency situation must notify the Orono Police Department Administrative Office. This notification must include a description and location of the emergency, the number and weight of vehicles responding to the emergency, and the route to be used to reach the emergency site. The City reserves the right to request supporting documentation of the nature and location of the emergency. All persons responding to emergency situations shall limit travel on seasonal weight restricted streets to the minimum distance required to reach the site from the closest road that is not subject to seasonal weight restrictions. The following streets are limited to a four (4) ton axle per axle weight limit during the period of spring load restrictions: Arbor Street Baldur Park Road Barrett Avenue Bayview Place Bederwood Drive Birch Lane Blaine Avenue Bohn’s Point Lane Bohn’s Point Road Brackett’s Point Road Briar Street Carman Road Carman Street Caroline Avenue Casco Avenue Casco Circle Casco Point Road Cherry Avenue Cherry Place Chevy Chase Drive Chippewa Lane Concordia Street Corral Road Country Club Road Crestview Avenue Crystal Avenue Crystal Bay Road Crystal Place Cygnet Place Dahl Road Dakota Avenue Dickenson Street Dickenson St. Alleys Dickey Lake Drive Dunwoody Avenue East Long Lake Road Eastlake Street Eileen Street Elm Lane Elm Street 2 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7338 Elmwood Avenue Ethel Avenue Fagerness Point Road Fairview Cottage Lane Farview Lane Ferndale Green Ferndale Road West Forest Arms Lane Forest Lake Drive Forest Lake Landing Fox Ridge Road Fox Street Frederick Street Garden Court Glendale Cove Lane Glendale Drive Goldenrod Way Grandview Avenue Hackberry Hill Hanlon Avenue Heritage Drive Heritage Lane High Lane Highwood Lane Highwood Road Hunter Drive Ivy Place Keene Avenue Kelly Avenue Kenwood Way Lafayette Ridge Court Lakeview Avenue Lakeview Terrace Leaf Street Linden Avenue Linden Lane Livingston Avenue Loma Linda Avenue Long Lake Boulevard Lydiard Avenue Lydiard Circle Lyman Avenue Lyric Avenue Maple Lane Maple Place Mapleridge Lane Minnetonka Avenue Minnetonka Highlands Lane Minnie Avenue Myrtlewood Road Navarre Avenue Navarre Lane North Arm Drive North Arm Drive West North Arm Lane Northern Avenue Oak Street Old Beach Road Old Long Lake Road Olive Avenue Orchard Beach Place Orchard Park Road Orono Lane Orono Orchard Road Park Avenue Park Drive Park Lane Partenwood Lane Partenwood Road Pheasant Road Prospect Avenue Railroad Avenue Rest Point Circle Rest Point Lane Rest Point Road Russell Avenue Sandhill Drive Shadywood Cir Shevlin Drive Smith Avenue Spates Avenue Spring Hill Road Spruce Place Spruce Way Starkey Road Stubbs Bay Road Tamarack Drive Togo Road Tonka Avenue Tonkaview Lane Townline Road Turnham Road Vine Place Watertown Road Wear Circle Wear Lane North Webb Street Webber Hills Road West Lafayette Road Westlake Street Wildhurst Trail Willow Drive (South of Hwy 12) Willowbrook Road Windjammer Lane Woodhill Avenue Wood Duck Trail The following streets remain at a nine (9) ton per axle weight limit year-round: Page 3 of 3 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7338 Brown Road North Ferndale Road North Kelley Parkway McCulley Road Old Crystal Bay Road Willow Drive (North of Wayzata Blvd/CSAH 112) ADOPTED this 13th day of February, 2023 by the City Council of the City of Orono. CITY OF ORONO By: _______________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk 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 ongLakeC re ekPainterCreek GVWX15 GVWX15 GVWX112 GVWX84 GVWX135 GVWX101 GVWX15 GVWX110 GVWX146 GVWX125 GVWX5 GVWX151 GVWX19 GVWX6 GVWX44 GVWX19 GVWX83 GVWX101 GVWX90 GVWX6 GVWX51 )*12 )*12 ?@A@7 ST26 ST201 WarnerLnMinnetonkaBlvd Kel l y A v e ThreePoi n tsB l v dTo nkaBayR oadFerndale Road NVineHillRoadHighland AveCounty Road 90Tux e d o B lv d DeephavenAve6th Ave N County Road 19 NSunsetDrHunter DrW i lshire B lvdSta rkeyRoadRutledge Road 22ndAv eNLynwood Blvd Commerce BlvdHighw a y 12 E TonkawoodRoadS h o r e line D r County Road101H ighw oodDrCounty Road 101N A r m D r BrownRoadNShorelineDrHighway 7 19 t h Av e N FerndaleRoadS8th Ave N NS h ore Dr Crosby RoadRiceStE W atertownRoad BartlettBlvdHighland Road3rd Ave N County Road 19Wayzata Bl v d E Old Crystal Bay Road SOld Crystal Bay Road NWillow Dr NCanterburyDr Donald D r Br o cktonLnNBayside Road McGintyRoadWDunkirk Ln NW ay zata Blv d W KelleyPkw y Willow Dr SLakeview Av e County Road 151 Leaf StRanchview Ln NLake Ave Da nie ls St McCulleyRoadCountyRoad110NHighcro ftRoa d SparrowRoadLarchwo o dDr Sadd lewood Dr 12th A ve N Brown Road SLakeStE Isl a n d V i ew DrSunnyfield Road E Pkwy4th Ave N ParkPlTown Line RoadP a in t e r R o a d De v on DrParkAve VicksburgLnNOrchardLn Carson Ro adSteeleStSu ssex R oadPark St E Grand Ave BushawayRoadDartmouth Dr SusanLnDove LnManorR o ad 20th A v e N WoodhillR oad9thAv e N Rid g e v iewDr E Fox StLakeviewPkwy Lowell StOliveLnNOldLongLake Road Day PlLeroy StCounty Road 83Rain bowDrStubbs Bay Road NTherese StSussex DrNorthom e RoadSpringHill RoadWillowViewDr W Branch Road Tem p le DrWLnGameFarmRoadE East woodRoad5thA veN Moline Road TurnhamRoad Gladys L n Wayza t a B l v d W Drake Dr Tamarack DrHoldridge CirW Arm Dr ELong L akeRoadBa ysideLnRegents Wa l k11th Ave N GaleRoadDeborahDr Tr o y L nNFarview Ln C ygnetPlBlair RoadP o loClubRoadTurner Road 1 8 t h A veN Map Document: \\arcserver1\GIS\ORNO\_Basemap\ESRI\Maps\2020\Orono_SpringWeightRestrictions_11x17L.mxd | Date Saved: 1/21/2020 4:34:46 PMSpring Weight RestrictionsOrono, MN March 2020 Legend City Limits Lakes & Ponds 0 3,500FeetSource: Met. Council, City of Orono, Hennepin County, MnDOT !I Spring Weight Restrictions 4 Tons per Axle 9 Tons per Axle This map reflects restrictions for City of Orono public streets. It does not preclude any further restrictions on roadways belonging to the State of Minnesota, Hennepin County, or any other jurisdiction. Prepared By: Reviewed By:A. Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to close out the 2021 Street Maintenance Project (21- 001), the Casco Point Stormwater Project (21-026), and the Fagerness Point Stormwater Project (21-028) as well as approve the final pay application. 2. Background. On November 23rd, 2020 Council approved the design and engineering of the Casco Point Stormwater project, Fagerness Point Stormwater project. Due to their common nature, these projects were combined with the streets project into one bid package in an effort get the best possible bids for the project. On March 8th, 2021 the project was awarded to Omann Brothers. The Project is now complete and all project close out document have been received. 3. Scope of Work. a. 2021 Street Maintenance Project (21-001): The project consisted 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 consisted of curbing, pavement adjustments and a storm pipe on a select portion of the roadway. c. Casco Point Stormwater Project (21-026): The project consisted 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. 4. Cost. The total construction cost of for the project is $1,460,129.67. The final pay application from Omann Brothers is for $28,605.00. The original construction bid was for $1,389,655.99. Additional authorized work was $70,473.68. The additional work included installation of water gate valves in the project area and additional curb and gutter. 5. Funding. Funding for the project comes from a combination of the pavement management fund, stormwater fund, water fund, sewer fund and community investment fund. 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend payment of the final pay application to Omann Brothers in the amount of $ 28,605.00. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve payment of final pay request to Omann Brothers in the amount $ 28,605.00 and to close out the project. Reference A. Final Pay Request. Item No.: 11 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: 2021 Road Maintenance Project – Final Payment and Project Closeout Presenter: Adam Edwards Public Works Director/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Contractor: Omann Brothers Application Number:FINAL 2021 Street Improvements Application Date:01/10/23 Application for Final Payment Period to:10/1/22 - 1/10/23 City of Orono, Minnesota BMI Project Number: C13.121125 A B C D E Item Description of Work Original Unit Bid Original Total Total Amount No.Plan of Price Contract Quantity Amount Quantity Completed Quantity Measure Amount this App.this to Date to Date App. (B x D) (B x E) BASE BID 1 MOBILIZATION 1.00 LS $26,000.00 $26,000.00 1.04 $27,040.00 2 TRAFFIC CONTROL 1.00 LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 1.00 $5,000.00 3 CLEAR & GRUB TREE (10 INCHES OR LESS)9.00 TREE $412.80 $3,715.20 5.00 $2,064.00 4 CLEAR & GRUB TREE (11-24 INCHES)3.00 TREE $804.96 $2,414.88 3.00 $2,414.88 5 CLEAR & GRUB TREE (24 INCHES OR LARGER)1.00 TREE $1,527.36 $1,527.36 1.00 $1,527.36 6 CLEAR & GRUB 1.00 LS $3,591.36 $3,591.36 0.50 $1,795.68 7 REMOVE STORM SEWER PIPE 835.00 LF $5.16 $4,308.60 864.00 $4,458.24 8 REMOVE STORM SEWER STRUCTURE 5.00 EACH $670.80 $3,354.00 5.00 $3,354.00 9 REMOVE GATE VALVE AND BOX 11.00 EACH $385.70 $4,242.70 11.00 $4,242.70 10 REMOVE CASTING 11.00 EACH $103.20 $1,135.20 15.00 $1,548.00 11 SAWCUT BITUMINOUS (FULL-DEPTH)700.00 LF $2.50 $1,750.00 820.00 $2,050.00 12 SAWCUT CONCRETE (FULL-DEPTH)215.00 LF $3.50 $752.50 283.00 $990.50 13 REMOVE CONCRETE WALK & DRIVEWAY 1470.00 SQ FT $0.86 $1,264.20 2079.00 $1,787.94 14 REMOVE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER 180.00 LF $11.25 $2,025.00 362.00 $4,072.50 15 REMOVE BOLLARD 5.00 EACH $50.00 $250.00 16 REMOVE RETAINING WALL 30.00 SF $10.32 $309.60 11.00 $113.52 17 BOLLARD 5.00 EACH $750.00 $3,750.00 18 MILL BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT 29110.00 SY $2.30 $66,953.00 21555.00 $49,576.50 19 FULL DEPTH RECLAMATION (6" DEPTH)1190.00 SY $3.70 $4,403.00 4830.00 $17,871.00 20 DISPOSE EXCESS RECLAIM MATERIAL OFF-SITE (LV)70.00 CY $1.00 $70.00 35.00 $35.00 21 CRACK REPAIR 1300.00 LF $5.50 $7,150.00 612.00 $3,366.00 22 COMMON EXCAVATION (CV) [P]2760.00 CY $29.00 $80,040.00 2760.00 $80,040.00 23 COMMON EXCAVATION (PATCHING) (CV)458.00 CY $29.00 $13,282.00 550.25 $15,957.25 24 SUBGRADE EXCAVATION (CV)250.00 CY $25.00 $6,250.00 145.90 $3,647.50 25 GRANULAR BORROW (CV)250.00 CY $29.00 $7,250.00 26 AGGREGATE BASE, CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED)3860.00 TON $23.50 $90,710.00 5100.00 $119,850.00 27 AGGREGATE SURFACING, CLASS 5 (100% CRUSHED - LIMESTONE)70.00 TON $47.25 $3,307.50 18.40 $869.40 28 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) (DRIVEWAY)205.00 TON $152.75 $31,313.75 300.54 $45,907.49 29 TYPE SP 9.5 WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B)3900.00 TON $81.75 $318,825.00 3231.15 $264,146.51 30 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B)800.00 TON $81.45 $65,160.00 1206.96 $98,306.89 31 TYPE SP 12.5 NON-WEAR COURSE MIX (2,B) (PATCHING)205.00 TON $105.00 $21,525.00 256.97 $26,981.85 32 4" HDPE DRAIN TILE 242.00 LF $28.90 $6,993.80 264.00 $7,629.60 33 24" DRAIN BASIN 9.80 LF $919.80 $9,014.04 9.80 $9,014.04 34 12" HDPE PIPE SEWER 135.00 LF $50.57 $6,826.95 169.00 $8,546.33 35 12" RC PIPE SEWER (CL V)1667.00 LF $59.86 $99,786.62 1615.00 $96,673.90 36 15" RC PIPE SEWER (CL V)22.00 LF $63.98 $1,407.56 21.00 $1,343.58 37 18" RC PIPE SEWER (CL III)285.00 LF $69.14 $19,704.90 285.00 $19,704.90 38 12" HDPE PIPE APRON 3.00 EACH $877.20 $2,631.60 5.00 $4,386.00 39 12" RC PIPE APRON 2.00 EACH $1,135.20 $2,270.40 1.00 $1,135.20 40 15" RC PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH $1,594.44 $1,594.44 1.00 $1,594.44 41 18" RC PIPE APRON 1.00 EACH $1,929.84 $1,929.84 1.00 $1,929.84 42 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES R-1)43.50 LF $464.40 $20,201.40 43.50 $20,201.40 43 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES H)12.70 LF $531.48 $6,749.80 12.70 $6,749.80 44 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES 4020-48")41.10 LF $655.32 $26,933.65 37.00 $24,246.84 45 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES 4020-60")3.40 LF $846.24 $2,877.22 3.00 $2,538.72 46 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES 4022-48")45.40 LF $655.32 $29,751.53 50.40 $33,028.13 47 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (DES 4022-60")3.30 LF $846.24 $2,792.59 3.30 $2,792.59 48 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE STRUCTURE (TYPE II)2.60 LF $2,332.32 $6,064.03 2.00 $4,664.64 49 FURNISH AND INSTALL CASTING ASSEMBLY - STORM 39.00 EACH $750.00 $29,250.00 27.00 $20,250.00 50 CONNECT TO EXISTING STORM SEWER 3.00 EACH $665.64 $1,996.92 3.00 $1,996.92 Current Pay Application A B C D E Item Description of Work Original Unit Bid Original Total Total Amount No.Plan of Price Contract Quantity Amount Quantity Completed Quantity Measure Amount this App.this to Date to Date App. (B x D) (B x E) Current Pay Application 51 DITCH GRADING (CLEANING)200.00 CY $30.00 $6,000.00 58.55 $1,756.50 52 RANDOM RIP RAP, CLASS II 5.00 CY $98.08 $490.40 5.00 $490.40 53 RANDOM RIP RAP, CLASS III 43.00 CY $98.08 $4,217.44 30.00 $2,942.40 54 STRUCTURE MARKER 11.00 EACH $129.00 $1,419.00 11.00 $1,419.00 55 6" CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 1620.00 SF $6.64 $10,756.80 1548.00 $10,278.72 56 BITUMINOUS CURB (HAND FORM)200.00 LF $5.00 $1,000.00 48.00 $240.00 57 CONSTRUCT RETAINING WALL 30.00 SF $41.25 $1,237.50 11.00 $453.75 58 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B412 2695.00 LF $17.00 $45,815.00 2253.00 $38,301.00 59 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER - PATCHING 180.00 LF $26.06 $4,690.80 455.00 $11,857.30 60 CONCRETE MOUNTABLE CURB & GUTTER 1720.00 LF $18.03 $31,011.60 1725.00 $31,101.75 61 ADJUST FRAME AND RING CASTING 30.00 EACH $300.00 $9,000.00 25.00 $7,500.00 62 MANHOLE RISER RING 21.00 EACH $225.00 $4,725.00 5.00 $1,125.00 63 LOWER MANHOLE 4.00 LF $1,238.40 $4,953.60 64 ADJUST GATE VALVE AND BOX 12.00 EACH $275.00 $3,300.00 15.00 $4,125.00 65 VALVE BOX RISER RING 6.00 EACH $95.00 $570.00 5.00 $475.00 66 4" POLYSTYRENE INSULATION 40.00 SQ YD $39.22 $1,568.80 3.55 $139.23 67 6" GATE VALVE AND BOX 9.00 EACH $4,561.44 $41,052.96 12.00 $54,737.28 68 8" GATE VALVE AND BOX 1.00 EACH $5,402.52 $5,402.52 8.00 $43,220.16 69 10" GATE VALVE AND BOX 1.00 EACH $6,295.20 $6,295.20 2.00 $12,590.40 70 TRENCH ROCK 55.00 TON $53.66 $2,951.30 15.00 $804.90 71 EXTERNAL CHIMNEY SEAL 50.00 EACH $185.00 $9,250.00 22.00 $4,070.00 72 COMMON TOPSOIL BORROW (LV)1000.00 CY $40.00 $40,000.00 734.90 $29,396.00 73 EROSION CONTROL BLANKET (CAT. 3N) WITH SEED MIXTURE 25-141 395.00 SY $2.05 $809.75 317.00 $649.85 74 TURF REINFORCEMENT MAT (CAT. 4) WITH SEED MIXTURE 34-261 260.00 SY $16.50 $4,290.00 75 SODDING, TYPE LAWN 2620.00 SY $8.25 $21,615.00 3086.00 $25,459.50 76 HYDRAULIC MULCH WITH SEED MIXTURE 25-151 2340.00 SY $2.05 $4,797.00 6957.00 $14,261.85 77 SILT FENCE 480.00 LF $1.90 $912.00 78 FLOTATION CURTAIN 100.00 LF $5.15 $515.00 125.00 $643.75 79 STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 52.00 EACH $155.00 $8,060.00 39.00 $6,045.00 80 BIOROLL TYPE STRAW 790.00 LF $4.15 $3,278.50 670.00 $2,780.50 81 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MAILBOX 54.00 EACH $113.52 $6,130.08 59.00 $6,697.68 82 SALVAGE & REINSTALL LANDSCAPE ROCK 650.00 SF $5.15 $3,347.50 1017.00 $5,237.55 83 SALVAGE AND REINSTALL PAVERS 400.00 SF $15.50 $6,200.00 802.00 $12,431.00 84 SALVAGE & REINSTALL MULCH 560.00 SF $2.05 $1,148.00 1962.00 $4,022.10 85 CONCRETE EDGING 240.00 LF $18.60 $4,464.00 98.00 $1,822.80 86 PLASTIC LANDSCAPE EDGING 240.00 LF $6.20 $1,488.00 87 4" SOLID STRIPE, PAINT 3810.00 LF $0.31 $1,181.10 330.00 $102.30 88 PAVEMENT MESSAGE, PAINT 2.00 EACH $28.90 $57.80 89 CROSSWALK MARKING, PAINT 120.00 SF $2.06 $247.20 144.00 $296.64 90 LANDSCAPING 1.00 ALLOWANCE $25,000.00 $25,000.00 0.08 $2,085.00 0.31 $7,823.91 EXTRA 1 CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER DESIGN B612 LF $19.00 677.00 $12,863.00 2 COLORED/STAMPED CONCRETE DRIVEWAYS SF $18.15 1404.50 $25,491.68 3 RAW #1 - Park Lane LS $7,435.00 1.00 $7,435.00 4 RAW #2 - Casco LS $11,088.00 1.00 $11,088.00 5 3" MINUS TON $32.50 15.76 $512.20 PROJECT TOTAL=$1,389,655.99 $2,085.00 $1,460,129.67 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding after-the-fact variances to permit hardcover within the 75- foot setback from the OHWL. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on September 14, 2022, and considered to be complete on October 27, 2022. Therefore the 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on February 24, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The Council reviewed the request for after-the-fact hardcover and setback variances at the January 23rd meeting and voted 5 to 0 to direct staff to draft a denial resolution. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On November 21st, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion for denial of the requested after-the-fact variances. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff has drafted a resolution for denial of the after-the-fact variances. Because this is a violation, staff will follow up with the property owner regarding a timeline for removal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to Adopt Denial Resolution No. 7339 Exhibits A. Draft Denial Resolution No. 7339 B. Council Memo 01/23/2023 References Council Packet 01/23/2023 Council Minutes 01/23/2023 PC Packet 11/21/2022 Item No.: 12 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000051 – Paul Taunton, 3600 Ivy Place, After-the-fact Variances – Denial Resolution No. 7339 Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7339 1 A RESOLUTION DENYING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279, 78-1288, & 78-1680 FILE NO.LA22-000051 WHEREAS, on September 14, 2022, Paul Taunton (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 3600 Ivy Place and legally described as: Lot 2, Block 1, Ivy Place, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, following the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for the new home on the Property, the following hardcover improvements were constructed within the 75-foot shore setback from the ordinary high water level (hereinafter the “OHWL”) without proper permits from the City: an approximate 1,175 square foot parking pad 31 feet from the OHWL, a 500 square foot patio 43 feet from the OHWL, and another 470 square foot patio 50 feet from the OHWL (hereinafter the “Improvements); and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances from City Code Section 78-1279 in order to allow the as-constructed Improvements to be permitted to remain within the 75-foot lake setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has applied to the City of Orono for after-the-fact variances from City Code Sections 78-1288 and 78-1680 in order to allow the approximate 2,145 square feet of hardcover resulting from the Improvements to remain within the 75-foot setback where no hardcover is permitted; and WHEREAS, on November 17, 2022, 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 November 17, 2022, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 in favor of a motion to recommend denial of the variances; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 2023, the City Council voted 5 to 0 to direct preparation of findings for denial of the variance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7339 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby denies the requested variances as described above based on one or more of the following Findings of Fact and Analysis concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: A1. 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. A2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. A3. The Property contains a single-family residence. A4. The Property contains 1.14 acres in area or 62,013 square feet and is situated on the point of a peninsula. A5. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. No hardcover is permitted within the 75-foot setback other than those specific improvements listed within City Code Sections 78-1282 and 78-1680. A6. Applicant has applied for the following variances: a. Hardcover Variance b. 75-foot Lake Setback Variance A7. 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: B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The variances for hardcover expansions within the 75-foot lake yard are not consistent with the general purpose and intent of the ordinance. 75-foot lake yard hardcover and construction prohibitions are intended to maintain the natural lakeshore, increase infiltration opportunities, and encourage development away from the lake. The requested after-the-fact variances to expand the driveway hardcover and new patio areas within the 75-foot setback are not in harmony with the Ordinance. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7339 3 The current construction involved a new home on a vacant lot. The Applicant had the opportunity to design this project in a manner that complied with the City Code. This criterion is not met. B2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The variance to permit additional hardcover within the 75-foot setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Applicant has not identified anything unique about this project or lot that would justify allowing unique setbacks for this Property. The Applicant has not identified anything unique about this project which indicates this Property is inconsistent with the type of lots contemplated by the comprehensive plan. The increase in hardcover within the protected 75-foot setback from the OHWL is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. B3. “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 property in question is zoned residential and the Applicant was allowed to build a home on the Property consistent with the City Code and surrounding properties. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that they will not have a reasonable use of the Property without the necessary hardcover variance that allows them to construct two patios and an enlarged parking area within the 75-foot setback. Reasonable use of the Property is established with the existing principal structure including the minimal width access driveway. The request to permit an expansion of the driveway hardcover and to create two additional hardcover patio areas within the 75-foot lake setback is not reasonable. The hardcover that was installed was not shown on the original, approved plans which were consistent with the City Code. It is possible to access the existing home with significantly less hardcover. The proposal results in a square foot increase of hardcover within the 75-foot setback and is not reasonable. The variance to install new hardcover areas proposed within the 75-foot setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The new home on the Property was completed in 2022 by the Applicant. The driveway expansion and new patio areas were not included on the approved plans for the new home; no permits were obtained for the construction of the driveway or patios. The Applicant chose the size and design of the home and landscaping rather than allowing for more parking or CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7339 4 maneuverability space. The unpermitted constructed expansions are created by the Applicant, are not a right, are not necessary to preserve the existing home, and are not supported by practical difficulty. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The proposed expansion of the impervious surface areas within the 75-foot setback result in additional hardcover setback encroachments toward the lake which are out of character with the neighborhood. The new hardcover areas within the setback are not supported by practical difficulty and are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. This criterion is not met. B4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” The variance is not sought principally to increase financial gain to the owners of the Property. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. “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. B6. “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.” A driveway exceeding 8-feet in width and additional patio hardcover are not allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District. B7. “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. B8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” There are no obvious special conditions applying to the land which are unique, or support the requested hardcover setback variances. Beyond the existing home and location of the approved improvements on the Property which was created by the Applicant, special conditions to the land justifying the variance, have not been identified. B9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The Applicant has not identified conditions. This criterion is not met. B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The Applicant will not be deprived of a substantial property right by denying the hardcover setback variance. As stated in CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7339 5 paragraph B3(a), the Applicant is able to use the existing home located on the Property without an expanded parking area or additional lakeside patios. Substantial property right is provided by the newly constructed, existing principal structure. The Code provides for the minimal driveway hardcover necessary to access the Property which was installed with the home construction. Expansion of an existing improvement or structure is not a right. B11. “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 would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. B12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The variances to increase driveway square footage, improve aesthetics, and increase outdoor living space near the OHWL are conveniences and are not supported by a demonstrable difficulty. This criterion is not met. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby denies the requested after-the-fact variances as described above. The Council’s denial is based on the entire record, above Findings. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2023. CITY OF ORONO: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding after-the-fact variances to permit hardcover within the 75- foot setback from the OHWL. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on September 14, 2022, and considered to be complete on October 27, 2022. Therefore the 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on February 24, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. In September, the City received a complaint regarding a new parking area under construction at the subject property. Upon inspection staff confirmed that the property owner had installed an approximate 1,175 square foot paver parking area within the 75-foot setback connected to the existing driveway (highlighted in pink). Additionally, two additional unpermitted patio improvements were constructed on the property: a 500 square foot fire pit patio area on the north point of the property (highlighted in orange); and a second 470 square foot fire pit patio area on the east side of the home (highlighted in green). 4. Variance Description. The new parking area is situated 31 feet from the OHWL where no hardcover is permitted and a 75-foot setback is required. The parking area exceeds the maximum 8-foot driveway width permitted within the 75-foot setback. The two new patio areas have also been installed 43 feet and 50 feet from the OHWL where patio hardcover is not permitted. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On November 21st, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion for denial of the requested after-the-fact variances. 6. Additional Information. Following the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant provided an exhibit demonstrating the turning radius as well as a stormwater management report in an effort to support their unpermitted improvements attached as Exhibits G and H. 7. Public Comment. Other than the three individual complaints about the driveway installation, one neighbor comment has been received and is attached as Exhibit C. Item No.: Date: January 23, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000051 – Paul Taunton, 3600 Ivy Place, After-the-fact Variances Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Community Development AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 8. Staff Recommendation. The property was platted in 2018 with a home constructed in 2020. The original development plans contemplated a shared, connected back up area (shown in Exhibit E). Although the new home at 3570 Ivy Place installed their portion of the shared driveway connection, when the new home was constructed at 3600 Ivy, the builder chose not to install their portion of the shared driveway connection. Finding no practical difficulty supporting any of the illegally installed hardcover improvements, Planning Staff recommends denial of the after-the-fact variances. As this application originated as a property violation, Staff further recommends the applicant be provided a timeline for removal. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a resolution for denial. Exhibits A. As-Built Survey B. PC Minutes 11/21/2022 C. Public Comment D. 60-day extension E. Landscape Plan F. Aerial Photos G. Turning Radius Plan H. Stormwater Report I. PC Staff Report 11/21/20022 References PC Exhibits 11/21/2022 A. Application & Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. As-Built Survey 7/13/2022 New Home Construction D. As-built Survey 10/27/2022 Hardcover Additions E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations F. Neighbor Comment RE: driveway G. Property Owners List H. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding lot area and lot width variances in order to facilitate an administrative boundary line adjustment. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 14, 2022, and considered to be complete on January 6, 2023. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 7, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The Hilliers own both properties at 1224 Briar Street and 1245 Arbor Street. 1245 Arbor Street is undeveloped. They are proposing to move the common lot line between the two properties to enlarge the area and width of their home site on the Briar lot and reduce the size of the Arbor property. The proposed orientation is shown in the image to the right. 4. Variance Description. The subject properties are nonconforming with respect to width and area, therefore variances to area and width are required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment. The proposed change will also move the defined “front” yard from Briar Street to Minnetonka Avenue for the Briar lot. The setbacks on the Briar lot will also be adjusted. The legal buildable areas are shown in orange for each property. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested lot area and lot width variances. 6. Public Comment. No comments from the public have been received. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff Planning Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to adopt Resolution No. 7340 attached as Exhibit A. Item No.: 13 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000071 – James & Juli Hillier, 1224 Briar St & 1245 Arbor Street, Lot Area and Lot Width Variances – Resolution No. 7340 Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: Exhibits A. Proposed Resolution No. 7340 B. Proposed Site Plan C. Draft PC Minutes 01/17/2023 D. PC Staff Report 01/17/2023 References PC Exhibits 01/17/2023 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan D. Hardcover Calculations E. Aerial Photos F. Property Owners List G. Plat Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7340 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-420 FILE NO. LA22-000071 WHEREAS, on December 14, 2022, James Hillier and Juli Hillier (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for variances from the City Code for the properties addressed 1245 Arbor Street and 1224 Briar Street, and legally described as: 1245 Arbor Street: Lots 12, 13, 14, and 15, Block 2, Maxwells Addition to Crystal Bay, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Arbor Property”); And 1224 Briar Street: Lot 16, and the south half of Lot 17, Block 2, Maxwells Addition to Crystal Bay, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Briar Property”) WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for an administrative subdivision exemption for a lot line adjustment involving the Arbor Property and the Briar Property necessitating the below requested variances. The proposed lot line adjustment reflecting the proposed orientation is shown in the attached Exhibit A; WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a lot area variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to facilitate the above-mentioned subdivision exemption to allow the Arbor Property to be reduced in area from 27,999 square feet to 13,991 square feet. The area is to be applied to the Briar Property; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a lot area variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to facilitate the above-mentioned subdivision exemption to allow the Briar Property width to be increased from 75-feet to 140-feet where 200-feet in width is required; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a setback variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 to facilitate the above-mentioned subdivision exemption to allow the existing home on the Briar Property to have an applied rear setback of 10.3’ feet where 50-feet is required due to the change in designation of “front yard” as a result of the proposed boundary line adjustment; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7340 2 WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, 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 January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variances; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2023 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: A1. 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. A2. The properties are located in the RR-1B One Family Rural Residential Zoning District. A3. The Arbor Property contains 0.63 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 100 feet. A4. The Briar Property contains 0.24 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 75 feet. A5. Applicants have applied for the following variances. a. Lot Area Variance b. Lot Width Variance c. Rear Setback Variance A6. In considering this application for variances, 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. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7340 3 ANALYSIS: B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The intent of the ordinance is to establish minimum lot sizes and protect against overcrowding. The proposed variances do not negatively impact the goals. The Applicants’ proposal would serve to improve some existing nonconformities in the substandard lot width and area. B2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The use of the properties for single family residential homes is consistent with the comprehensive plan. B3. “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 move the shared property line between two nonconforming lots improves nonconforming lot width and area for the Briar Property while not further impacting the buildability of the Arbor Property. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The property positioning was not the result of the landowners. The proposed boundary line adjustment is a reorientation of the previously platted properties. The suggested reorientation of the properties results in an improved orientation in keeping with the neighborhood character; c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The lots are both nonconforming as they pertain to lot area and width. Altering the lot line between the properties improves the nonconformity for the Briar Property but increases the area nonconformity for the Arbor Property. The boundary line adjustment results in the Arbor Property having a buildable area generally in line with the other homes along that street. There will be little impact to the character of the area. B4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. “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 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7340 4 defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. B6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as a residential property is an allowed use in the RR-1B District. B7. “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. B8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The Applicants’ proposed changes to the lot lines will bring the Briar Street property closer to conformance. Many of the properties in the Crystal Bay neighborhood are similarly nonconforming. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the applicants’ properties. B9. “The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.” The size and orientation of the subject properties, specifically the Arbor Property, is unique in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the Applicants’ properties. B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The property owners indicate that the adjustment of the properties will preserve their property rights. B11. “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 granting of a lot width variance standard to permit boundary line adjustment on undersized properties is not in conflict with the intent of the comprehensive plan and zoning chapter. B12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The Applicants have stated the variances are necessary due and the need for approval of the variances is not out of convenience. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants the following variances to facilitate the above-mentioned subdivision exemption: • Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-420 for a lot area variance to allow the Arbor Property to be reduced in area from 27,999 square feet to 13,991 square feet; CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7340 5 • Section 78-420 for a lot width variance to allow the Briar Property width to be increased from 75-feet to 140-feet where 200-feet in width is required; and • Section 78-420 for the Briar Property to have an applied rear setback of 10.3’ feet where 50-feet is required due to the change in designation of “front yard” as a result of the proposed boundary line adjustment, subject to the following conditions: C1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. C2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated 12/8/2022 and revised on 12/28/2022 submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. C3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. C4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by filing a Subdivision Exemption in order to move the shared property boundary as depicted on Exhibit A. Filing for the boundary line adjustment must be recorded with Hennepin County within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 13, 2024). C5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2023. CITY OF ORONO: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk 50.434ft10.06ft14.06ft30.00ft MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 4. LA22-000071 JIM HILLIER, 1224 BRIAR STREET AND 1245 ARBOR STREET, REQUESTS LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION). City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the Hilliers owned both properties at 1224 Briar and 1245 Arbor Street. The Arbor Street property is undeveloped. They're proposing to move the common lot outline between the two properties to enlarge the area with their home site on Briar and reduce the size of the Arbor property. Both properties are currently non-conforming with respect to area and width and will remain non-conforming. However, the area the Arbor Street lot is proposed to be approximately 3500 square feet larger than the existing Briar Street property. As proposed the Arbor Street property will have an approximate 2300 square foot building envelope which is reasonable for this neighborhood. On the Briar lot, the proposed change moves the defined front from Briar to Minnetonka. This results in a change to the setbacks on the Briar lot. Because the properties are non-conforming with respect to width, an area variance is required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment. The applicant identified the character of the neighborhood and the non-conforming status of the lots as practical difficulties supporting their request. Regarding practical difficulty staff agrees that the proposed configuration results in a size and orientation which remain consistent with the neighborhood. There are very few properties which meet the RR1B district standards in this immediate neighborhood. Staff received a few calls from the public with questions on the application. However, no formal public comments have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the lot with lot area variances to support an administrative boundary line adjustment. Libby asked if there are any helpful precedents for approving non-conforming lots in this area. Cutis answered she could not think of one in that neighborhood. The City has done others but they are not common. Jim Hillier 1224 Briar Street said he had no additional comments but would be happy to answer questions. McCutcheon asked about the motivation for moving the boundary line. Mr. Hillier said the motivation is to give them the ability to better utilize the Briar Street lot, because they will gain a little structural coverage and ground coverage. Libby said the commission has discussed this a couple times before and asked if there was something new, added or different from when this was discussed before. Curtis said the previous application was a subdivision request to create an additional lot. That is no longer the proposal. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ressler said he remembers the previous request that would have created three lots. This is just re-drawing lot lines to make them two buildable and usable lots. For that reason, I'd be supportive as staff recommends. Erickson said he likes this solution. The new arrangement is clean and rectangular, not a gerrymandered thing. And also, they’re a little more balanced in size than the existing. It respects the character of the neighborhood. I'm very favorably impressed with this application. Libby pointed out that the city doesn't typically support new lots that are non-conforming. Ressler agreed with that but said we're not creating a new lot, we are doing a lot line rearrangement of two lots and making two lots. You're generally going to be creating two of the largest lots in that neighborhood where few of the lots are two acres so it meets the merits of what is proposed here. If it was a subdivision, I'd be opposed. If it was trying to create another lot that I would be opposed. But we're not doing a split here. It's a lot line rearrangements. So for that reason, I'm in support. Ressler confirmed the second vacant lot would be buildable. Libby suggested asking the applicant to comment on their future intent and what their plans might be. Hillier said they own the 1224 house and tore it down and built a new one in 2015. In 2018 they had the opportunity to buy the other lot next door. We don't know what we're going to do in the future yet. When we built the house in 2015 because of the structural coverage and hardcover we actually had to scale the house back from what we wanted to do. We wanted to have a first floor master. We want to have some other things like a patio on the south side of the property off the dining room. The planning group said no, so we shrunk it down, stacked it up put everything upstairs to meet the requirements. We're kind of restricted with the lot being as small as it is. We want to put a patio on the south side off the dining room and hardcover wouldn't meet it. We want to have a shed in the backyard because right now we store our lawnmower and stuff outside covered with a tarp. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA22-000071, 1224 Briar Street and 1245 Arbor Street Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/14/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/06/2023 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/07/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: Meeting Date Subject: #LA22-000071, James & Juli HIllier, 1224 Briar Street + 1245 Arbor Street, Variances Public Hearing Background The Hilliers own both properties at 1224 Briar Street and 1245 Arbor Street. 1245 Arbor Street is undeveloped. They are proposing to move the common lot line between the two properties to enlarge the area and width of their home site on the Briar lot and reduce the size of the Arbor property. The proposed orientation is shown below; the proposed change moves the defined “front” from Briar to Minnetonka for the Briar lot. The setbacks on the Briar lot are also adjusted. The legal buildable areas are shown in orange on each property. Because the properties are nonconforming with respect to width and area, variances to area and width are required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment (Subdivision Exception). Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area and lot width variances to facilitate an administrative boundary line adjustment (Subdivision Exception). Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. FILE #LA22-000071 17 Jan 2023 Page 2 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the character of the neighborhood and nonconforming status of both lots 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 agrees that the proposed configuration results in a size and orientation consistent with the neighborhood for the Arbor Street property. There are very few properties which meet the RR-1B district standards in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. It appears the proposed change will be consistent with the character of the neighborhood. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 – Setbacks: The applicants received variances in 2015 to construct the Briar Street home in its current location (Resolution No. 6522). Section 78-420(b)(1) allows for side yard setback flexibility for nonconforming lots with respect to width. The Arbor property’s 100-foot width along the front property line (Arbor) qualifies it for a 10-foot side yard setback on the north. Additionally, the Briar property’s 175- foot width qualifies it for a 17.5 foot setback on the north side property line. RR-1B District Required Existing: Briar Property (Briar is the “Front”) Proposed: Briar Property (Minnetonka Avenue becomes “Front”) Front 50’ 55’ 112’ Rear 50’ 31.5’ 10.3’ Side Street 30’ NA 55’ Side 17.5’ 10.3’ 31.5’ Section 78-420 – Lot Area/Width: RR-1B District Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Existing Briar Street 10,500 s.f. (0.24 acre) 75’ Proposed Briar Street 24,508 s.f. (0.56 acre) 140’ Existing Arbor Street 27,999 s.f. (0.63 acre) 100’ Proposed Arbor Street 13,991 (0.32 acre) 100’ FILE #LA22-000071 17 Jan 2023 Page 3 of 5 Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Property Address Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 1224 Briar Street (Proposed) 24,508 s.f. (0.56 acre) Allowed: 4,901 s.f. (20%) Existing/Proposed: 1,581 s.f. (6.4%) 1245 Arbor Street (Proposed) 13,991 s.f. (0.32 acre) Allowed: 2,798 s.f. (20%) Section 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Both properties are located in Tier 2, permitting up to 30% hardcover. Currently no new hardcover is proposed. The Briar Street property’s percentage would improve greatly with the boundary line adjustment reducing from 26.6% to 11.4%. The permitted hardcover square footage for the Arbor Street property would be 4,197 square feet. The Arbor Street property is currently vacant. Applicable Regulations: Lot Area and Lot Width Variances (Section 78-420) Although both properties are currently nonconforming with respect to area and width, the applicants are proposing to move the common boundary line to increase the size of the Briar Street property with their existing home. The change will still result in two nonconforming lots, however the area of the Arbor Street is proposed to be approximately 3,500 square feet larger than the existing Briar Street property. As proposed the Arbor Street property will have an approximate 2,300 square foot building envelope, which is reasonable for this neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed defined lot width of 100-feet for the Arbor lot would not change but the proposed lot width for the Briar lot would increase from 75 feet wide to 140 feet wide as Minnetonka Avenue would become the defined front (narrower frontage). The change would bring the Briar lot dimensions closer to conformance with the RR-1B standards. As a result of the change in defined front yard for the Briar lot, the home on the property becomes more nonconforming with respect to the 50-foot rear yard setback (north lot line opposite Minnetonka). Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: FILE #LA22-000071 17 Jan 2023 Page 4 of 5 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the ordinance is to establish minimum lot sizes and protect against overcrowding. The proposed variances do not negatively impact the goals. The applicants’ proposal would serve to improve some existing nonconformities in the substandard lot width and area. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The use of the properties for single family residential homes is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to move the shared property line between two nonconforming lots improves nonconforming lot width and area for the Briar Street property while not further impacting the buildablity of the Arbor Street property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property positioning was not the result of the landowners. The proposed boundary line adjustment is a reorientation of the previously platted properties. The suggested reorientation of the properties results in an improved orientation in keeping with the neighborhood character; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The lots are both nonconforming as they pertain to lot area and width. Altering the lot line between the properties improves the nonconformity for the Briar Street property but increases the area nonconformity for the Arbor Street property. The boundary line adjustment results in the Arbor Street property having a buildable area generally in line with the other homes along that street. There will be little impact to the character of the area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a residential property is an allowed use in the RR-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 applicants’ proposed changes to the lot lines will bring the Briar Street property closer to conformance. Many of the properties in the Crystal Bay neighborhood are similarly nonconforming. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the applicants’ properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size and orientation of the subject properties, specifically the Arbor Street property, is unique in the Crystal Bay neighborhood. The lot and area width limitations are not unique to the applicants’ properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The property owners indicate that the adjustment of the properties will preserve their property rights. FILE #LA22-000071 17 Jan 2023 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. The granting of a lot width variance standard to permit boundary line adjustment on undersized properties is not in conflict with the intent of the comprehensive plan and 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 applicants have stated the variances are necessary due and the need for approval of the variances is not out of convenience. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the lot width and lot area variances to support an administrative boundary line adjustment. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing & Proposed Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit E. Aerial Photos Exhibit F. Property Owners List Exhibit G. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: NAN Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1.Purpose. This application is regarding variances from average lakeshore setback, 75’ lakeshore setback and hardcover in order to replace a deck and stairs. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 8, 2022 and considered to be complete on December 22, 2022. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on February 20, 2023. 3.Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck and stairs which will replace the current deck, awning, and stairs that are in disrepair. The existing deck structure is within the average lakeshore setback and 75’ lakeshore setback. The expanded deck where the awning is currently creates a new vertical encroachment into the required lakeshore setbacks. The proposed deck remains in the same footprint as the existing structure; however, the deck stairs will be constructed closer to the lake in order to meet building code. The deck structure at its closest point will be 62.6’ from the O.H.W.L. The lot is currently over the hardcover limit with 56.4% hardcover. The hardcover will remain unchanged with the new deck and stairs, but a variance is still required due to not meeting the 25% requirement. 4.Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, no comments were made. The Commission reviewed the application and voted 4 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance as applied. 5.Public Comment. Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Form was received (PC Exhibit G), no other public comments were received. 6.Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Resolution No. 7341 Exhibits A.Draft Resolution No. 7341 B.Proposed Plans C.Draft PC Minutes 1/17/2023 D.PC Staff Report 1/17/2023 References PC Exhibits 1/17/2023 A.Application B.Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C.Proposed Survey D.Proposed Plans and Elevations E.Hardcover Calculations F.Narrative G.Neighbor Acknowledgement Form Item No.: 14 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000066 – Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road Variance – Resolution No. 7341 Presenter: Natalie Nye Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda H. Photos I. Property Owners List and Map CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7341 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING VARIANCES FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279 (6), 78-1680, 78-1700 FILE NO. LA22-000066 WHEREAS, on December 8, 2022, Brandon Bolduc (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for variances from the City Code for the property addressed 3365 Crystal Bay Road and legally described as: Lot 13, WALLACE’S ADDITION TO THE VILLAGE OF MINNETONKA BEACH, Hennepin County, MN. (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made an application to the City of Orono for variances to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-1279 (6) and 78-1680 to allow the replacement of a deck structure 62.6 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level within the Average Lakeshore Setback and 75-foot setback; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made an application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Section 78-1700 to allow the new deck to be constructed in place of the existing awning and over an existing patio changing the nature of the hardcover to allow a total of 56.4% over hardcover for the property; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, 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 January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested variances; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2023 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 #LA22-000066. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7341 2 meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 7,072 square feet in area and has a defined lot width of 49.7 feet at the 75- foot lakeshore setback and a lot width of 50.2 feet at the OHWL. 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 Lakeshore Setback b. 75-foot Lakeshore Setback c. Hardcover 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes difficulties in its small size and width, and proximity to the lake. 2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The proposed variances to replace and extend an existing deck for the front entryway of a single-family dwelling 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 construction of a deck on an existing home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the required lakeshore setbacks appears to be reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore and placement of CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7341 3 the existing home creates difficulties. While the nature of the hardcover is changing slightly, no increase in overall hardcover is proposed. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The uniquely small lot size, width and location to the lake and roadway within the LR-1C zoning district standards prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The existing deck, awning, and stairs are in disrepair and are unsafe. The proposed deck will occupy the same footprint and give the existing home a safe front entryway. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a new deck in the same footprint as an existing deck and awning structure. The proposed improvement is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and existing home. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two- family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. 8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also 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 orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. However the existing home location is unique to this property. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7341 4 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property rights 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 hardcover and lakeshore setback 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 for average lakeshore setback, 75’ lakeshore setback and hardcover are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant 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 Sections 78-1279(6), 78-1680, and 78-1700 to allow the replacement of a deck structure within the Average Lakeshore Setback, 75-foot Setback and over the allowable hardcover limitation to allow a 62.6-foot lakeshore setback and 56.4% total hardcover subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the attached site plan and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff (hereinafter the “Plans”), attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 13, 2024). 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. 7341 5 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Traverse PC Resol. No. Exhibit A LA22-000066 Resol. No. Exhibit B LA22-000066 Traverse PC MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 13 Libby said the complication is that there is some precedent by the fact that the house had been used as a dwelling, so that does set somewhat of a standard. On the other hand, the lot is short a quarter acre to conform to the new ordinance. I don't see a remedy for that. He asked if there are other lots in close proximity that would give guidance on the situation. Curtis said prior to the ADU regulation being adopted the code requirement for a guesthouse use was the property had to meet twice the minimum acreage of the district. On Casco the requirement is half an acre. So, anywhere on Casco where there was a property with half an acre, they would have been eligible to have a guest house. Although we do have smaller lots throughout the city, a non-conforming lot won't meet that ADU standard. Libby said in the reordering of our comprehensive plan, because the City was seeing more frequency of accessory dwelling units, there had to be some changes made that made more sense. I have a difficult time supporting this because it still has a few too many elements of not being conforming. We're not here to redesign or replat. I just still have difficulty supporting this. Ressler said he thinks the staff has done a good job in laying out the issues. He said he would not support a variance for an ADU that doesn’t conform to the new ordinance. But he said there is a second paragraph which may offer a solution and that is the Oares are permitted to maintain the Swenson house as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities. So as the building is currently a fully appointed home, perhaps that does point the way to some sort of pathway. I certainly do appreciate the fact that this was some time ago, this was three different owners, and now it's just two different owners, and that's certainly a step in the right direction. And so if there's something that can be done, to get them to the next step, that would be fine with me. Erickson said he is conflicted on this because he’s all for cleaning up weird things on the lakeshore. The hard part is the application is for is there an accessory dwelling unit and that clearly does not meet what is needed to grant that. Even if we combined the Swenson and Oare lots together, we don't quite get to one acre. I can understand staff’s recommendations, because it doesn't meet the requirements that have just been revisited and revised. McCutcheon said the hard part of the job is we have to draw a line. And when we have a line, we’ve got to stick the line in this one, I think, with this ordinance, since it's new. Maybe in a year's time our opinion changes as the public gives us their feedback. But since this is the first one out of the gate, I think we're going to have a hard line here. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to deny LA22-000065 as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 2. LA22-000066 STEVE ISCHE, 3365 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, REQUESTS VARIANCES FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, HARDCOVER AND THE 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck and stairs on the property which will replace the current deck awning and stairs that are in disrepair. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 13 The existing lot is substandard in size and width and the existing deck structure is within the average lakeshore setback and 75-foot lakeshore setback. The proposal is to expand the deck where the awning is currently which will create a new vertical encroachment into the required average lakeshore setback. The new deck will stay within the footprint of the existing deck and awning structure staying at its closest point 69 feet from the OHWL. The property is currently over the required hardcover limit of 25 percent so a variance is required. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment of practical difficulty being the substandard lot and configuration of the existing home on the property. The proposed deck will create a safe entryway to the home without increasing hardcover and staying within the existing footprint of the improvements. A neighbor acknowledgement form has been included in the packet but no other public comment has been received. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as applied. Ressler asked if this proposal is building like kind. Nye said it is in the footprint but is not like kind. By expanding the deck, there are some new encroachments with these railings and new vertical encroachment. But the footprint doesn't change and staff doesn't believe it would be worsening the view for the neighbors. Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road said they have a deck that's there by the garage and the awning. Everything is in disrepair. The handrails are not to code. The wood is falling apart and rotting. We're just trying to make it safe and have a front door to the house and preserve without tearing down and like so many others do. We're just trying to preserve and make it practical. Ressler asked about the actual setback including the stairs. Nye said the existing staircase also protrudes a bit. In order to create a staircase that's up to code it needs to extend further. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon commented that the application does not seem like a big ask but rather an improvement. Ressler said he agrees there’s not anything that can be done to make this conforming and yet it fits into what is already there. I’m in support as proposed. Commissioners asked additional questions about the design of the stairs in regard to code and how they it with the existing structure. Bolduc said the situation is just as the commissioners stated. The steps are not currently to code as the rise is too steep. Ressler pointed out even with redesigned stairs the design is still within the existing concrete area. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 13 Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA22-000066, 3365 Crystal Bay Rd. Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 3. LA22-000067 JON BYINGTON, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL, REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECK STAIRS ON AN EXISTING DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new spiral staircase to serve an existing deck. The deck and rear addition on the house were recently approved in 2022 through an average Lakeshore setback variance. The location of the existing home on the property in relation to its northern neighbor creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line with a very limited building envelope. The staircase was not originally contemplated for this location and therefore the addition of the spiral staircase creates a new encroachment into the average lakeshore setback requiring a new variance. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment of practical difficulty being the extreme average lake shore setback due to the placement of the existing home. Currently, the deck is 126 feet from the OH WL. The proposed location of the stairs stays within that setback and does not create any new encroachments into the side yard. No public comment has been received and staff recommends approval of the requested variance as proposed. Julie de Yong 1270 Wildhurst Trail said the staircase they are requesting is right next to an existing porch. A deck addition was approved last year and the location of that stairway was moved further away from the backyard. The reasoning behind the spiral staircase would to be to provide easier access to the backyard without having to encroach on any of our neighbors. It will not be past the existing setback that we have and neither of our neighbors would be able to see it. It's not a large, bulky structure. It would be within about five feet width and we are hoping that this would be approved to make the access to our backyard easier. McCutcheon asked if the deck previously had stairs. De Yong explained there were stairs but they had to be moved because of extending the deck to connect to the garage and now the stairs would be too far back. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon said hindsight is 20/20 so he would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt realizing that things can change during construction. He noted it is a little bit bigger footprint than they had before but a pretty subtle one. Ressler said he thinks the request is pretty similar to the last one. His feedback would be similar on this application. Date Application Received: 12/8/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/22/2022 60-Day Review Period Expires: 2/20/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye, Planner Date: January 17, 2023 Subject: LA22-000066, Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, Variance, Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes to construct a new deck and stairs which will replace the current deck, awning, and stairs that are in disrepair. The applicant is proposing to replace the deck and extend it where the awning is currently. The footprint of the proposed deck is within the footprint of the existing improvements. The current deck, awning, and stairs encroach into the average lakeshore setback and the 75’ lakeshore setback. The existing awning is sloped at an angle downward away from the house. The new proposed deck is slightly taller than the existing awning and new railings create a new expansion vertically within the 75’ lakeshore and average lakeshore setback. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to move the deck stairs from the middle of the improvement to the side of the new deck. The property is currently over the maximum hardcover limit with hardcover calculations at approximately 56.4% of the lot area. While the proposed deck does not alter the percentage of hardcover, the nature of the structure is changing in that the deck is expanding where an awning is currently and therefore a variance for hardcover is required. The proposed deck at its closest point is 69’ from the O.H.W.L. Approximately half of the proposed deck is located within the average lakeshore setback. The entire improvement is located on top of existing concrete. The lot is substandard with respect to lot area, lot width, and currently has hardcover exceeding the maximum with building encroachments within the 75’ lakeshore setback and average lakeshore setback. Staff recommends approval of this request. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot area and width and placement of the existing structure as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. They also noted the existing deck, awning, and stairs are in disrepair and unsafe to use. A new deck and stairs are proposed, which will be used as a new and safe entry to the existing home. The applicants have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B and photos of the existing conditions attached as Exhibit H, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variances for the average lakeshore setback, 75’ lakeshore setback, and hardcover for the construction of a deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the deck with the requested variances as proposed. LA21-000066 January 17, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds that there are practical difficulties in the lot’s size, width, and the configuration of the existing home on the lot in relation to the required setbacks. The existing home has a current deck encroaching into the average lakeshore setback and 75’ lakeshore setback. The existing lot is also over the maximum hardcover limit. While the proposal expands the deck footprint over the existing awning, the footprint of the overall improvement and the hardcover remain unchanged. The proposed deck is the same footprint as the existing improvements. The overall improvement will create a safe entryway to the house and is in character with the other homes in the neighborhood. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350– Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 30’ 2.8’ No Change Side (East) 7.5’ 7.6’ No Change Side (West) 7.5’ 1.6’ No Change Lakeshore 75’ 69’ 69’ No Change Average Lakeshore Approximately half of deck encroaches as shown in Exhibit C Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 7,072 s.f. (0.16 acre) 49.7’ @ 75’ / 50.2’ @ OHWL * Crystal Bay Road footage not included. Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 7,072 s.f. (0.16 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. Proposed: 1,670 s.f (64 s.f. awning removed) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 7,072 s.f. 1,768 s.f. (25 %) 3,988 s.f. (56.4%) 3,988 s.f. (56.4%) *Existing nature of the impervious awning to decking; No overall Change Applicable Regulations: Hardcover; 75-Foot Setback Variances (Sections 78-1680 & 78-1700) The property’s ±143 feet of depth is challenging, particularly due to the applied average lakeshore setback at approximately 72’ from the OHWL and the 75’ lake setback. The existing house is situated in a nonconforming location with the existing deck, awning and stairs encroaching into both the average lakeshore setback and 75’ lakeshore setback. A variance is required when a property is over the allowed hardcover maximum and a project is changing the nature of the hardcover. The proposed hardcover level of 56.4%, where 25% is LA21-000066 January 17, 2023 Page 3 of 5 allowed. The deck would add 64 s.f. of new structural coverage where an awning over concrete patio exists today. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The proposed project is replacing a deck and sloped covered awning with a new deck and stairs. The proposed deck creates a new vertical encroachment into the setback which allows for a flat walkable deck and new railing. The existing awning is approximately 9’ above the existing grade and the proposed deck is approximately 14’ above the existing grade. The average lakeshore setback only permits improvements to be 3.5 feet tall lakeward of the setback. The deck is shown to encroach 4.5’ into the average lakeshore setback and the proposed stairs will encroach almost 10’ into the average lakeshore setback. The proposed deck would not expand the footprint of the original improvement. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variances are in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The lot includes difficulties in its small size and width, and proximity to the lake. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variances to replace and extend an existing deck for the front entryway of a single-family dwelling are consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of a deck on an existing home on the substandard lot, in the proposed location within the required lakeshore setbacks appears to be reasonable as the property’s reduced size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore and placement of the existing home creates difficulties. While the nature of the hardcover is changing slightly, no increase in overall hardcover is proposed. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The uniquely small lot size, width and location to the lake and roadway within LA21-000066 January 17, 2023 Page 4 of 5 the LR-1C zoning district standards prevent a residential footprint consistent with the neighborhood. The existing deck, awning, and stairs are in disrepair and are unsafe. The proposed deck will occupy the same footprint and give the existing home a safe front entryway; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variances are requested in order to permit construction of a new deck in the same footprint as an existing deck and awning structure. The proposed improvement is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and existing 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. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as single family residence is an allowed use in the LR-1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property’s substandard size and orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also 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 orientation with respect to the lakeshore and adjacent properties creates difficulties which also apply to many of the properties in the same neighborhood. However the existing home location is unique to this property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting hardcover and lakeshore setback variances are necessary for the preservation of the property rights 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 hardcover and lakeshore setback 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 for average lakeshore setback, 75’ lakeshore setback and hardcover are necessary, and do not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant 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 LA21-000066 January 17, 2023 Page 5 of 5 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. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at the time of building permit. The current plan does not proposed any grading changes. Public Comments The applicant has provided the adjacent property owners’ acknowledgment form (Exhibit G). 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 variances as requested as they are supported by practical difficulties. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Narrative Exhibit G. Neighbor Acknowledgment Form Exhibit H. Photos Exhibit I. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: NAN Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a variance from the Average Lakeshore Setback in order to construct deck stairs for an existing deck. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 13, 2022 and considered to be complete on December 22, 2022. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on February 20, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing to construct a new spiral staircase that will serve an existing deck. The existing deck and rear addition were recently approved in 2022 through an Average Lakeshore Setback variance. The location of the existing home on the property in relation to its northern neighbor creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line with a very limited building envelope. The staircase was not originally contemplated for this location and therefore the new stairs will create a new encroachment requiring a variance. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, no comments were made. The Commission reviewed the application and voted 4 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance as applied. 5. Public Comment. No public comment has been received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to adopt Resolution No. 7342 Exhibits A. Draft Resolution No. 7342 B. Proposed Plans C. Draft PC Minutes 1/17/2023 D. PC Staff Report 1/17/2023 References PC Exhibits 1/17/2023 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Survey D. Plans E. Hardcover Calculations F. Property Owners List and Map Item No.: 15 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000067 – Jon Byington, 1270 Wildhurst Trail Variance – Resolution No. 7342 Presenter: Natalie Nye Planner Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7342 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1279 (6) FILE NO. LA22-000067 WHEREAS, on December 13, 2022, Jon Byington (hereinafter the “Applicant”), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 1270 Wildhurst Trail and legally described as: Tract A, Registered Land Survey No. 1132, Hennepin Country, Minnesota. (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, the Applicant has made an application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 (6) to allow the construction of deck stairs to serve an existing deck within the Average Lakeshore Setback; and WHEREAS, on January 17, 2023, 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 January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the requested variance; and WHEREAS, on February 13, 2023 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 #LA22-000067. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. Council Exhibit A CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7342 2 3. The Property contains 0.97 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 125 feet at the 75-foot lakeshore setback and a lot width of 112 feet at the OHWL. 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 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. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent 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. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are 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. “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 placement of the staircase is in a reasonable location given the intent of the ordinance to preserve views, and manage sensitive environmental concerns. b. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The existing conditions of the existing home on the lot and the extreme average lakeshore setback due to the neighbor to the north are circumstances not created by the landowner. c. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7342 3 The encroachment into the ALS will not impact the character of the locality. 4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. 6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable, as a residential 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 extreme distance of the average lakeshore setback due to the neighbor to the north is 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 conditions do not apply to other land and structures in the district due to the unique ALS for this neighborhood. 10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” The applicant states this to be true. 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.” Per the applicant, granting this proposal is not for convenience. Granting is necessary due to limited buildable site a reasonable use and very reasonable and minor improvement. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7342 4 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 the construction of deck stairs to serve an existing deck within 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 attached site plan and building plans submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff (hereinafter the “Plans”), attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A & B. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A framing inspection must be completed within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (February 13, 2024). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 13th day of February, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Resol. No.Exhibit ALA22-000067 ’二I~r 脛 ll_ 歩V~M _」「 ~「1？（5P’5-H+’鼎 ~ ,"scj"" I ■■I■■ヴ 初口口 ＋1－ー~叫 ’ｳ↓~｜｜吟｜｜｜’ ~~ ■■I■ 「王I 二豆~｡LL■i’朴_Ll ~「 子0~6（ 」 圧~T~~~~~~ 斗I日 ■■ ■＝~~~~ポ ’I「11十6－ー ■’ 是丞橦6 1_L卜卜 ’’－－可 一一「■ － －1 ~一｜ ′’ |哩 ■■/IゲドI ’壬 ’ FH十一 工 ’1＝I I－HIⅡ」 ’’ Resol. No. Exhibit B LA22-000067 Mln. Headroom 6'6' Max. 4٠' Sphere Handral! Helghi (34" Min.0ا Max.38"اIIOpen Space إ\، «Code Riser Tread .دCode R'.ser Tread)meets i/j/s٥. requirement) :เรฺ^ |ν^· ج،3ا٢ Building c.d© Requirement Highlights ٠ Minimum clear walking path oi 26 inches. A 5-foot diameter or larger stair will provide this standard stair width ٠ stair tread codes states that each tread will have a minimum of 7 1/2 inch tread depth at 12 inches from the narrow edge . All treads will be identical « The tread rise shall not be more than 9 1/2 inches high . Minimum headroom of 6 foot 6 Inches shall be provided, measuring plumb from the edge of the platform down to the tread below ٠ Landing width shall not be less than the required staircase width. Minimum spiral stair tread width is 26 Inches - Salter's code platforms start at 31 inches wide ٠ stair balusters shall be spaced so a 4-inch object cannot pass between. The IRC Stair Code permits a 4 3/8 inch space « Ва1сопу٨Л/е11 Enclosure guardrail balusters shall be spaced so a 4-inch object SP!RAL STAاR !NSTALLAT!٥N GUIDE Salter -Adjustable Slee٧e -Aluminum Handrail -Primed or Powdercoated 1 UPPER LEVEI LOWER LEVEL PR.JECT SalterSpiralStair.com DRAVMBY:HEADROOM: ٥28٠-1“800٠3ββ (٠ΡίΤ ءا ،ما٠٠ ^،.^ ٠.،٠■٠؛·,٠ا٠ا ١fN٠COM،،OMI،ř٥ ửí،^wẴ-5trengtfi JOB NUMSER.:GNED SY؛DES DATE. ’二I~r 脛 ll_ 歩V~M _」「 ~「1？（5P’5-H+’鼎 ~ ,"scj"" I ■■I■■ヴ 初口口 ＋1－ー~叫 ’ｳ↓~｜｜吟｜｜｜’ ~~ ■■I■ 「王I 二豆~｡LL■i’朴_Ll ~「 子0~6（ 」 圧~T~~~~~~ 斗I日 ■■ ■＝~~~~ポ ’I「11十6－ー ■’ 是丞橦6 1_L卜卜 ’’－－可 一一「■ － －1 ~一｜ ′’ |哩 ■■/IゲドI ’壬 ’ FH十一 工 ’1＝II－HIⅡ」 ’’ Mln. Headroom 6'6' Max. 4٠' Sphere Handral! Helghi (34" Min.0ا Max.38"اIIOpen Space إ\، «Code Riser Tread .دCode R'.ser Tread)meets i/j/s٥. requirement) :เรฺ^ |ν^· ج،3ا٢ Building c.d© Requirement Highlights ٠ Minimum clear walking path oi 26 inches. A 5-foot diameter or larger stair will provide this standard stair width ٠ stair tread codes states that each tread will have a minimum of 7 1/2 inch tread depth at 12 inches from the narrow edge . All treads will be identical « The tread rise shall not be more than 9 1/2 inches high . Minimum headroom of 6 foot 6 Inches shall be provided, measuring plumb from the edge of the platform down to the tread below ٠ Landing width shall not be less than the required staircase width. Minimum spiral stair tread width is 26 Inches - Salter's code platforms start at 31 inches wide ٠ stair balusters shall be spaced so a 4-inch object cannot pass between. The IRC Stair Code permits a 4 3/8 inch space « Ва1сопу٨Л/е11 Enclosure guardrail balusters shall be spaced so a 4-inch object SP!RAL STAاR !NSTALLAT!٥N GUIDE Salter -Adjustable Slee٧e -Aluminum Handrail -Primed or Powdercoated 1 UPPER LEVEI LOWER LEVEL PR.JECT SalterSpiralStair.com DRAVMBY:HEADROOM: ٥28٠-1“800٠3ββ (٠ΡίΤ ءا ،ما٠٠ ^،.^ ٠.،٠■٠؛·,٠ا٠ا ١fN٠COM،،OMI،ř٥ ửí،^wẴ-5trengtfi JOB NUMSER.:GNED SY؛DES DATE. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 13 Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA22-000066, 3365 Crystal Bay Rd. Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 3.LA22-000067 JON BYINGTON, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL, REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECK STAIRS ON AN EXISTING DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new spiral staircase to serve an existing deck. The deck and rear addition on the house were recently approved in 2022 through an average Lakeshore setback variance. The location of the existing home on the property in relation to its northern neighbor creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line with a very limited building envelope. The staircase was not originally contemplated for this location and therefore the addition of the spiral staircase creates a new encroachment into the average lakeshore setback requiring a new variance. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant’s assessment of practical difficulty being the extreme average lake shore setback due to the placement of the existing home. Currently, the deck is 126 feet from the OH WL. The proposed location of the stairs stays within that setback and does not create any new encroachments into the side yard. No public comment has been received and staff recommends approval of the requested variance as proposed. Julie Dejong 1270 Wildhurst Trail said the staircase they are requesting is right next to an existing porch. A deck addition was approved last year and the location of that stairway was moved further away from the backyard. The reasoning behind the spiral staircase would to be to provide easier access to the backyard without having to encroach on any of our neighbors. It will not be past the existing setback that we have and neither of our neighbors would be able to see it. It's not a large, bulky structure. It would be within about five feet width and we are hoping that this would be approved to make the access to our backyard easier. McCutcheon asked if the deck previously had stairs. Dejong explained there were stairs but they had to be moved because of extending the deck to connect to the garage and now the stairs would be too far back. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon said hindsight is 20/20 so he would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt realizing that things can change during construction. He noted it is a little bit bigger footprint than they had before but a pretty subtle one. Ressler said he thinks the request is pretty similar to the last one. His feedback would be similar on this application. Council Exhibit C MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 13 Erickson said while the commission would like to see applications in advance things happen and he doesn’t see a reason to deny. Libby said spiral staircases can be very creative problem solvers and this is a good application of that. I think this is very unobtrusive, and a method of solving what could be a much more complicated problem. I agree with staff. Erickson moved, Ressler seconded, to approve LA22-000067, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 4. LA22-000071 JIM HILLIER, 1224 BRIAR STREET AND 1245 ARBOR STREET, REQUESTS LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION). City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the Hilliers owned both properties at 1224 Briar and 1245 Arbor Street. The Arbor Street property is undeveloped. They're proposing to move the common lot outline between the two properties to enlarge the area with their home site on Briar and reduce the size of the Arbor property. Both properties are currently non-conforming with respect to area and width and will remain non-conforming. However, the area the Arbor Street lot is proposed to be approximately 3500 square feet larger than the existing Briar Street property. As proposed the Arbor Street property will have an approximate 2300 square foot building envelope which is reasonable for this neighborhood. On the Briar lot, the proposed change moves the defined front from Briar to Minnetonka. This results in a change to the setbacks on the Briar lot. Because the properties are non-conforming with respect to width, an area variance is required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment. The applicant identified the character of the neighborhood and the non-conforming status of the lots as practical difficulties supporting their request. Regarding practical difficulty staff agrees that the proposed configuration results in a size and orientation which remain consistent with the neighborhood. There are very few properties which meet the RR1B district standards in this immediate neighborhood. Staff received a few calls from the public with questions on the application. However, no formal public comments have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the lot with lot area variances to support an administrative boundary line adjustment. Libby asked if there are any helpful precedents for approving non-conforming lots in this area. Cutis answered she could not think of one in that neighborhood. The City has done others but they are not common. Jim Hillier 1224 Briar Street said he had no additional comments but would be happy to answer questions. McCutcheon asked about the motivation for moving the boundary line. Mr. Hillier said the motivation is to give them the ability to better utilize the Briar Street lot, because they will gain a little structural coverage and ground coverage. Date Application Received: 12/13/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 12/22/2022 60-Day Review Period Expires: 02/20/2023 To: Chair Kirchner and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye, Planner Date: January 17, 2023 Subject: LA22-000067, Jon Byington, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, Variance, Public Hearing Background The existing house and deck on the property are nonconforming to the average lakeshore setback. The applicant is requesting to construct a spiral staircase to serve the existing deck. The proposed staircase will be lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line and thus requires a variance. All other city codes are met with the project. The property received a variance in 2022 from Section 78-1279 (6), average lakeshore setback, to construct the existing deck and rear addition. A staircase for the deck was not originally proposed in this location and therefore an additional variance is now required. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the current location of the home as a practical difficulty. The location of the northern neighbor’s home creates an extreme ALS across the subject property as another practical difficulty 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 extreme setback on the northern neighboring home which limits a viable building envelope for the property. Staff supports the variance request. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-330– Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear 30’ 106’ No Change Side (North) 10’ 37.7’ No Change Side (South) 10’ 36.9’ No Change Lakeshore 75’ ~ 126’ No Change Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) variance to permit the construction of deck stairs onto an existing deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the variance as proposed. Council Exhibit D LA22-000067 January 17, 2023 Page 2 of 4 Average Lakeshore Not Met Section 78-330 – Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (1 acre) 140’ Actual 42,282 s.f. (0.97 acres) 112’@ OHWL 125@ 75’ Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 42,282 s.f. (0.97 acres) Allowed: 8.456.4 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,174 s.f. (7.5 %) 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 42,282 s.f 10,570 s.f. (25 %) 10,282 s.f. (24.32%) 10,288 s.f. (24.33%) 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. The average lakeshore setback line is roughly 150’-185’ back from the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The existing home is located lakeward of the ALS, 126’ feet from OHWL. The proposed stairs would serve the existing deck and would be constructed so that the 126’ current lake setback from the OHWL is maintained. 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. LA22-000067 January 17, 2023 Page 3 of 4 Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The intent of the 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 staircase is in 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 existing conditions of the existing home on the lot and the extreme average lakeshore setback due to the neighbor to the north are circumstances not created by the landowner 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. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, a 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 extreme distance of the average lakeshore setback due to the neighbor to the north is 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 conditions do not apply to other land and structures in the district due to the unique ALS for this neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states this to be true. LA22-000067 January 17, 2023 Page 4 of 4 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. 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. Per the applicant, granting this proposal is not for convenience. Granting is necessary due to limited buildable site a reasonable use and very reasonable and minor improvement. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation 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 Exhibit D. Plans Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding variances from the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) performance standards. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 6, 2022 and considered to be complete on January 7, 2023. Therefore the 60-Day review period expires on March 8, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicants and their neighbors (the Abbotts) recently purchased the property between their homes at 2965 Casco Point Road (formerly the Swenson property). They hope to split the property and combine a portion of the property with their lots. They also plan to keep the existing home and detached garage on their respective halves of the property. They will be seeking an administrative boundary line adjustment to combine and move the lot lines following approval of their requested variances from the ADU regulations. 4. Variance Description. They are seeking two variances from the ADU performance standards in order to maintain the full functionality of the existing “Swenson” home to serve as an Accessory Dwelling Unit for the principal home at 2967 Casco Point Rd. The variances requested are the minimum 1.0-acre lot area and the requirement for combined utilities. The Oare property, after the combination, will be 0.73 acre in area. The property has newly installed utilities which are separate from the “Swenson” home. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion for denial of the requested variances. The Planning Commission’s discussion is detailed in the attached minutes (Exhibit B). 6. Public Comment. No comments from the public were received on this application. 7. Staff Recommendation. Staff’s recommendation is to denial the application as applied. Staff found no practical difficulty to support the lot area variance to permit the ADU on the property. The minimum acreage requirement cannot be met therefore the property does not qualify for an ADU use. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow the “Swenson” building to maintain the individual utility connection. The intent of the ordinance is to prevent new connections, since this is in existence today staff could support this part of the variance application. Under the current City Code, the applicants are permitted to maintain the “Swenson” house with a restrictive covenant to allow for full plumbing within the facilities but prohibit a dwelling use within the accessory building. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft a denial resolution. Exhibits A. Proposed Plans Item No.: 16 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000065 - Tim & Leslie Oare, 2967 Casco Point Rd, Variances Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Community Development AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: B. Draft PC Minutes 01/17/2023 C. PC Staff Report 01/17/2023 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: References PC Exhibits 01/17/2023 A. Application & Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Proposed Survey D. ADU Ordinance (Ord. 279, 3rd Series) E. Aerial & Site Photos F. Parking Exhibit G. RLS 1470 H. Property Owners List I. Plat Map MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 1. LA22-000065 LESLIE OARE, 2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicants, along with their neighbors the Abbotts at 2941 Casco Point Road recently purchased the property situated between their lots at 2965 Casco Point Road. This middle property is formerly the Swenson property. The applicants hope to split the property and combine each portion with their lots. They also plan on keeping the existing home and detached garage on their respective halves of the property. She said the administrative boundary line adjustment can be completed by staff and recorded by the owner to combine and move the lot lines. The City Council approved hardcover variances facilitating this split and combination in November. The Abbotts will acquire the Swenson detached garage. The Oares will acquire the Swenson home. They wish to maintain the full functionality of the existing Swenson home to serve as an accessory dwelling unit under the ordinance that was adopted by the council in November. A minimum lot area of one acre is required in order to qualify. Once their lot combination is complete, the Oares’ property will be about three quarters of an acre. The ADU performance standards require the principle building and ADU to share utilities. Because the Swenson home was a separate and independent property it is served separately. The Oares are requesting variances from the performance standards for the utility connections and lot area to permit this home to be used as an ADU on their property. The applicants have identified the existing conditions and the elimination of a separate non-conforming lot as practical difficulties supporting the variances. Staff finds the elimination of a non-conforming lot is a positive improvement from the lot size and average lakeshore setback perspectives, as well as the overall reduction of hardcover proposed between the three properties. Although the Swenson home is an existing condition, staff does not find practical difficulties exist which support the requested variances from the newly adopted regulations to permit an ADU. The applicants are legally able to use the Swenson home as an accessory building with plumbing, but not for dwelling overnight use. No comments from the public had been received for this application. Staff is able to support the variance addressing utility connections as an existing condition to minimize disturbance to the property and the existing utility connections. Staff recommends denial of the lot area variance for ADU use. Ressler asked if that accessory dwelling was not part of the request, would staff be supportive of the application? Curtis said the staff supports the application to combine the lots but not the accessory use. McCutcheon pointed out the City just changed the ordinances to include performance standards; for ADUs and one of our criteria was the lot has to be at least one acre. He said since it's an existing house, the Planning Commission could probably get past the requirement that the main residence and the ADU share utilities. The big conundrum for us to discuss is are we okay with the not meeting the one acre? Tim Oare 2967 Casco Point Rd. The Swenson property had a 20-foot piece of Lakeshore. When we purchased our house, we had talked to the Swensons and Abbotts and Swensons happened to live in Florida. The Abbots share the driveway with the Swenson property. The guest house is almost touching our driveway. We thought it was a great opportunity to eliminate this lake shore piece. If you look it's a 20-foot piece of lakeshore. You really can't have a dock there. We just thought getting rid of all of this and combining it in the two yards instead of three was going to be an easy solution. The house is existing MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ the way it is. Tearing it down doesn't make sense. We are eliminating a whole bunch of hardcover to try and do this. The stairs of the lake are going away. There's a sidewalk from the house to the garage. That's all going away. So we're getting rid of all this hard cover to get down to our right size hardcover, and we didn't realize this was going to be such a big deal to make the split. When they sold their house and we built our house, we redid all the sewer lines, all the water lines to both houses. So it's all fresh, updated sewer, water lines and to combine them again would be a big, big deal. So all we're asking for is to just use the house as a house. It's not like we're renting it out. We just want to keep it as a house for guest. Right now it's a three-bedroom, three-bath house. To convert it to just a party room or storage facility just doesn't seem to make sense either. McCutcheon asked for clarification on the use of the old Swenson house as a guest house or dwelling. Curtis explained that the lot would not meet the one-acre requirement for an ADU and that the new ordinance removed guest houses and replaced them with the ADU regulations. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon noted this was the first variance request under the new ordinance. It doesn’t seem like he’s asking a lot but it doesn’t conform so that is what we are here to discuss. Libby said the complication is that there is some precedent by the fact that the house had been used as a dwelling, so that does set somewhat of a standard. On the other hand, the lot is short a quarter acre to conform to the new ordinance. I don't see a remedy for that. He asked if there are other lots in close proximity that would give guidance on the situation. Curtis said prior to the ADU regulation being adopted the code requirement for a guesthouse use was the property had to meet twice the minimum acreage of the district. On Casco the minimum requirement is half an acre. So, anywhere on Casco where there was a property with one acre, they would have been eligible to have a guest house. Although we do have smaller lots throughout the city, a non-conforming lot won't meet that ADU standard. Libby said in the reordering of our comprehensive plan, because the City was seeing more frequency of accessory dwelling units, there had to be some changes made that made more sense. I have a difficult time supporting this because it still has a few too many elements of not being conforming. We're not here to redesign or replat. I just still have difficulty supporting this. Ressler said he thinks the staff has done a good job in laying out the issues. He said he would not support a variance for an ADU that doesn’t conform to the new ordinance. But he said there is a second paragraph which may offer a solution and that is the Oares are permitted to maintain the Swenson house as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities. So as the building is currently a fully appointed home, perhaps that does point the way to some sort of pathway. I certainly do appreciate the fact that this was MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ some time ago, this was three different owners, and now it's just two different owners, and that's certainly a step in the right direction. And so if there's something that can be done, to get them to the next step, that would be fine with me. Erickson said he is conflicted on this because he’s all for cleaning up weird things on the lakeshore. The hard part is the application is for is there an accessory dwelling unit and that clearly does not meet what is needed to grant that. Even if we combined the Swenson and Oare lots together, we don't quite get to one acre. I can understand staff’s recommendations, because it doesn't meet the requirements that have just been revisited and revised. McCutcheon said the hard part of the job is we have to draw a line. And when we have a line, we’ve got to stick the line in this one, I think, with this ordinance, since it's new. Maybe in a year's time our opinion changes as the public gives us their feedback. But since this is the first one out of the gate, I think we're going to have a hard line here. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to deny LA22-000065 as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. Date Application Received: 12/06/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/07/2023 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/08/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 17 January 2023 Subject: #LA22-000065, Tim & Leslie Oare, 2967 Casco Point Road Variances Public Hearing Background Along with their neighbors John and Michelle Abbott at 2641 Casco Point Road, Tim and Leslie Oare recently purchased the property between their homes at 2965 Casco Point Road (formerly the Swenson property). They hope to split the property and combine each portion with their lots. They also plan to keep the existing home and detached garage on their respective halves of the property. An administrative boundary line adjustment (officially called a Subdivision Exception) can be completed by staff and recorded by the owner to combine and move the lot lines if no new non-conformities are created or an existing non-conformity is not increased. The City Council approved hardcover variances facilitating the split and combination of the Swenson property with Resolution Number 7309 in November 2022. Upon splitting the “Swenson” lot, the Abbotts will acquire the “Swenson” detached garage with their portion of the lot split; the Oares will acquire the “Swenson” home. The Oares wish to maintain the full functionality of the existing “Swenson” home to serve as an Accessory Dwelling Unit. An Ordinance establishing Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) as a permitted accessory use in all of the residential districts was adopted by the Council on November 14, 2022 (Ordinance 279, 3rd Series) is attached as Exhibit D. ADUs were not permitted in the RS District. According to the newly adopted ADU regulations, a minimum lot area of 1.0 acre is required in order to qualify for an ADU. The Oares’ property, once the combination is complete, is proposed to be 0.73 acre. Additionally the ADU performance standards require the principal building and the ADU to share utilities. Because the “Swenson” home was on a separate and independent property, it is served by separate utilities. The Oares are requesting variances from the ADU performance standards for utilities and lot area to permit the “Swenson” home to be used as an ADU on their property. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has primarily identified the existing conditions and the elimination of a separate nonconforming property as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance(s). Additionally, they have provided their supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Application Summary: With the goal of a lot combination and boundary line adjustment (pending Subdivision Exception Application #LA21-000078), the applicants are requesting approval of variances to permit an ADU on the property. Staff Recommendation: Please see the Staff recommends denial. FILE # LA22-0000065 17 Jan 2023 Page 2 of 5 Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds that the elimination of a nonconforming lot is a positive improvement from lot size and average lakeshore setback perspectives, as well as the overall reduction of hardcover proposed between the 3 properties. Although, the “Swenson” home is an existing condition, Staff does not find practical difficulties exist which support the requested variances from the newly adopted regulations to permit an ADU. The applicants are legally able to use the “Swenson” home as an accessory building with plumbing, but not for dwelling or overnight use. Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width: Based on the proposed distribution of the “Swenson” property, the currently nonconforming-sized Oare property will become conforming within the LR-1C district with respect to minimum lot area and lot width. The Abbott property will conform to lot area. The lot width will remain the same. Property Required Existing Proposed Abbott 2941 CPR 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ 27,584 s.f. (0.63 acre) 90 feet 37,600 s.f. (0.86 acre) 90 feet (no width change) “Swenson” 2965 CPR 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ 21,240 s.f. (0.48 acre) ±20 feet Eliminated Oare 2967 CPR 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ 20,851 s.f. (0.47 acre) ±80 feet 32,075 s.f. (0.73 acre) ±100 feet Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Following the property line changes each property will conform to the structural coverage limitation. Abbott Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 2941 CPR Existing: 27,584 s.f. (0.6 acre) Proposed: 37,600 s.f. (0.86 acre) Allowed: 20% Existing: 3,163 s.f. (11.4%) Proposed: 3,905 s.f. (10.3%) Oare Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 2967 CPR Existing: 20,851 s.f. (0.47 acre) Proposed: 32,075 s.f. (0.73 acre) Allowed: 20% Existing: 3,453 s.f. (16.5%) Proposed: 4,697 s.f. (14.6%) Applicable Regulations: Accessory Dwelling Unit - Lot Area and Utility Connection Variance (Section 78-1433 – See Exhibit D) The Oares will be combining the portion of the “Swenson” property with their home site. They wish to keep the existing “Swenson” home and use it as an ADU. The Code permits an ADU on properties which are a minimum of one acre in area. The Oares will increase their lot area from 0.47 acre to 0.73 acre, however they will still be under the minimum acreage in order to qualify for an ADU. The Oares request approval of a lot area variance to qualify for an ADU. Section 78-1433(e) requires the principal building and ADU to share utilities. The existing “Swenson” home has independent utility connections as it has been a separate property for many years. Originally, the “Swenson” lot was a guest house on the Oares’ property, in 1978 the owner split the guest house portion from the portion of the property with the home (RLS 1470 attached as Exhibit G). This split resulted in an average lakeshore setback anomaly for the Oare and Abbott properties as the “Swenson” home is set back considerably from the lake due to the “flag lot” configuration of the “Swenson” lot. The proposed lot split and combination contemplated by the Abbotts and Oares would resolve this average lakeshore setback issue. The property conforms or can conform to the remainder of the ADU performance standards. Additionally, the applicants have provided a site plan FILE # LA22-0000065 17 Jan 2023 Page 3 of 5 demonstrating locations for the two required parking spaces designated to the ADU as Exhibit F. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth- sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The ADU regulations were recently adopted. The utility connections and the minimum one acre lot size were decided upon with the new regulations; the variances for the ADU are not in harmony with the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A. The lot area and utility connection variances to support the ADU are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; i. The requested variances to the lot area minimum and number of utility connections to support the ADU are inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The unique shape, size, and orientation of the subject properties present challenges. The variances to permit an ADU on a property not meeting the minimum standard is inconsistent with the neighborhood and not supported by practical difficulties. The lot area aside, the existing utility connections were not created by the owners, do not impact adjacent properties and may be reasonable to allow the individual connections; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The hardcover variances do not represent an increase of hardcover over existing conditions, so there is little impact to the character of the area. The variance to permit an ADU on a property less than the minimum 1.0 acre standard is inconsistent with the neighborhood and not supported by practical difficulties. The characterization of an additional dwelling unit on the small lot may impact 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. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Relating to the FILE # LA22-0000065 17 Jan 2023 Page 4 of 5 ADU, this condition is not applicable, as an ADU is allowed in the LR-1C District for properties which meet the minimum requirements. 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 applicants propose changes to the lot configuration to remove a nonconforming lot and to solve an average lakeshore setback issue that is unique to the subject properties. If the variances for the ADU are approved, the applicant and the Abbotts intend to split and combine the “Swenson” lot with their own would removing a nonconforming lot would result in bringing both the Abbotts and the Oares properties closer to conforming. This is a unique condition to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Many of the lots in the immediate area are smaller than the 1.0 acres necessary to support an ADU and would not met the performance standards to an ADU use. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The variances to the required minimum lot area for an ADU is at odds with Orono’s density standards and is not necessary for the preservation of applicants’ 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. The granting of variances to the minimum lot area and utility connection standard to permit an ADU on an undersized property is in direct conflict with the intent of the comprehensive plan and 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 lot area variance for the ADU appears to be strictly for the convenience of the property owner and unsupported by practical difficulties. 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. Accessory Dwelling Unit Performance Standards No property within a single-family residential district shall have more than one dwelling unit, except an ADU may be permitted as an accessory use to a single-family dwelling when the following requirements are met. a. The property must be located within the R-1A, R-1B, LR-1A, LR-1B, LR-1C, LR-1C-1, RR-1A, or RR-1B Zoning Districts. The property is located within the LR-1C District. This criterion is met. b. An ADU, attached or detached, shall only be permitted on lots one acre or greater in area. The property, once combined, will be 0.73 acres in area. This criterion is not met. c. No more than one ADU shall be permitted on a lot or parcel. The applicant proposes one ADU. d. Total floor area of an ADU shall be no more than fifty percent (50%) of the primary dwelling unit’s total floor area. The total floor area of an ADU shall not be less than three hundred (300) square feet. The floor area of the principal dwelling is 3,087 square feet; the “Swenson” Home is 1,244 square feet which is approximately 40% of the principal building square footage. This criterion is met. e. The ADU shall not have separate utility connections. The primary residence and ADU must be served by shared municipal water, sanitary sewer, gas, and electric utility services. If not served by municipal sewer and water, the primary residence and ADU shall meet the private well and septic requirements of the Code. The principal building and the “Swenson” home have existed on separate lots for over 30 years. They have separate utility connections. This criterion is not met. f. An ADU shall be designed and maintained so as to be consistent with the architectural design, integrated materials, style, appearance, and character of the primary residence as a single-family FILE # LA22-0000065 17 Jan 2023 Page 5 of 5 residence. The two buildings are similar in exterior finish. The applicants plan to paint the “Swenson” home to match the principal building in the spring. This criterion is met. g. A minimum of two (2) off-street parking spaces (enclosed or on a driveway) shall be required for the ADU. The applicants have provided a site plan demonstrating conformance with the ADU parking requirement. This criterion is met. h. ADUs must be constructed on a permanent foundation with no wheels. This criterion is met. i. The property shall only have one address. The ADU may not be addressed separately from the primary residence. Currently the two are addressed separately. Upon approval of a variances permitting the ADU the property will be split and combined with the Abbott and Oare properties. This criterion will be met. j. The ADU may not be subdivided or otherwise segregated in ownership from the primary residence structure. This criterion will be met. Public Comment No comments from the public have been received for this application. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owners proposes to use the properties in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff is able to support the variance addressing the utility connections as an existing condition to minimize disturbance to the property and the existing connections. Staff found no practical difficulty to support the lot area variance for approval of the ADU on the property. The minimum acreage requirement cannot be met therefore the property does not qualify for an ADU. Planning Staff recommends denial of the lot area variance for the ADU use. The Oares are permitted to maintain plumbing facilities in the “Swenson” house with a restrictive covenant addressing the use as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities. As the building is currently a fully appointed home, Staff recommends the Commission discuss whether or not modifications to the existing home are appropriate under this scenario. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. ADU Ordinance (Ord. 279, 3rd Series) Exhibit E. Aerial & Site Photos Exhibit F. Parking Exhibit Exhibit G. RLS 1470 Exhibit H. Property Owners List Exhibit I. Plat Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a sketch plan to split a currently nonconforming parcel into 2 lots. 2. Background/ Summary. The current property is divided by a lagoon and it has approximately 70,955 sq.ft (1.6 acres) of total land above the 929.4 OHWL. The property is approximately 125’ in width where 140’ is required making the current parcel substandard to the LR-1B zoning District. The parcel has split zoning with LR-1B (1 Acre) Zoning on the southern portion and LR-1C-1 (0.5 Acre) on the northern portion. The northern portion of the parcel has an identified wetland and is currently unimproved. The southern portion currently has a single-family home. The applicant is proposing the split the lot at the lagoon to create two buildable lots. As proposed, the applicant depicts a conforming northern lot meeting the LR-1C-1 requirements. The southern parcel would be substandard with respect to lot width and area. Due to the configuration of the lots and the shoreline, the lot south of the inlet cannot meet the LR-1B lot area requirements unless it is combined with additional land. The applicant’s proposal requires variances. Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Existing-2474 Carman Street 1.6 Acres (excludes the lagoon) Split Zoning 124.95’ 140’ No Proposed- Lot North of Inlet (LR-1C-1) 0.95 Acre/41,246 sq.ft (Dry-32,048 sq.ft Wet-9,198 sq.ft) .5 acre/ 21,780 sq.ft. 124.95' 100' Yes Proposed- Lot South of Inlet (LR-1B) 0.68 Arce/ 29,709 sq.ft 1 acre/ 43,560 sq.ft. 124.95' 140' No, Lot area and width A similar application (File # LA20-000009) was made in 2020 for 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street together. The 2020 application contemplated a subdivision of the two existing lots with the division at the lagoon to create 4 total lots. At that time, the Planning Commission and the City Council were not in favor of creating any nonconforming parcels. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and provided feedback. Commissioners Erikson and Libby were in support of subdividing the land to create a single-family use for the northern parcel. Commissioner McCutcheon discussed concerns with adding driveway access to Shoreline Drive and with the wetland limitations on the parcel. Commissioner Ressler noted he is not in favor of creating new substandard parcels and encouraged the applicant to explore rezoning or other development processes. 4. Public Comment. A sketch plan does not require a public hearing. No comments were submitted. 5. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff does not support variances to create new nonconforming Item No.: 17 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000060 – John Grzybek o/b/o Ward Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Presenter: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Agenda Section: Community Development Report parcels. The applicant should explore opportunities to combine additional land to create conforming parcels. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide informal feedback to the applicant on the proposal. Exhibits A. Proposed Plans B. Narrative C. 2020 Permit Application History D. PC Staff Report 1/17/2023 E. Draft PC Minutes 1/17/2023 References Reference PC Exhibits A. Application Summary B. Subject Parcel C. Proposed Subdivision Sketch D. Narrative E. Wetland information (2017) F. # LA20-00009 Application History The property owner seeks to subdivide the existing lot located at 2474 Carman Street, Orono, Minnesota. The current property is divided by a lagoon, known as Lehman Lagoon (Outlot A), which was dedicated and conveyed to the City of Orono in fee simple in August, 1977. (Certificate of Title No. 657162). The city property effectively splits the property into two parcels in which the southern parcel (where the owner resides) is completely separate and distinct from the northern part of the parcel. Allowing for the subdivision would allow for development on the northern parcel, such as another residence. The northern parcel faces County Road 15. Although the northern parcel of 51,210 square feet has some wet land (9,598 square feet, minus 400 square feet that has been reclaimed for a total of 9,198 square feet), the total amount of dry land is at least 32,048 square feet. Because the parcels are separate and distinct from the residential southern parcel because of the lagoon, the northern parcel serves no purpose to the present owner and serves no logical use for the current property owner. Moreover, subdividing the property would not be contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding single family properties have substantially less square footage than the proposed subdivision. Likewise, other parcels of similar sizes have either a commercial venture or multiple housing units. Granting the subdivision should not jeopardize the existing comprehensive plan or general land use plan, nor the intent of the plans as the request is consistent with projected 2030 land uses and densities for individual neighborhoods, specifically between Carman Street and County Road 15. See e.g., 2030 Future Land Use Categories (Low Density Residential-0.5-2 units per acre.). Since the northern parcel is 51,210 square feet in total, it is over the anticipated acre sized lot (43,560 square feet) for the 0.5 to 2 units per acre it fits squarely within the low density residential land use category for this area the City seeks to maintain by 2030. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 10. LA20-000009 – DON GAMBLE O/B/O RICHARD A AND KIM A EDWARDS, 2480 AND 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN Don Gamble O/B/O Richard A. and Kim A. Edwards, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Walsh asked regarding Tract A, even though the lagoon separates it and it’s non-contiguous if code allows to be able to add the land above the lagoon to it. Barnhart answered adding the lagoon would make it the one-acre gross. Walsh said regarding Tract B, the issue is the wetland and asked if they can fill the wetland because they can replace that wetland somewhere else. Barnhart answered he would have to confirm with the Watershed District but his understanding it they can fill that in and because it is 400 square feet or less, they do not have to replace it. If they do, they can identify another location within the Watershed to replace that wetland or buy credits. He said it is a small area and normally when you start filling in a pond there is a sequence, for example, can the wetland be avoided, can it be mitigated somewhere onsite, there are three to four steps in the process. Barnhart noted with a 400 square foot wetland it is not needed to go to those steps which are sometimes a burden to meet, especially in a community where one doesn’t want to impact wetlands. Walsh asked if it’s the Council’s discretion, if they want that to happen regardless. Barnhart answered true. Printup asked if there is any land there that is used for runoff mitigation from the County Road in the Navarre area. Barnhart answered they haven’t done a lot of engineering yet, but the understanding is that quite a bit of stormwater comes from the shoreline and points North through this property and may impact buildable sites. He said water does come through and he doesn’t believe there is an easement or anything like that to protect that area. Walsh clarified that Tract B meets everything assuming that the wetland gets resolved. Barnhart answered true. Walsh asked Barnhart to explain the width issue with Tract A as he didn’t quite understand the specifics. Barnhart answered when a property owner comes forward and wants to split their property, Staff looks at whether both lots meet the minimum requirements of the applicable zoning district. In some cases, they do and in some cases they don’t, and when they don’t Staff looks at the “why.” Is it because the applicant is not willing to adjust a property line to meet the requirements? Barnhart said in this situation the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 Applicant is somewhat fixed by the side lot lines and again it’s up to the Council’s discretion whether or not they want to support a subdivision that creates a non-conforming lot. He said the issue or comment he wants to make in regards to this situation is the non-conforming width is what is there now, this subdivision does not improve it, nor does it hurt it. Barnhart said they’d get to the driveway coming up later. This subdivision does not increase the non-conformity nor help the non-conformity in terms of width for the Southern portion of the lot. Walsh said typically or historically the Council doesn’t approve subdivisions that do not meet the current requirements. Barnhart replied for a lot width he cannot remember an approval, and there are other standards in play that Council has supported in the past, the driveway for example. Walsh stated as that is his background statement, what would be Barnhart’s recommendation and why would he and Staff be recommending it. Barnhart answered he doesn’t know if he has a recommendation, the point here is to see if Council is comfortable having a situation where they will create a lot that is non-conforming. He noted most other scenarios where they are creating a non-conforming lot it is an easy and fast no for Staff not to recommend it and Council not to support it. In this situation it’s a little different in the sense that they did not create that as a conformity issue. Johnson stated the question is whether the Council will allow a subdivision on a lot that is already non- conforming to be divided even though it is a lawful non-conforming lot right now. Barnhart answered yes that is very well put and is exactly the question in the memo. Johnson said it’s a non-conforming lot that extends over water to the other side, which has its own repercussions, and asked for example, if someone wanted more hardcover on one side, would they go across the bay to someone on the other side to subdivide. He said it opens up some questions for him. Barnhart asked to hear feedback from the Council, noting the Applicant is here and can address any questions. With the Council’s feedback they will come back and the Applicant will decide whether or not to move forward with the project. Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, addressed the Council and noted it’s been a long, strange time since March but they have endeavored to move forward while addressing everything that is possible. Two years ago, this process started with the City and they were looking at lots on the North side having different half-acre zoning and were looking at something entirely different. He stated they’ve been following the guidance to subdivide the lots and noted the driveway services two homes but it runs across a third property to get to the road and that is part of the problem, which is kind of an unchangeable problem. He also said until the first meeting in March, they didn’t realize they could use land North of the lagoon to satisfy the one-acre and that is what they’ve attempted to do here. Mr. Gamble said they have talked about the wetlands with the District and they responded that 400 feet is no big deal. They also talked about vacating all the wetlands and offsetting and other things and the District said that is a little bigger process. Therefore, this is the process to see if they can even subdivide the lots, and if they can, they will certainly work hard with the Watershed District to see what they can do right and the best way to offset if needed. He noted one of the things found in looking at records was when a culvert was MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 put in under County Road 15, it changed the routing of water off of this property – water does not flow across it, but instead flows through the neighbor’s yard. Regarding the little inlet that goes up and hits the lagoon right on the property line, he said he’s gone out and stood there and it has been a rainy season and he has not seen water flowing across it. He said they will address the water flow, the wetlands with the Watershed. He stated again, they moved forward because they would like to see what the outcome will be, and this is the far simplest layout they’ve come up with. He stated they and are looking for some feedback for the owner. Walsh asked Mr. Gamble what he thinks the Council’s biggest challenge is to make a decision on tonight. Mr. Gamble answered, to him - and he has been before this Council and many others - it sounds like the challenge is: is the Council setting some kind of precedent by allowing this or not. He said the idea of grabbing a chunk of land from across the bay never would have occurred to him and noted he is not sitting in front of issues like the Council is all the time. He clarified that until after the March meeting and after talking to the attorneys, did they even find out that it was possible to do use land across the bay, and for two years in talking to Staff he was told they couldn’t use land North of the lagoon at all. He said the benefit of this is the City is getting one-acre lots in an area where they will be the only ones. Mr. Gamble said the fact that there are some funny parcels North, the actual parcels they are creating are actually very viable, very usable and a benefit to the community, noting it is half-acre zoning up there and he was a little surprised that they couldn’t just subdivide them off but he has learned a lot. He said he can understand the challenge for the Council; however, it would be a shame not to figure out how to utilize these lots because if there isn’t some way of configuring it, then that parcel of land is basically locked up until something is allowed. He said he hasn’t pursued anything else and thought he’d put it before the Council last time asking what they would like to see. He noted the owner is trying to come up with something the City will allow, stand behind and that is of value. Mr. Gamble stated they’ve worked within the confines to make it as good as they can and the reason they’re still discussing it is because it’s a sketch plan review and they are still open, but want to move forward with what the Council thinks they can allow. Walsh said it’s certainly a unique piece of property and that is part of the challenge they are trying to grapple with, because even when they divide the land it doesn’t solve all the issues one normally wants to solve in a subdivision. He said especially with the weird configuration of the land and the width issues, some of that is going to suffer. Walsh stated it looks like the Applicant has come a long way and he recognizes what Johnson said regarding whether you can grab land across the water; whether that’s reality or not, he is not sure. Mr. Gamble said this is all one lot and he doesn’t know how they look at the land under the lagoon, it’s a contiguous lot through that lagoon and it isn’t grabbing land from somewhere else to make it work, it is taking the lot that is actually there. Walsh said it’s completely separate, and it would be like having a pond and you can’t get to the other land, noting it’s kind of like Fletcher’s, as they have the little island and you can’t get there unless you get on a boat and get to the island to get picked up. Mr. Gamble said he remembered the bridge they put in once and said he thinks they had to take it out as it blocked the waterway. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 Walsh said technically they could almost say the same thing, if it’s one parcel and one PID (Property Identification Number) and the property owner could say they own everything underneath the water and it’s connected so it’s a similar thing. He said when it’s completely displaced by water it’s hard to make that mental connection. Printup said between Togo Road and Northern Avenue they ran lots going through a wetland, rather than making the wetland an outlot, so the properties were a little bit smaller. Instead what happened is the properties went right through. He asked how you would get to the other side, he doesn’t know. However, the properties sold and he thinks they are being built on to this day, noting it’s a very strange setup down there. Walsh said the Applicant is very close to having it all work and then they wouldn’t even need to be here before the Council. He said he asks himself the question, knowing that this has a couple of things that don’t quite meet what a subdivision would be without having a variance, what is the reason he would say OK to this and he wouldn’t say OK to anything else. What is creating that practical difficulty that would say this is the exception to the rule because it’s so unique, for example to say the Applicant has gotten 95% done but just can’t get the last 5%. Walsh said he doesn’t know if he has that answer yet as this is so unique. Crosby stated he thinks the land on the other side of the water is something he could not get past. He thinks of his own lot and he is on a lagoon, but it would be like him trying to own a piece on the other side, it just doesn’t make sense. There is no land to get there. Johnson said even if they take the lagoon out and someone comes to the Council and says they have a non-conforming lot and they’d like to subdivide it, they would say no because they will not allow a further intensification of something that is already non-conforming. He said this is a terrific piece of real estate and they have exceptional privilege for hardcover, noting he saw the hardcover calculations for one but not the other. He said if they run the calculation for just the South part, they are over 25% hardcover for the amount of area they have there. Johnson stated that it comes down to the fact that it’s non- conforming and if someone else came with a non-conforming and said they meet everything, but – Johnson said the “but” is what holds it up. Walsh said they had some recently were there was a non-conforming line and someone wanted to change the line to make it an even worse non-conforming and the Council said they do not do that, noting one can make it better, but not make it worse. Crosby stated they make it more conforming, not less conforming. Johnson said that is why it’s a hard thing for him to ever get behind approving something that is already non-conforming. Mr. Gamble stated that is exactly right, it is non-conforming the way it sits, and there is nothing that will make each lot conforming. The subdividing of the property is not worsening it at all that he sees, it’s just providing another buildable site on a piece of land and gives it some purpose. Otherwise, like they’ve mentioned, it’s like the island at Fletcher’s. In this case, he said it’s even a separate code and at some point, the City Council said this is different and at some point, the group looked at zoning and zoned this separately from the peninsula houses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 8 Walsh noted that was before their time. Johnson stated the North side is zoned differently. Mr. Gamble said it is zoned half-acre, so it’s a different zoning entirely. Walsh said part of the catch is that they are not trying to create more lots just to create more lots, and noted the Council has been pretty hard on following the rules and if it’s stuck, it’s stuck. He said they have tried to solve some problems. Printup said to Johnson’s point, the Applicant can still use that calculation to benefit the other side of the lagoon. Barnhart replied and said, except that there is the 0-75’ zone that will impact what they can do on that lower portion, so they may allow for more of a calculation of hardcover or they may be constrained by their proximity to the lake. Johnson noted the entire property is in variance. Barnhart said yes, the whole property is in variance. Printup noted they are used to it. Walsh said he doesn’t think that is the inhibitor, it’s just that they’re in the starting block that there is a non-conforming property. Mr. Gamble said that is not unusual in the sense that the Council has moved property lines and done things with non-conforming lots to improve both lots, not creating a new one to do that, and this isn’t creating non-conformity. He said not doing anything isn’t fixing the situation as far as what exists around the lake. Walsh said it sounds like there are two non-conformities. Barnhart said he’s hearing some discomfort from the Council in terms of creating a lot that will be non- conforming from a width standpoint. He said there is also some discomfort on having some buildable portion north of the lagoon. He said that takes care of it from a guidance standpoint for this tract. On the next page of the packet (Lot 1), Barnhart said it obviously conforms from an area and width standpoint, but Lot 2, if they read the Code very strictly, frontage on the lake needs to be 100 feet or 140 feet depending on where that line falls, noting this line would not fall. He said if the Council is not comfortable with the layout that shows this type of “finger,” he would like to hear that and then he can advise the Applicant. Seals asked to go to the Hennepin County Property Map hybrid model and pull up the address to see the visual. Walsh said typically they tell people to come back with a subject that meets everything and they’re ready to roll, but he doesn’t think this can do that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 Mr. Gamble said that is part of the question he had in March, where do they go from here and that is why they got the legal advice and found they could use land North of the lagoon to qualify to get the lot to one-acre, which is unique, noting that the majority on Lake Minnetonka are not an acre. He said they did meet that and the second lot meets the 140-foot width on the front and he believes the zoning on the back only has to be a 100-foot width. Walsh stated he doesn’t mind having any hoops an Applicant has to jump through to get it to conformity, but it’s still not conforming. Barnhart said it would be the width on existing Tract B and potentially the width on the new Lot 1 on the other side. He noted there is a boundary between LR1C1 and the other zone. Crosby asked if the Northern lot has buildable size. Seals asked if you combined those two as one does it make it conforming. Barnhart stated the two Northern lots are both conforming now, he noted where they’re rubbing up against an immovable object is the two lots to the South of the lagoon and trying to make them conforming. Short of acquiring land property from the West, which is not under the control of the Applicant, they cannot make those conforming. However, it’s not uncommon where a property owner doesn’t have quite enough and may need to negotiate with a neighboring property to acquire additional land. Crosby asked if the same owner owns the lot to the North. Barnhart answered no. Printup clarified there are two different people altogether and the only one the Council is looking at is on the right of the map on screen and above it. Barnhart stated the problem is the lower lots. Crosby said they need those portions to be somewhat conforming even though they’re non-conforming, and asked if that is correct. Walsh noted they are currently conforming, but they want to subdivide. Barnhart clarified that one is non-conforming right now, noting the one on the left of the map on screen is non-conforming because of width. Walsh said once they start subdividing, they are at 50% of the four lots being non-conforming. Mr. Gamble noted the one on the right onscreen has the acreage requirement and the new lot is 100 feet wide and meets the zoning requirement. Barnhart said he thinks what Walsh is referring to is the “finger” that goes North of the lagoon as it is 25 feet wide and the requirement, even if it’s a favorable zoning location, would be 100 feet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 Mr. Gamble said that is part of the South lot, rather than the North lot. Barnhart agreed that it is, but it’s also lake-frontage and that’s where the minimum width would come in. He said this lot has four frontages, which they do not see a lot of. Crosby asked to clarify that Lot 2474 is non-conforming and Lot 2480 is conforming. Barnhart answered yes. Johnson noted to make the split it becomes non-conforming because the “finger” goes up the side and does not meet the lake width. Crosby asked if the Council has ever done this in the past, noting that right now for conformity, they are calculating the land North of the lagoon. Barnhart answered yes, they are including some of the land North of the lagoon for both lots. Crosby asked if it’s a possibility to combine them into one lot, although that obviously wouldn’t be a lakeshore lot. Walsh stated you just can’t get four lots out of it. Crosby agreed. Barnhart said he thinks the challenge with this parcel is where the boundary line is for Lot 2474 south of the lagoon. He noted they are limited by that amount of land and they cannot create or add more land to make it wide enough and that is ultimately the issue. He said if they had another 20 feet perhaps, there would be space for four lots. Seals noted she thinks the Council is in agreement that they do not see four lots, but are trying to help the Applicant find three lots. Crosby noted on the map if they drew a line across the top lots, could the top half possibly be a lot off of shoreline, it would not be a lakeshore lot, if it’s big enough to be conforming. Then they would be talking about a total of three lots rather than four. Walsh said they’re trying to give guidance but the Council doesn’t need to design it. Crosby said he understands that and he’s asking if that is a possibility to basically put the two half lots together to make one lot off of shoreline. Barnhart said that is similar to what was proposed in March and the issue is not the area North of the lagoon, the issue is that the amount of land on the peninsula and the amount of land where the boundary line is constrains the subdivision of this lot because there is not enough buildable acreage South of the lagoon with the required width. Earlier, Staff had identified a potential of combining both of those lots to create one conforming lot, and then they’d have two lots on the North for a total of three. He said that’s the best way they can do it, but looking at it, there are two separate property owners and they’d have to work together on getting to that point, or acquire additional land from the private residence to the West to MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 get the area and width. Short of those things happening, Barnhart doesn’t see a subdivision happening here. Walsh said Barnhart hit it right on the mark: they just don’t have enough land to the South to make it work. He stated if the owners can figure it out and combine to get three lots that may be the best option. Mr. Gamble asked if they look at 2480, and move the boundary up so there is not 125-foot width, then there would be a buildable lot to the North off Shoreline Drive, if they meet all the width and square footage requirements. Walsh said if they meet all the requirements, they don’t need the Council. Barnhart stated if Lot 1 was North of the Lagoon and was not a lake lot, he believes it would meet the requirements. Mr. Gamble said he likes hearing the Councilmembers speak among themselves and it furthers the depth for the Applicant. Walsh noted it is a unique situation and if they can get something worked out, the Council is all for it, but it has to fit in the box correctly. Printup asked to see the map onscreen and located a wetland, noting there are lots that go straight through the wetland. Johnson noted that is a wetland, not a lake. Printup answered that trying to make it fit in the box, sometimes doesn’t work. Walsh noted that lot actually had wetlands that one could get through, but just couldn’t build on. He said he remembered that coming through the Council. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a sketch plan proposal that results in 4 single family lots. 2. Background. In March 2020, the City Council reviewed a proposal that resulted in 4 total lots; two were new, and 2 were non-conforming as to lot area, and one lot non-conforming as to width. The Council did not support creating non-conforming lots on a subdivision, and the applicant was instructed to continue working on the proposal. The applicant represents the individual owners of the parcels. Over the last several months, the applicant and staff have worked on revisions to the proposal. The applicant now promotes 4 total lots, all lots meet the minimum area requirement and all but one lot is conforming to width. *The Dry buildable calculation is predicated on the MCWD and City Council approval of the proposal to reclaim 400 sq ft of the wetland. **The portion of this lot north of the lagoon does not meet the width requirement. Lot Analysis 2474 Carman, Tract A. This lot includes the existing structure. A portion of the proposed lot extends north of the lagoon, to meet the minimum gross lot area. This lot does not meet the width requirement, due to the configuration of the existing side lot lines. Due to the size of the portion of the lot north of the lagoon, and the size and location of the wetland, there is not likely to be any permit-able construction north of the lagoon. 2474 Carman, Tract B. The lot is a new lot, and meets the width (measured at the front yard setback line) and has frontage on Shoreline Drive. The County will need to approve the driveway location. This is not a lake lot. This lot proposes reclaiming 400 sq ft of wetland. This is important because without the reclaimed wetland, about 5,000 sq ft of the lot is not contiguous, and without it, the lot would not meet the minimum lot area requirement. The MCWD and the City Council must approve wetland reclamation. The plans do show a conforming location for a Required Proposed Required Proposed Required Proposed Tract B North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1)21,780 26,301 21,780 21,780*100 125 Width Measured at FSB Tract A Mainly South of Inlet (LR-1B)43,560 44,653 21,780 39,977 140 124 Lot 1 North of Inlet (LR-1C- 1)21,780 40,815 21,780 26,418 100 103 Lake Lot. Width is measured at OHWL and 75 Lot 2 Mainly South of Inlet (LR-1B)43,560 57,118 21,780 44,349 140 155** Width is measured at the south shore Width West Side (2474 Carman Street) East Side (2480 Carman Street) Lot Analysis Dry BuildableLot Area (Sq Ft) Item No.: 10 Date: August 24, 2020 Item Description: LA20-000009 – Don Gamble o/b/o Scott Edwards and Kim A. Edwards, 2474 and 2480 Carman Street, Revised Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR building pad, though wetland buffer size will limit the pad site. 2480 Carman, Lot 1. This rectangular lot meets the area and width requirements of the zoning district, and is a lake lot. The County will need to approve the driveway location. A portion of the wetland and its buffer encroach onto the lot, but a buildable site is maintained. 2480 Carman, Lot 2. This lot currently includes the house on 2480 Carman, and sits at the eastern end of the peninsula, with lagoon on two sides, and Lake Minnetonka (Carman Bay) forming the third side. While the lot meets the area and width* requirements, this lot is irregularly shaped, with a long skinny portion extending north of the lagoon, to Shoreline Drive. This portion is necessary to get to the 1 acre dry-buildable requirement. The portion of the lot north of the lagoon does not meet the width requirement. Based on the revised plans, the primary questions for the Council include: 1. Is there interest in the reclamation of 400 sq ft of wetland (to support Tract B)? 2. Is there interest in maintaining the non-conforming lot width of Tract A? 3. Is there interest in the potentially nonconforming lot width for the finger of land north of the lagoon (Lot 2)? 4. Is there general support for the lot layout as proposed? A secondary question is the two proposed lots south of the inlet share a private driveway with a 3rd lot off of Carman, the city ordinances allow two properties to share a driveway. This proposal does not increase nor improve this non-conformity. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 18th, the Planning Commission reviewed the project, and provided feedback on the original plan, they have not reviewed the revised plans. Previously, the Planning Commission noted the challenges with creating conforming lots [due to the amount of land available], but did not support a waiver of the lot area requirements. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests feedback. No formal action is requested. Exhibits A. Revised Annotated Plans B. City Council minutes dated March 9, 2020 C. City Council staff report dated March 9, 2020 D. Comment Letter dated August 17, 2020 E. Original Plans References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2-18-2020 CC Exhibits 3-9-2020 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 19. LA20-000009 – DON GAMBLE O/B/O RICHARD A AND KIM A EDWARDS, 2480 AND 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN Barnhart stated the sketch plan is a proposal to split two lots down the middle which exist on a shoreline. This will create two lots north of the inlet and two lots south of the inlet. The applicant represents both property owners for this purpose. The lot has two different zoning districts: the north lot requires a ½-acre zone, and the area south is a minimum of 1 acre. The two lots north of the inlet conform to lot area and lots width. The two lots south cannot meet the lot area requirements. In addition, the parcel to the west cannot meet the lot width requirement. The project is predicated upon the Council’s support of some waivers or variances to allow additional lots. Not a lot of work has been done because the City Council historically has not supported additional density at the lakeshore. Johnson, referencing the displayed aerial photograph, asked if the yellow line down the middle is the existing property line, Barnhart stated he was correct. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and recognized the inherent challenges with the amount of land but did not support a waiver. Mr. Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, said he grew up on Lake Minnetonka and knows the lake very well. It is a unique property and situation. The south properties cannot be conforming because they are not attached to other land; the north properties would be conforming if they were on their own. Looking through a lot of the historical information on City planning and Navarre planning, everyone has noticed the lots and said, “What a great opportunity.” But it is only a great opportunity if they are on their own. He does not know what would happen to them if they could not be split off. He indicated the south houses are nonconforming whether the north portions of the lot are there or not. Walsh asked Mr. Gamble whether he represented the property owners. Mr. Gamble said he does; he is a real estate developer/broker. Mr. Gamble said the properties have been for sale at times and there are two different buyers: people that want the houses or want the land; they don’t want both. He stated he talked to the City to see if they had any interest in having commercial in the area. The City indicated they could not change zoning. He said various Councils and community interests have thought about what to do and what can happen there. Johnson stated the City Council does not have a history of making subdivisions to create nonconformity. Mr. Gamble noted it was not creating a nonconformity. Johnson said making four parcels instead of two does create nonconformity for two of the four. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 Seals asked if the property could be created into three parcels. Mr. Gamble stated it is nonconforming the way it currently exists. Johnson commented that it is lawfully nonconforming at this point and there are hardcover benefits. Mr. Gamble said the property owners do not get the benefit of the land north of it to use as hardcover for south calculations. The only calculations for the south hardcover are the houses that are there. Barnhart, Walsh, and Seals stated he gets the benefit of the hardcover because it is gross for the lot. Johnson said the big issue is the 75 feet from the lake because everything is a variance. The City Council is more rigid on the hardcover within 75 feet. Crosby noted the property owners are taking advantage of the hardcover because of the north land. Walsh suggested a scenario where the two wooded lots became one lot which would conform and it is 1.2-1.3 acres and the other lots are individual lots. He asked if those lots stand on their own how much hardcover they have, and whether that would make them nonconforming. Barnhart stated it may. He did not do an analysis of the hardcover for the south lots. The two north lots conform in area and width. The only way to make the south lots conforming is to combine them, although he understands there are two dwelling units there. Seals stated it is not that the City is not interested in commercial; however, the residents in the area would be opposed to that. Councilmembers discussed the zoning in the area which was ascertained to be residential. Crosby stated the owners get the benefit of the hardcover from the land and they should have added it on to 2414 and 2440 as their backyard. Mr. Gamble commented that it is his job to maximize the use of the land in its current situation and asked how he would do that. Crosby and Mr. Gamble discussed whether the land to the north was helpful regarding hardcover for the lots on the south. Johnson stated there was a lot of hardcover on the 2474 address. Mr. Gamble stated when it was surveyed, a hardcover survey was done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 6 Johnson asked where the property line was for the survey. Mr. Gamble said that for the north and south lots it is in the middle of the lagoon. He stated it was unique that both owners are thinking about doing something. Neither of them are buyers; they are both sellers. It seems unusual that something cannot happen to those pieces of property such as different zoning. Walsh indicated the City would have to change zoning and density. Mr. Gamble suggested keeping the zoning. He said the houses to the south are like all the neighbors’ houses -- smaller, nonconforming lots -- so it is not asking for a change. Walsh noted there are a lot of neighborhoods similar to that: several small houses and a large house. Crosby asked what the width of the two lots was. Mr. Gamble said the Shoreline Drive is 125 feet. When you get to the 2480 address, it bumps out bigger. Barnhart indicated 2474, north of the inlet, is about 136 feet; 2480, north of the inlet, is about 121 feet. The requirement is 100 feet. For the west side property south of the inlet, it is 124 feet, and the width requirement is 140 feet. On the east side, the measurement is 155 and the requirement is 140 feet. Barnhart said he did not know how to measure something when it has three sides but it is something that can be dug into. Johnson, Walsh, and Seals said they did not see how the City had a path for Mr. Gamble to follow for a subdivision. Crosby noted that there would be hardcover issues on the south lots. Rief said if there was a single buyer who would combine the lots, build one house on the peninsula and then subdivide the top two, that would make it conforming. Crosby noted the bottom two were the only ones in compliance currently. Rief indicated if one owner was not willing to buy the other owner out, the scenario would not work. Crosby added that the entrance would then need to come off of Shoreline Drive. Mr. Gamble stated there is an entrance off of Shoreline Drive. The County put in curb cuts for the lots so there is access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 6 Walsh reiterated the City Council did not have a path for the applicant. Mr. Gamble said he has read through hundreds of pages and listened to the City Council, and although it is complex, there is usually a path if it makes sense. He asked what the path would be if there was one. Walsh stated the path would be to give variances for all of the densities and change the zoning which is something the City Council is not interested in doing. There is no rule that this situation fits in without having to change all of the rules. Mr. Gamble asked if this was a highly unique situation. Johnson said there have been some very bizarre situations, which is why he knew hardcover could be used regardless of where it is, because people take advantage of the hardcover as a whole. They apply it to their area, the City does not allow them to subdivide it, and then a nonconforming situation is created. Mr. Gamble noted if one of the issues with the south lots is that they are not a full acre, if he could add the hardcover from the north land, then the only nonconforming part is the width. Barnhart said that regardless of where you cut the line, the lots south of the inlet are not conforming due to size and for one of them it is both size and width. Crosby stated the 75-foot setback from the shoreline is also an issue. Walsh indicated there are people on 3 acres in a 2-acre zone, every house is on ¼ of an acre and they want to split them up. The City won’t let them because it has to be conforming. Mr. Gamble said one of the owners had a question about 2470 and 2490. Mr. Scott Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, said his neighbors to the west had three lots, combined the three lots and redrew the lot lines to create two lots, and two new buildings were put on them in the past two years. Both lots are not wide enough and are about .5-.6 acres. He asked why that was approved when it is a bigger change. Walsh said you have a right to build on a nonconforming lot; it is a question of what you have a right to build on it. Mr. Edwards noted there were three lots, now there are two, and there was a change; it wasn’t simply that it was the same lot and a new house was put on it. Councilmembers explained that the situation was made better. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 Johnson commented if the owner wanted to take two lots and make them into one, a conversation could be had with the City Council. Mr. Edwards said he does not understand how a house on 2490 could be approved that was not there before. Walsh stated the Council could not comment on something they have no knowledge about and that the incident did not happen two years ago. Mr. Edwards stated the buildings were two years ago but the approval process was probably in 2017. He believes there is an additional house that was not there before on nonconforming lots that were not there before. The density actually increased in the zoning area, which does not make sense to him. Walsh and Crosby said the Council cannot comment on or answer for something another Council might have done. Walsh also indicated it is not the City Council's job to find a solution, only to give guidance. Mr. Gamble asked if 2480 decides to go ahead, which meets the width requirement and it has a small area that would have to change, could that be allowed. Johnson told Mr. Gamble that he would need to present the facts. Mr. Gamble said he submitted all of the information. Walsh explained that basically Mr. Gamble was asking the City Council to approve a nonconforming lot from a conforming lot. He does not think the Council has ever done that. Barnhart explained that the discussion has been about the sketch plan, and the formal application would be to apply for a variance and the applicant would have to prove practical difficulties. It would be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and Council. If the Council approves the variance, he could submit his preliminary plat. Crosby noted the applicant could not create his own practical difficulty. Mr. Gamble asked if there was somewhere he could go at the City to see if a precedent has been set. Barnhart stated Mr. Gamble would have to provide a data request for specific information and the City would then provide that. That would be done with the City Clerk’s office. Walsh commented that he would need to build his argument with similar situations that have occurred. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 Seals noted there were plenty of weird situations around the lake, depending on what you buy. Mr. Gamble stated he understands these are the last two lots of people that used to own the farm. Zoning changed along the way and somehow it got zoned separate. Obviously, there was an intention that the lots be developed separately and in a different manner. Crosby asked for the zoning on the lots. Barnhart said that south of the inlet, it is zoned LR1B. Walsh stated the wooded area is ½-acre. Walsh reiterated if the applicant can build an argument that shows the Council that this needs a resolution that shows a practical difficulty which makes sense, he would be supportive of it. Mr. Gamble said it makes sense to make the attempt for the benefit of the City. Seals stated it would be up to Mr. Gamble because that is why the property owners hired him. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To consider a sketch plan proposal for a 4 lot single family residential subdivision. 2. Background. The applicant proposes to subdivide two existing parcels into 4 lots. Two of the lots would be substandard by virtue of lot area, and two lots would be conforming. Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Notes West Side (2474 Carman Street) North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1) 0.93 .5 acre 136' 100' Yes Width is measured only at lake, wetlands may reduce lot area South of Inlet (LR- 1B) 0.66 1 acre 124' 140' No, Lot area and width Width is measured only at lake East Side (2480 Carman Street) North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1) 1.02 .5 acre 121' 100' Yes Width is measured only at lake South of Inlet (LR- 1B) 0.64 1 acre 155' 140' No, Lot area Width is measured only at lake The two proposed lots south of the inlet are currently developed with single family homes. The two proposed lots north of the inlet are undeveloped. Access to these lots would likely come via a shared driveway off of Shoreline Drive. One of the lots contains a wetland, reducing the lot area once verified. The attached Planning Commission staff report provides further detail on the proposal. The primary question for the Council regards their appetite for waiving the minimum standards for the lots south of the inlet. Due to the land characteristics, the lots south of the inlet could not be conforming unless they were combined. A secondary question is the two proposed lots south of the inlet share a private driveway with a 3rd lot off of Carman, the city ordinances allow two properties to share a driveway. This proposal does not increase nor improve this non-conformity. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 18th, the Planning Commission reviewed the project, and provided feedback. The Planning Commission noted the challenges with creating conforming lots [due to the amount of land available], but did not support a waiver of the lot area requirements. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests feedback. No formal action is requested. Item No.: Date: March 9, 2020 Item Description: #LA20-09, Don Gamble o/b/o Richard A and Kim A Edwards, 2480 and 2474 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: Exhibits A. Plans B. PC Staff report C. PC Minutes - Draft D. Applicants narrative E. Comment Letter dated January 14, 2020. F. Hennepin County Comments References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2-18-2020 August 17, 2020 Don Gamble III VIA EMAIL 10704 Water Lily Lane Bgamble48@gmail.com Woodbury, MN 55129 Re: Carman Street lot splits File #20-000009 Mr. Gamble, The City has received revised drawings showing proposed splits of 2474 and 2480 Carman Street. The City understands that each lot is owned separately. Procedurally, we will process both together (one application, public hearing, agenda item, comment letter, etc.) At the conclusion, however, each will be recorded separately. I have plans sufficient to support a concept review by the City Council, as a follow up to their earlier review. Please let me know if you would like this placed on the Council agenda for August 24th or September 14th. If you intended on going to the Council on August 24, I need confirmation by Wednesday, August 19th. Staff has identified the following comments applicable to these lot splits: 2474 Carman Street 1. The new lot north of the lagoon is not a lake lot, and it not eligible for a dock. 2. This lot is predicated on the MCWD approval of the reclaimed wetland, otherwise the lot does not appear to be 21,780 sq ft of contiguous dry buildable area. 2480 Carman Street 1. The new lot north of the lagoon is considered a lake lot and will have access to a dock. 2. A portion of the wetland on 2474 Carman appears to encroach onto this lot. Any required buffer will likely encroach on the new lot. 3. Please confirm the dry buildable land south of the lagoon, this needs to be at least 21,780 sq ft. Both 1. The Council will have to support a waiver from the lot width requirement for the lots south of the lagoon. 2. The Watershed district will need to comment on any buffer, stormwater, or erosion control issues. Please provide MCWD comment. 3. The county will need to approve access onto Shoreline. Please provide Hennepin County comment 4. Under current requirements, this project will require a conservation design plan. Included in this document is the cataloging of substantial trees and identifying those that would be removed. 5. All lots will be served by municipal sewer and all costs associated are the responsibility of the subdivider. 6. Easements may be necessary over drainage and utility areas, access, etc. 7. Connection and other fees will be due at the time of final plat, and include the following: 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 Per Lot fee x Number of New lots =Total fee Stormwater Truck Fee 3,025.00$ 2 6,050.00$ Sanitary sewer Connection 5,380.00$ 2 10,760.00$ SAC fees also due at time of Permit Park dedication 5,550.00$ 2 11,100.00$ Total Fees 27,910.00$ To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Date: January 17, 2022 Subject: #LA22-000060, John Grzybek o/b/o Ward Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Background 2474 Carman has street frontage on Shoreline Drive. The lot is long and narrow with a lagoon that divides the land and identified wetlands on the northerly portion of the property. A survey was done of the property. The parcel is 87, 510 sq.ft in total area (roughly 2 acres). With the removal of the lagoon space (under the 929.4 OHWL) the parcel is 70,955 sq.ft (1.6 acres). The lot is improved with a single family home on the portion of the lot south of the inlet. The home has access via a private driveway off of Carman Street. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is unimproved. It is the applicant’s goal to split the lot to facilitate a new building site north of the inlet. The applicant included a narrative as Exhibit D. The applicant has not identified how they would proposed to use the northerly lot. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is heavily wooded. The lot includes a wetland and the grade drops off quickly from Shoreline Drive. There are rumors of debris buried within the property, though the city is not aware of any official findings or soil borings. The property is unique in that the portion of the lot south of the inlet is zoned LR-1B (1 acre minimum), and the portion north of the inlet is zoned LR-1C-1 (0.5 acre minimum). The applicable minimum required lot areas and widths are illustrated in the table below for each district. A similar application was made in 2020 for 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street. The 2020 application contemplated a subdivision of the 2 existing lots through with the division at the lagoon to create 4 total lots. At that time, the Planning Commission and the City Council were not in favor of creating any nonconforming parcels. Proposal Application Summary: The applicant is requesting informal feedback on the proposed sketch plan for 2474 Carman Street. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the Commissions discussion with the applicant to bring to light potential issues to be addressed prior to submission of a formal Preliminary Plat application. Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission provide feedback. FILE # LA22-000060 January 17, 2023 Page 2 of 3 The applicant is proposing to split the parcel at the lagoon and creating 2 parcels total. The lots would be required to connect to municipal sanitary sewer. The applicant has not indicated how they would access off Shoreline Drive. The applicant has not provided information for the proposed use on the northern parcel. The southern parcel has an existing family home. Planning Staff Analysis LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Existing-2474 Carman Street 1.6 Acres (excludes the lagoon) Split Zoning 124.95’ 140’ No Proposed- Lot North of Inlet (LR-1C-1) 0.95 Acre/41,246 sq.ft (Dry-32,048 sq.ft Wet-9,198 sq.ft) .5 acre/ 21,780 sq.ft. 124.95' 100' Yes Proposed- Lot South of Inlet (LR-1B) 0.68 Arce/ 29,709 sq.ft 1 acre/ 43,560 sq.ft. 124.95' 140' No, Lot area and width Due to the configuration of the lots and the shoreline, the lot south of the inlet cannot meet the LR-1B lot area requirements unless it is combined with additional land. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to support variances for the lot area and lot width for the southern lot. Engineer Comments City Engineer: • City sewer and Water would be available however there are not an existing stubs so applicants would have to tap into the mains. Due to their locations this would require excavating into the county road which would require a county permit in addition to the City utility permits. • Per the wetland mapper most of the area is a class one preserve wetland. Buildable land may be very limited Hennepin County Provide comments in 2020 regarding the development of 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street. They provided the following comments for consideration. • We recommend the applicant to pursue an access easement from the east (commercial parcel). With the intense traffic off of Shoreline Dr the goal would be avoid direct access when we can. If an easement proves not to be a viable option, will need to combine two sites into one shared access. • Location of access would be based on adequate sight distance and maintaining a positive offset for opposing left turns. Driveway needs to have level landing to allow for optimal sight distance FILE # LA22-000060 January 17, 2023 Page 3 of 3 • No retaining walls along Shoreline Dr would be allowed, additionally grading may be required. • If/when replatting we will require right-of-way dedication to match a 45’ half section (33’ half ROW today). • A review of a drainage report when available is required. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. In the Planning Commission comfortable with the proposed variances necessary to create a new nonconforming parcel? 2. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns with the layout? a. Hennepin County and the City Engineer provided comments on accessibility to the upland parcels 3. The applicant should discuss the concerns regarding the building able area on the proposed north parcel with the existing wetlands and sloping topography. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests feedback to the applicant by discussing the issues identified above. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Subject Parcel Exhibit C. Proposed Subdivision Sketch Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Wetland information (2017) Exhibit F. # LA20-00009 Application History MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 5. LA22-000060 JOHN GRZYBEK (MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON P.A.) O/B/O WARD & DONNA EDWARDS, 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN. Community Development Director Oakden said the applicants are requesting some informal feedback on a proposed sketch plan for 2474 Carmen Street. Staff recommends the commissioners discuss this proposed application and provide feedback. It is an informal process. It's not a public hearing. 2474 Carmen has street frontage on Shoreline Drive to the north. It is a long, relatively narrow piece of property and there is a lagoon or kind of water inlet that divides this parcel. The survey also identifies a wetlands on the northerly portion of the parcel. The parcel is roughly 1.6 acres of land. The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion of the southern part of the inlet. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is unimproved. The property is unique in that the portion of the southern lot and the inlet is zoned LR1B which is one acre minimum. And the portion on the north side of that kind of lagoon inlet is LR1C1 which is half acre, so it is a split zoning on this parcel. The applicant is proposing to split the lot into two parcels to facilitate a new building site north of the inlet. The applicant has not identified how they're proposing to use that northern lot or how they would access it. It is a heavily wooded lot with that wetland and there is a relatively steep grade that drops off from Shoreline Drive. A similar application was made in 2020. That application was contemplating a lot split for both this parcel and the parcel to the east at 2480 Carmen Street. At that time, the Planning Commission and the Council were not in favor because that would create a non-conforming parcel. The existing parcel is non-conforming today. This proposed sketch would create a non-conforming substandard parcel to the south and then a conforming parcel on the northern side. Planning Commission and City Council would have to support variances for lot area and lot width. The City engineer did provide some comments regarding connectivity for utilities and then County permitting requirements. They also noted the wetland in the location on that northerly lot and the potential issues with a buildable envelope. I included comments from Hennepin County from their 2020 review. If a formal application was made we'd get updated comments from the County at that time. No public comment has been made The Planning Commission should discuss if you're comfortable with the proposed variances necessary to create a non-conforming parcel. Do you have concerns with the layout? And then you should discuss the buildable area and the intent with that northerly parcel. The next item on the agenda is a separate applicant but it is the lot right to the east of this one. McCutcheon asked if there is an effort with the two applications to have a combined driveway. Libby said he would like to have the opportunity to look at the illustrations. Oakden scrolled through additional images to show some contours and some slope and potential wetland in the middle, as well as the house to the south on this parcel. There's a shared driveway connecting this property as well as the property to the east, connected off Carmen Avenue. Greg Erickson, business address 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis and Scott W. Edwards, 2470 Carmen Street, spoke to the application. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Erickson said he had done a site visit with Mr. Edwards. The smaller southern parcel is completely disconnected with the northern parcel. There's absolutely no way to access or utilize the northern parcel in any way, shape or form. It's just two parcels and the smaller one is non-conforming, but it's been in use, so it's lawful, and the larger one is conforming consistent with the upcoming changes to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Edwards said the curb cut out exists on the northern portion on County Road 15. It straddles the two lots and when that was put in back in the 50s or 60s it was with the future use of splitting these lots off. Mr. Erickson said they’ve been in discussions with the adjacent landowner and have absolutely no objection to the adjacent landowner’s plan, and to working with them to do something that's acceptable if that's what's necessary in order to move the potential subdivision forward. Mr. Edwards pointed out the wetlands area is not actually holding standing water. It's a peat bog. McCutcheon asked if given the wetland, the lot is buildable. Mr. Edwards said their plan would be if there was a single-family residence it would be between the wetlands and County Road 15. There is over a half-acre of buildable land that is not wetlands, according to our survey, McCutcheon also asked about a grading plan. Mr. Erickson said according to the staff recommendation, there would need to be some sort of grading to get a flatter view of the cross street for safety purposes. McCutcheon said there was no public hearing tonight and asked the commissioners for discussion. He pointed out there would be a non-conforming lot and as a commission, we just said we're not in favor of that. Libby said from a historical perspective these were considered and were platted as two lots a long time ago. It's a very pretty setting. I honestly think that the highest and best use of this would be the divisions that I've seen proposed by the two applicants, I would support that. I know that it doesn't really necessarily conform to the second lot size status that we would like to see. But again, that's that uniqueness. I think we need to look at this as a very unique and unusual circumstance and that we just need to be as open-minded as we statutorily can be to the applicant’s desires for the highest and best use of the land. Erickson said the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood. As we have seen in other locations, like Forest Lake and other places, it makes sense to have the lot line even extended into the water, because there are those times when the lake will be low again. In ‘92, it was down about three feet from the ordinary high water, and then the 1930s, it was down about seven feet below the ordinary high water. Hennepin County's first choice for access to the northern part would be an easement going eastward to MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ County 19, which does not have the huge traffic numbers that County 15 has. So that would be an ideal solution from their standpoint. He said according to oral history there may have been a lot of debris or junk dumped in part of that north area at some time years ago, but we have not seen any soil tests that would either confirm or deny that. Commissioners discussed whether rezoning the property would be a good recommendation. Oakden said rezoning would require an application process to amend the zoning maps. Libby mentioned the significant changes in grade on the property. Ressler said he thinks the correct approach would be to change the zoning. He does not support creating new lots that are non-conforming. He also questioned whether the city would have jurisdiction because of the wetlands and LMCC’s rules and regulations along with the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Libby pointed out this property was discussed as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan but there was never any action. To find the highest and best use, again, it's purely subjective. I think that the highest and best use of this land is to have a lot division. So that there can be I guess, four lots to the north and to the south. But again, that is a subjective opinion, with some extra knowledge of history of the area. McCutcheon said he thinks everyone can agree that Shoreline Drive is very busy. I don't think the citizens would be too crazy about having another entry under that road. He also discussed protecting the wetland on the property. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding a sketch plan to split an existing conforming parcel to create one conforming parcel and one nonconforming parcel. 2. Background/ Summary. The current property is divided by a lagoon and it has approximately 80,767 sq.ft (1.85 acres) of total land area above the 929.4 OHWL. The property is approximately 140’ in width which meets the lot requirements within the LR-1B zoning District. The parcel has split zoning with LR-1B (1 Acre) zoning on the southern portion and LR-1C-1 zoning (0.5 Acre) on the northern portion. The northern portion of the parcel is currently unimproved. The southern portion currently has a new single-family home (Building Permit RPS22-000088). The applicant is proposing the split the lot at the lagoon to create two buildable lots. As proposed, the applicant depicts a conforming northern lot meeting the LR-1C-1 requirements. The proposed southern parcel would be substandard with respect to lot area. Due to the configuration of the lots and the shoreline, the proposed lot south of the inlet cannot meet the LR-1B lot area requirements unless it is combined with additional land. As proposed variances would be required to proceed. Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Existing-2480 Carman Street 1.85 Acres Split Zoning 125/177’ 140’ Yes, width is measured at the lake Proposed- Lot North of Inlet (LR-1C-1) 1.05 Acre/45,900 sq.ft 0.5 acre/ 21,780 sq.ft. 125’ 100' Yes Proposed- Lot South of Inlet (LR-1B) 0.8 Arce/ 34,867 sq.ft 1 acre/ 43,560 sq.ft. 177’ 140’ No, Lot is substandard in area A similar application (File LA20-xxxx) was proposed in 2020 for 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street together. The 2020 application contemplated a subdivision of the two existing lots with the division at the lagoon to create 4 total lots. At that time, the Planning Commission and the City Council were not in favor of creating any nonconforming parcels. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On January 17, 2023, the Planning Commission reviewed the application and provided feedback. Commissioners Erikson and McCutcheon discussed accessibility issues and advise the applicants to work together with the owners of 2474 Carman Street to create shared access on Shoreline Drive. Commissioner Ressler noted he is not in favor of creating new substandard parcels and encouraged the applicant to explore rezoning or other development processes. 4. Public Comment. A sketch plan does not require a public hearing. No comments were submitted. 5. Staff Recommendation. Planning Staff does not support variances to create new nonconforming parcels. The applicant should explore opportunities to combine additional land to create conforming Item No.: 18 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000069 – Brett and Amanda Larson, 2480 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Presenter: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Agenda Section: Community Development Report parcels. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Provide informal feedback to the applicant on the proposal. . Exhibits A. Proposed Plans B. Narrative C. 2020 LA20-000009- Sketch Plan Summary D. PC Staff Report 01/17/2023 E. Draft PC Minutes 01/17/2023 References PC Exhibits 01/17/2023 A. Application Summary B. Subject Parcels C. Proposed Subdivision Sketch D. Narrative E. Wetland information 2017 F. #LA20-00009 Application History. We (Brett and Amanda Larson and daughters Olivia and Isla) recently began building our home at 2480 Carman Street. Our goal is to subdivide the lot to allow for a home on the portion of the property north of the lagoon. The previous owner combined the northern and southern in an effort to reduce property taxes. We are proposing a return to the previous status. The city property currenty (lagoon) currently splits the property into two parcels in an unnatural way. The northern parcel serves no purpose or use relative to the southern parcel and subdividing the property would not be contrary to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The surrounding single family properties have substantially less square footage than the proposed subdivision or have either a commercial venture or multiple housing units. Granting the subdivision would be consistent with the existing comprehensive plan or general land use plan and is consistent with the projected 2030 land uses and densities for individual neighborhoods, specifically between Carman Street and County Road 15. See e.g., 2030 Future Land Use Categories (Low Density Residential-0.5-2 units per acre.). We understand that our neighbor to the west has made a similar rqeuest and we have had disucssions about hsaring an ingress/egress into the two lots. We are also open to accomplishign this goal through a rezoning or variance if necessary. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT 10. LA20-000009 – DON GAMBLE O/B/O RICHARD A AND KIM A EDWARDS, 2480 AND 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN Don Gamble O/B/O Richard A. and Kim A. Edwards, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. Walsh asked regarding Tract A, even though the lagoon separates it and it’s non-contiguous if code allows to be able to add the land above the lagoon to it. Barnhart answered adding the lagoon would make it the one-acre gross. Walsh said regarding Tract B, the issue is the wetland and asked if they can fill the wetland because they can replace that wetland somewhere else. Barnhart answered he would have to confirm with the Watershed District but his understanding it they can fill that in and because it is 400 square feet or less, they do not have to replace it. If they do, they can identify another location within the Watershed to replace that wetland or buy credits. He said it is a small area and normally when you start filling in a pond there is a sequence, for example, can the wetland be avoided, can it be mitigated somewhere onsite, there are three to four steps in the process. Barnhart noted with a 400 square foot wetland it is not needed to go to those steps which are sometimes a burden to meet, especially in a community where one doesn’t want to impact wetlands. Walsh asked if it’s the Council’s discretion, if they want that to happen regardless. Barnhart answered true. Printup asked if there is any land there that is used for runoff mitigation from the County Road in the Navarre area. Barnhart answered they haven’t done a lot of engineering yet, but the understanding is that quite a bit of stormwater comes from the shoreline and points North through this property and may impact buildable sites. He said water does come through and he doesn’t believe there is an easement or anything like that to protect that area. Walsh clarified that Tract B meets everything assuming that the wetland gets resolved. Barnhart answered true. Walsh asked Barnhart to explain the width issue with Tract A as he didn’t quite understand the specifics. Barnhart answered when a property owner comes forward and wants to split their property, Staff looks at whether both lots meet the minimum requirements of the applicable zoning district. In some cases, they do and in some cases they don’t, and when they don’t Staff looks at the “why.” Is it because the applicant is not willing to adjust a property line to meet the requirements? Barnhart said in this situation the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 Applicant is somewhat fixed by the side lot lines and again it’s up to the Council’s discretion whether or not they want to support a subdivision that creates a non-conforming lot. He said the issue or comment he wants to make in regards to this situation is the non-conforming width is what is there now, this subdivision does not improve it, nor does it hurt it. Barnhart said they’d get to the driveway coming up later. This subdivision does not increase the non-conformity nor help the non-conformity in terms of width for the Southern portion of the lot. Walsh said typically or historically the Council doesn’t approve subdivisions that do not meet the current requirements. Barnhart replied for a lot width he cannot remember an approval, and there are other standards in play that Council has supported in the past, the driveway for example. Walsh stated as that is his background statement, what would be Barnhart’s recommendation and why would he and Staff be recommending it. Barnhart answered he doesn’t know if he has a recommendation, the point here is to see if Council is comfortable having a situation where they will create a lot that is non-conforming. He noted most other scenarios where they are creating a non-conforming lot it is an easy and fast no for Staff not to recommend it and Council not to support it. In this situation it’s a little different in the sense that they did not create that as a conformity issue. Johnson stated the question is whether the Council will allow a subdivision on a lot that is already non- conforming to be divided even though it is a lawful non-conforming lot right now. Barnhart answered yes that is very well put and is exactly the question in the memo. Johnson said it’s a non-conforming lot that extends over water to the other side, which has its own repercussions, and asked for example, if someone wanted more hardcover on one side, would they go across the bay to someone on the other side to subdivide. He said it opens up some questions for him. Barnhart asked to hear feedback from the Council, noting the Applicant is here and can address any questions. With the Council’s feedback they will come back and the Applicant will decide whether or not to move forward with the project. Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, addressed the Council and noted it’s been a long, strange time since March but they have endeavored to move forward while addressing everything that is possible. Two years ago, this process started with the City and they were looking at lots on the North side having different half-acre zoning and were looking at something entirely different. He stated they’ve been following the guidance to subdivide the lots and noted the driveway services two homes but it runs across a third property to get to the road and that is part of the problem, which is kind of an unchangeable problem. He also said until the first meeting in March, they didn’t realize they could use land North of the lagoon to satisfy the one-acre and that is what they’ve attempted to do here. Mr. Gamble said they have talked about the wetlands with the District and they responded that 400 feet is no big deal. They also talked about vacating all the wetlands and offsetting and other things and the District said that is a little bigger process. Therefore, this is the process to see if they can even subdivide the lots, and if they can, they will certainly work hard with the Watershed District to see what they can do right and the best way to offset if needed. He noted one of the things found in looking at records was when a culvert was MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 put in under County Road 15, it changed the routing of water off of this property – water does not flow across it, but instead flows through the neighbor’s yard. Regarding the little inlet that goes up and hits the lagoon right on the property line, he said he’s gone out and stood there and it has been a rainy season and he has not seen water flowing across it. He said they will address the water flow, the wetlands with the Watershed. He stated again, they moved forward because they would like to see what the outcome will be, and this is the far simplest layout they’ve come up with. He stated they and are looking for some feedback for the owner. Walsh asked Mr. Gamble what he thinks the Council’s biggest challenge is to make a decision on tonight. Mr. Gamble answered, to him - and he has been before this Council and many others - it sounds like the challenge is: is the Council setting some kind of precedent by allowing this or not. He said the idea of grabbing a chunk of land from across the bay never would have occurred to him and noted he is not sitting in front of issues like the Council is all the time. He clarified that until after the March meeting and after talking to the attorneys, did they even find out that it was possible to do use land across the bay, and for two years in talking to Staff he was told they couldn’t use land North of the lagoon at all. He said the benefit of this is the City is getting one-acre lots in an area where they will be the only ones. Mr. Gamble said the fact that there are some funny parcels North, the actual parcels they are creating are actually very viable, very usable and a benefit to the community, noting it is half-acre zoning up there and he was a little surprised that they couldn’t just subdivide them off but he has learned a lot. He said he can understand the challenge for the Council; however, it would be a shame not to figure out how to utilize these lots because if there isn’t some way of configuring it, then that parcel of land is basically locked up until something is allowed. He said he hasn’t pursued anything else and thought he’d put it before the Council last time asking what they would like to see. He noted the owner is trying to come up with something the City will allow, stand behind and that is of value. Mr. Gamble stated they’ve worked within the confines to make it as good as they can and the reason they’re still discussing it is because it’s a sketch plan review and they are still open, but want to move forward with what the Council thinks they can allow. Walsh said it’s certainly a unique piece of property and that is part of the challenge they are trying to grapple with, because even when they divide the land it doesn’t solve all the issues one normally wants to solve in a subdivision. He said especially with the weird configuration of the land and the width issues, some of that is going to suffer. Walsh stated it looks like the Applicant has come a long way and he recognizes what Johnson said regarding whether you can grab land across the water; whether that’s reality or not, he is not sure. Mr. Gamble said this is all one lot and he doesn’t know how they look at the land under the lagoon, it’s a contiguous lot through that lagoon and it isn’t grabbing land from somewhere else to make it work, it is taking the lot that is actually there. Walsh said it’s completely separate, and it would be like having a pond and you can’t get to the other land, noting it’s kind of like Fletcher’s, as they have the little island and you can’t get there unless you get on a boat and get to the island to get picked up. Mr. Gamble said he remembered the bridge they put in once and said he thinks they had to take it out as it blocked the waterway. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 Walsh said technically they could almost say the same thing, if it’s one parcel and one PID (Property Identification Number) and the property owner could say they own everything underneath the water and it’s connected so it’s a similar thing. He said when it’s completely displaced by water it’s hard to make that mental connection. Printup said between Togo Road and Northern Avenue they ran lots going through a wetland, rather than making the wetland an outlot, so the properties were a little bit smaller. Instead what happened is the properties went right through. He asked how you would get to the other side, he doesn’t know. However, the properties sold and he thinks they are being built on to this day, noting it’s a very strange setup down there. Walsh said the Applicant is very close to having it all work and then they wouldn’t even need to be here before the Council. He said he asks himself the question, knowing that this has a couple of things that don’t quite meet what a subdivision would be without having a variance, what is the reason he would say OK to this and he wouldn’t say OK to anything else. What is creating that practical difficulty that would say this is the exception to the rule because it’s so unique, for example to say the Applicant has gotten 95% done but just can’t get the last 5%. Walsh said he doesn’t know if he has that answer yet as this is so unique. Crosby stated he thinks the land on the other side of the water is something he could not get past. He thinks of his own lot and he is on a lagoon, but it would be like him trying to own a piece on the other side, it just doesn’t make sense. There is no land to get there. Johnson said even if they take the lagoon out and someone comes to the Council and says they have a non-conforming lot and they’d like to subdivide it, they would say no because they will not allow a further intensification of something that is already non-conforming. He said this is a terrific piece of real estate and they have exceptional privilege for hardcover, noting he saw the hardcover calculations for one but not the other. He said if they run the calculation for just the South part, they are over 25% hardcover for the amount of area they have there. Johnson stated that it comes down to the fact that it’s non- conforming and if someone else came with a non-conforming and said they meet everything, but – Johnson said the “but” is what holds it up. Walsh said they had some recently were there was a non-conforming line and someone wanted to change the line to make it an even worse non-conforming and the Council said they do not do that, noting one can make it better, but not make it worse. Crosby stated they make it more conforming, not less conforming. Johnson said that is why it’s a hard thing for him to ever get behind approving something that is already non-conforming. Mr. Gamble stated that is exactly right, it is non-conforming the way it sits, and there is nothing that will make each lot conforming. The subdividing of the property is not worsening it at all that he sees, it’s just providing another buildable site on a piece of land and gives it some purpose. Otherwise, like they’ve mentioned, it’s like the island at Fletcher’s. In this case, he said it’s even a separate code and at some point, the City Council said this is different and at some point, the group looked at zoning and zoned this separately from the peninsula houses. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 8 Walsh noted that was before their time. Johnson stated the North side is zoned differently. Mr. Gamble said it is zoned half-acre, so it’s a different zoning entirely. Walsh said part of the catch is that they are not trying to create more lots just to create more lots, and noted the Council has been pretty hard on following the rules and if it’s stuck, it’s stuck. He said they have tried to solve some problems. Printup said to Johnson’s point, the Applicant can still use that calculation to benefit the other side of the lagoon. Barnhart replied and said, except that there is the 0-75’ zone that will impact what they can do on that lower portion, so they may allow for more of a calculation of hardcover or they may be constrained by their proximity to the lake. Johnson noted the entire property is in variance. Barnhart said yes, the whole property is in variance. Printup noted they are used to it. Walsh said he doesn’t think that is the inhibitor, it’s just that they’re in the starting block that there is a non-conforming property. Mr. Gamble said that is not unusual in the sense that the Council has moved property lines and done things with non-conforming lots to improve both lots, not creating a new one to do that, and this isn’t creating non-conformity. He said not doing anything isn’t fixing the situation as far as what exists around the lake. Walsh said it sounds like there are two non-conformities. Barnhart said he’s hearing some discomfort from the Council in terms of creating a lot that will be non- conforming from a width standpoint. He said there is also some discomfort on having some buildable portion north of the lagoon. He said that takes care of it from a guidance standpoint for this tract. On the next page of the packet (Lot 1), Barnhart said it obviously conforms from an area and width standpoint, but Lot 2, if they read the Code very strictly, frontage on the lake needs to be 100 feet or 140 feet depending on where that line falls, noting this line would not fall. He said if the Council is not comfortable with the layout that shows this type of “finger,” he would like to hear that and then he can advise the Applicant. Seals asked to go to the Hennepin County Property Map hybrid model and pull up the address to see the visual. Walsh said typically they tell people to come back with a subject that meets everything and they’re ready to roll, but he doesn’t think this can do that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 Mr. Gamble said that is part of the question he had in March, where do they go from here and that is why they got the legal advice and found they could use land North of the lagoon to qualify to get the lot to one-acre, which is unique, noting that the majority on Lake Minnetonka are not an acre. He said they did meet that and the second lot meets the 140-foot width on the front and he believes the zoning on the back only has to be a 100-foot width. Walsh stated he doesn’t mind having any hoops an Applicant has to jump through to get it to conformity, but it’s still not conforming. Barnhart said it would be the width on existing Tract B and potentially the width on the new Lot 1 on the other side. He noted there is a boundary between LR1C1 and the other zone. Crosby asked if the Northern lot has buildable size. Seals asked if you combined those two as one does it make it conforming. Barnhart stated the two Northern lots are both conforming now, he noted where they’re rubbing up against an immovable object is the two lots to the South of the lagoon and trying to make them conforming. Short of acquiring land property from the West, which is not under the control of the Applicant, they cannot make those conforming. However, it’s not uncommon where a property owner doesn’t have quite enough and may need to negotiate with a neighboring property to acquire additional land. Crosby asked if the same owner owns the lot to the North. Barnhart answered no. Printup clarified there are two different people altogether and the only one the Council is looking at is on the right of the map on screen and above it. Barnhart stated the problem is the lower lots. Crosby said they need those portions to be somewhat conforming even though they’re non-conforming, and asked if that is correct. Walsh noted they are currently conforming, but they want to subdivide. Barnhart clarified that one is non-conforming right now, noting the one on the left of the map on screen is non-conforming because of width. Walsh said once they start subdividing, they are at 50% of the four lots being non-conforming. Mr. Gamble noted the one on the right onscreen has the acreage requirement and the new lot is 100 feet wide and meets the zoning requirement. Barnhart said he thinks what Walsh is referring to is the “finger” that goes North of the lagoon as it is 25 feet wide and the requirement, even if it’s a favorable zoning location, would be 100 feet. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 Mr. Gamble said that is part of the South lot, rather than the North lot. Barnhart agreed that it is, but it’s also lake-frontage and that’s where the minimum width would come in. He said this lot has four frontages, which they do not see a lot of. Crosby asked to clarify that Lot 2474 is non-conforming and Lot 2480 is conforming. Barnhart answered yes. Johnson noted to make the split it becomes non-conforming because the “finger” goes up the side and does not meet the lake width. Crosby asked if the Council has ever done this in the past, noting that right now for conformity, they are calculating the land North of the lagoon. Barnhart answered yes, they are including some of the land North of the lagoon for both lots. Crosby asked if it’s a possibility to combine them into one lot, although that obviously wouldn’t be a lakeshore lot. Walsh stated you just can’t get four lots out of it. Crosby agreed. Barnhart said he thinks the challenge with this parcel is where the boundary line is for Lot 2474 south of the lagoon. He noted they are limited by that amount of land and they cannot create or add more land to make it wide enough and that is ultimately the issue. He said if they had another 20 feet perhaps, there would be space for four lots. Seals noted she thinks the Council is in agreement that they do not see four lots, but are trying to help the Applicant find three lots. Crosby noted on the map if they drew a line across the top lots, could the top half possibly be a lot off of shoreline, it would not be a lakeshore lot, if it’s big enough to be conforming. Then they would be talking about a total of three lots rather than four. Walsh said they’re trying to give guidance but the Council doesn’t need to design it. Crosby said he understands that and he’s asking if that is a possibility to basically put the two half lots together to make one lot off of shoreline. Barnhart said that is similar to what was proposed in March and the issue is not the area North of the lagoon, the issue is that the amount of land on the peninsula and the amount of land where the boundary line is constrains the subdivision of this lot because there is not enough buildable acreage South of the lagoon with the required width. Earlier, Staff had identified a potential of combining both of those lots to create one conforming lot, and then they’d have two lots on the North for a total of three. He said that’s the best way they can do it, but looking at it, there are two separate property owners and they’d have to work together on getting to that point, or acquire additional land from the private residence to the West to MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Thursday, August 24, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 get the area and width. Short of those things happening, Barnhart doesn’t see a subdivision happening here. Walsh said Barnhart hit it right on the mark: they just don’t have enough land to the South to make it work. He stated if the owners can figure it out and combine to get three lots that may be the best option. Mr. Gamble asked if they look at 2480, and move the boundary up so there is not 125-foot width, then there would be a buildable lot to the North off Shoreline Drive, if they meet all the width and square footage requirements. Walsh said if they meet all the requirements, they don’t need the Council. Barnhart stated if Lot 1 was North of the Lagoon and was not a lake lot, he believes it would meet the requirements. Mr. Gamble said he likes hearing the Councilmembers speak among themselves and it furthers the depth for the Applicant. Walsh noted it is a unique situation and if they can get something worked out, the Council is all for it, but it has to fit in the box correctly. Printup asked to see the map onscreen and located a wetland, noting there are lots that go straight through the wetland. Johnson noted that is a wetland, not a lake. Printup answered that trying to make it fit in the box, sometimes doesn’t work. Walsh noted that lot actually had wetlands that one could get through, but just couldn’t build on. He said he remembered that coming through the Council. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR 1. Purpose. To consider a sketch plan proposal that results in 4 single family lots. 2. Background. In March 2020, the City Council reviewed a proposal that resulted in 4 total lots; two were new, and 2 were non-conforming as to lot area, and one lot non-conforming as to width. The Council did not support creating non-conforming lots on a subdivision, and the applicant was instructed to continue working on the proposal. The applicant represents the individual owners of the parcels. Over the last several months, the applicant and staff have worked on revisions to the proposal. The applicant now promotes 4 total lots, all lots meet the minimum area requirement and all but one lot is conforming to width. *The Dry buildable calculation is predicated on the MCWD and City Council approval of the proposal to reclaim 400 sq ft of the wetland. **The portion of this lot north of the lagoon does not meet the width requirement. Lot Analysis 2474 Carman, Tract A. This lot includes the existing structure. A portion of the proposed lot extends north of the lagoon, to meet the minimum gross lot area. This lot does not meet the width requirement, due to the configuration of the existing side lot lines. Due to the size of the portion of the lot north of the lagoon, and the size and location of the wetland, there is not likely to be any permit-able construction north of the lagoon. 2474 Carman, Tract B. The lot is a new lot, and meets the width (measured at the front yard setback line) and has frontage on Shoreline Drive. The County will need to approve the driveway location. This is not a lake lot. This lot proposes reclaiming 400 sq ft of wetland. This is important because without the reclaimed wetland, about 5,000 sq ft of the lot is not contiguous, and without it, the lot would not meet the minimum lot area requirement. The MCWD and the City Council must approve wetland reclamation. The plans do show a conforming location for a Required Proposed Required Proposed Required Proposed Tract B North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1)21,780 26,301 21,780 21,780*100 125 Width Measured at FSB Tract A Mainly South of Inlet (LR-1B)43,560 44,653 21,780 39,977 140 124 Lot 1 North of Inlet (LR-1C- 1)21,780 40,815 21,780 26,418 100 103 Lake Lot. Width is measured at OHWL and 75 Lot 2 Mainly South of Inlet (LR-1B)43,560 57,118 21,780 44,349 140 155** Width is measured at the south shore Width West Side (2474 Carman Street) East Side (2480 Carman Street) Lot Analysis Dry BuildableLot Area (Sq Ft) Item No.: 10 Date: August 24, 2020 Item Description: LA20-000009 – Don Gamble o/b/o Scott Edwards and Kim A. Edwards, 2474 and 2480 Carman Street, Revised Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: DJR Approved By: DJR building pad, though wetland buffer size will limit the pad site. 2480 Carman, Lot 1. This rectangular lot meets the area and width requirements of the zoning district, and is a lake lot. The County will need to approve the driveway location. A portion of the wetland and its buffer encroach onto the lot, but a buildable site is maintained. 2480 Carman, Lot 2. This lot currently includes the house on 2480 Carman, and sits at the eastern end of the peninsula, with lagoon on two sides, and Lake Minnetonka (Carman Bay) forming the third side. While the lot meets the area and width* requirements, this lot is irregularly shaped, with a long skinny portion extending north of the lagoon, to Shoreline Drive. This portion is necessary to get to the 1 acre dry-buildable requirement. The portion of the lot north of the lagoon does not meet the width requirement. Based on the revised plans, the primary questions for the Council include: 1. Is there interest in the reclamation of 400 sq ft of wetland (to support Tract B)? 2. Is there interest in maintaining the non-conforming lot width of Tract A? 3. Is there interest in the potentially nonconforming lot width for the finger of land north of the lagoon (Lot 2)? 4. Is there general support for the lot layout as proposed? A secondary question is the two proposed lots south of the inlet share a private driveway with a 3rd lot off of Carman, the city ordinances allow two properties to share a driveway. This proposal does not increase nor improve this non-conformity. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 18th, the Planning Commission reviewed the project, and provided feedback on the original plan, they have not reviewed the revised plans. Previously, the Planning Commission noted the challenges with creating conforming lots [due to the amount of land available], but did not support a waiver of the lot area requirements. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests feedback. No formal action is requested. Exhibits A. Revised Annotated Plans B. City Council minutes dated March 9, 2020 C. City Council staff report dated March 9, 2020 D. Comment Letter dated August 17, 2020 E. Original Plans References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2-18-2020 CC Exhibits 3-9-2020 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 6 19. LA20-000009 – DON GAMBLE O/B/O RICHARD A AND KIM A EDWARDS, 2480 AND 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN Barnhart stated the sketch plan is a proposal to split two lots down the middle which exist on a shoreline. This will create two lots north of the inlet and two lots south of the inlet. The applicant represents both property owners for this purpose. The lot has two different zoning districts: the north lot requires a ½-acre zone, and the area south is a minimum of 1 acre. The two lots north of the inlet conform to lot area and lots width. The two lots south cannot meet the lot area requirements. In addition, the parcel to the west cannot meet the lot width requirement. The project is predicated upon the Council’s support of some waivers or variances to allow additional lots. Not a lot of work has been done because the City Council historically has not supported additional density at the lakeshore. Johnson, referencing the displayed aerial photograph, asked if the yellow line down the middle is the existing property line, Barnhart stated he was correct. Barnhart indicated the Planning Commission reviewed the sketch plan and recognized the inherent challenges with the amount of land but did not support a waiver. Mr. Don Gamble, 10704 Water Lily Lane, Woodbury, said he grew up on Lake Minnetonka and knows the lake very well. It is a unique property and situation. The south properties cannot be conforming because they are not attached to other land; the north properties would be conforming if they were on their own. Looking through a lot of the historical information on City planning and Navarre planning, everyone has noticed the lots and said, “What a great opportunity.” But it is only a great opportunity if they are on their own. He does not know what would happen to them if they could not be split off. He indicated the south houses are nonconforming whether the north portions of the lot are there or not. Walsh asked Mr. Gamble whether he represented the property owners. Mr. Gamble said he does; he is a real estate developer/broker. Mr. Gamble said the properties have been for sale at times and there are two different buyers: people that want the houses or want the land; they don’t want both. He stated he talked to the City to see if they had any interest in having commercial in the area. The City indicated they could not change zoning. He said various Councils and community interests have thought about what to do and what can happen there. Johnson stated the City Council does not have a history of making subdivisions to create nonconformity. Mr. Gamble noted it was not creating a nonconformity. Johnson said making four parcels instead of two does create nonconformity for two of the four. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 6 Seals asked if the property could be created into three parcels. Mr. Gamble stated it is nonconforming the way it currently exists. Johnson commented that it is lawfully nonconforming at this point and there are hardcover benefits. Mr. Gamble said the property owners do not get the benefit of the land north of it to use as hardcover for south calculations. The only calculations for the south hardcover are the houses that are there. Barnhart, Walsh, and Seals stated he gets the benefit of the hardcover because it is gross for the lot. Johnson said the big issue is the 75 feet from the lake because everything is a variance. The City Council is more rigid on the hardcover within 75 feet. Crosby noted the property owners are taking advantage of the hardcover because of the north land. Walsh suggested a scenario where the two wooded lots became one lot which would conform and it is 1.2-1.3 acres and the other lots are individual lots. He asked if those lots stand on their own how much hardcover they have, and whether that would make them nonconforming. Barnhart stated it may. He did not do an analysis of the hardcover for the south lots. The two north lots conform in area and width. The only way to make the south lots conforming is to combine them, although he understands there are two dwelling units there. Seals stated it is not that the City is not interested in commercial; however, the residents in the area would be opposed to that. Councilmembers discussed the zoning in the area which was ascertained to be residential. Crosby stated the owners get the benefit of the hardcover from the land and they should have added it on to 2414 and 2440 as their backyard. Mr. Gamble commented that it is his job to maximize the use of the land in its current situation and asked how he would do that. Crosby and Mr. Gamble discussed whether the land to the north was helpful regarding hardcover for the lots on the south. Johnson stated there was a lot of hardcover on the 2474 address. Mr. Gamble stated when it was surveyed, a hardcover survey was done. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 6 Johnson asked where the property line was for the survey. Mr. Gamble said that for the north and south lots it is in the middle of the lagoon. He stated it was unique that both owners are thinking about doing something. Neither of them are buyers; they are both sellers. It seems unusual that something cannot happen to those pieces of property such as different zoning. Walsh indicated the City would have to change zoning and density. Mr. Gamble suggested keeping the zoning. He said the houses to the south are like all the neighbors’ houses -- smaller, nonconforming lots -- so it is not asking for a change. Walsh noted there are a lot of neighborhoods similar to that: several small houses and a large house. Crosby asked what the width of the two lots was. Mr. Gamble said the Shoreline Drive is 125 feet. When you get to the 2480 address, it bumps out bigger. Barnhart indicated 2474, north of the inlet, is about 136 feet; 2480, north of the inlet, is about 121 feet. The requirement is 100 feet. For the west side property south of the inlet, it is 124 feet, and the width requirement is 140 feet. On the east side, the measurement is 155 and the requirement is 140 feet. Barnhart said he did not know how to measure something when it has three sides but it is something that can be dug into. Johnson, Walsh, and Seals said they did not see how the City had a path for Mr. Gamble to follow for a subdivision. Crosby noted that there would be hardcover issues on the south lots. Rief said if there was a single buyer who would combine the lots, build one house on the peninsula and then subdivide the top two, that would make it conforming. Crosby noted the bottom two were the only ones in compliance currently. Rief indicated if one owner was not willing to buy the other owner out, the scenario would not work. Crosby added that the entrance would then need to come off of Shoreline Drive. Mr. Gamble stated there is an entrance off of Shoreline Drive. The County put in curb cuts for the lots so there is access. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 6 Walsh reiterated the City Council did not have a path for the applicant. Mr. Gamble said he has read through hundreds of pages and listened to the City Council, and although it is complex, there is usually a path if it makes sense. He asked what the path would be if there was one. Walsh stated the path would be to give variances for all of the densities and change the zoning which is something the City Council is not interested in doing. There is no rule that this situation fits in without having to change all of the rules. Mr. Gamble asked if this was a highly unique situation. Johnson said there have been some very bizarre situations, which is why he knew hardcover could be used regardless of where it is, because people take advantage of the hardcover as a whole. They apply it to their area, the City does not allow them to subdivide it, and then a nonconforming situation is created. Mr. Gamble noted if one of the issues with the south lots is that they are not a full acre, if he could add the hardcover from the north land, then the only nonconforming part is the width. Barnhart said that regardless of where you cut the line, the lots south of the inlet are not conforming due to size and for one of them it is both size and width. Crosby stated the 75-foot setback from the shoreline is also an issue. Walsh indicated there are people on 3 acres in a 2-acre zone, every house is on ¼ of an acre and they want to split them up. The City won’t let them because it has to be conforming. Mr. Gamble said one of the owners had a question about 2470 and 2490. Mr. Scott Edwards, 2474 Carman Street, said his neighbors to the west had three lots, combined the three lots and redrew the lot lines to create two lots, and two new buildings were put on them in the past two years. Both lots are not wide enough and are about .5-.6 acres. He asked why that was approved when it is a bigger change. Walsh said you have a right to build on a nonconforming lot; it is a question of what you have a right to build on it. Mr. Edwards noted there were three lots, now there are two, and there was a change; it wasn’t simply that it was the same lot and a new house was put on it. Councilmembers explained that the situation was made better. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 6 Johnson commented if the owner wanted to take two lots and make them into one, a conversation could be had with the City Council. Mr. Edwards said he does not understand how a house on 2490 could be approved that was not there before. Walsh stated the Council could not comment on something they have no knowledge about and that the incident did not happen two years ago. Mr. Edwards stated the buildings were two years ago but the approval process was probably in 2017. He believes there is an additional house that was not there before on nonconforming lots that were not there before. The density actually increased in the zoning area, which does not make sense to him. Walsh and Crosby said the Council cannot comment on or answer for something another Council might have done. Walsh also indicated it is not the City Council's job to find a solution, only to give guidance. Mr. Gamble asked if 2480 decides to go ahead, which meets the width requirement and it has a small area that would have to change, could that be allowed. Johnson told Mr. Gamble that he would need to present the facts. Mr. Gamble said he submitted all of the information. Walsh explained that basically Mr. Gamble was asking the City Council to approve a nonconforming lot from a conforming lot. He does not think the Council has ever done that. Barnhart explained that the discussion has been about the sketch plan, and the formal application would be to apply for a variance and the applicant would have to prove practical difficulties. It would be reviewed at a public hearing by the Planning Commission and Council. If the Council approves the variance, he could submit his preliminary plat. Crosby noted the applicant could not create his own practical difficulty. Mr. Gamble asked if there was somewhere he could go at the City to see if a precedent has been set. Barnhart stated Mr. Gamble would have to provide a data request for specific information and the City would then provide that. That would be done with the City Clerk’s office. Walsh commented that he would need to build his argument with similar situations that have occurred. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 9, 2020 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 6 Seals noted there were plenty of weird situations around the lake, depending on what you buy. Mr. Gamble stated he understands these are the last two lots of people that used to own the farm. Zoning changed along the way and somehow it got zoned separate. Obviously, there was an intention that the lots be developed separately and in a different manner. Crosby asked for the zoning on the lots. Barnhart said that south of the inlet, it is zoned LR1B. Walsh stated the wooded area is ½-acre. Walsh reiterated if the applicant can build an argument that shows the Council that this needs a resolution that shows a practical difficulty which makes sense, he would be supportive of it. Mr. Gamble said it makes sense to make the attempt for the benefit of the City. Seals stated it would be up to Mr. Gamble because that is why the property owners hired him. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: 1. Purpose. To consider a sketch plan proposal for a 4 lot single family residential subdivision. 2. Background. The applicant proposes to subdivide two existing parcels into 4 lots. Two of the lots would be substandard by virtue of lot area, and two lots would be conforming. Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Notes West Side (2474 Carman Street) North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1) 0.93 .5 acre 136' 100' Yes Width is measured only at lake, wetlands may reduce lot area South of Inlet (LR- 1B) 0.66 1 acre 124' 140' No, Lot area and width Width is measured only at lake East Side (2480 Carman Street) North of Inlet (LR- 1C-1) 1.02 .5 acre 121' 100' Yes Width is measured only at lake South of Inlet (LR- 1B) 0.64 1 acre 155' 140' No, Lot area Width is measured only at lake The two proposed lots south of the inlet are currently developed with single family homes. The two proposed lots north of the inlet are undeveloped. Access to these lots would likely come via a shared driveway off of Shoreline Drive. One of the lots contains a wetland, reducing the lot area once verified. The attached Planning Commission staff report provides further detail on the proposal. The primary question for the Council regards their appetite for waiving the minimum standards for the lots south of the inlet. Due to the land characteristics, the lots south of the inlet could not be conforming unless they were combined. A secondary question is the two proposed lots south of the inlet share a private driveway with a 3rd lot off of Carman, the city ordinances allow two properties to share a driveway. This proposal does not increase nor improve this non-conformity. 3. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 18th, the Planning Commission reviewed the project, and provided feedback. The Planning Commission noted the challenges with creating conforming lots [due to the amount of land available], but did not support a waiver of the lot area requirements. 4. Public Comment. To date, no comments have been received in support or opposition to the request. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the City Council provide feedback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Staff requests feedback. No formal action is requested. Item No.: Date: March 9, 2020 Item Description: #LA20-09, Don Gamble o/b/o Richard A and Kim A Edwards, 2480 and 2474 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Presenter: Jeremy Barnhart, AICP Community Development Director Agenda Section: Planning Department report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Barnhart Reviewed By: Approved By: Exhibits A. Plans B. PC Staff report C. PC Minutes - Draft D. Applicants narrative E. Comment Letter dated January 14, 2020. F. Hennepin County Comments References PC Staff Report & Exhibits 2-18-2020 August 17, 2020 Don Gamble III VIA EMAIL 10704 Water Lily Lane Bgamble48@gmail.com Woodbury, MN 55129 Re: Carman Street lot splits File #20-000009 Mr. Gamble, The City has received revised drawings showing proposed splits of 2474 and 2480 Carman Street. The City understands that each lot is owned separately. Procedurally, we will process both together (one application, public hearing, agenda item, comment letter, etc.) At the conclusion, however, each will be recorded separately. I have plans sufficient to support a concept review by the City Council, as a follow up to their earlier review. Please let me know if you would like this placed on the Council agenda for August 24th or September 14th. If you intended on going to the Council on August 24, I need confirmation by Wednesday, August 19th. Staff has identified the following comments applicable to these lot splits: 2474 Carman Street 1. The new lot north of the lagoon is not a lake lot, and it not eligible for a dock. 2. This lot is predicated on the MCWD approval of the reclaimed wetland, otherwise the lot does not appear to be 21,780 sq ft of contiguous dry buildable area. 2480 Carman Street 1. The new lot north of the lagoon is considered a lake lot and will have access to a dock. 2. A portion of the wetland on 2474 Carman appears to encroach onto this lot. Any required buffer will likely encroach on the new lot. 3. Please confirm the dry buildable land south of the lagoon, this needs to be at least 21,780 sq ft. Both 1. The Council will have to support a waiver from the lot width requirement for the lots south of the lagoon. 2. The Watershed district will need to comment on any buffer, stormwater, or erosion control issues. Please provide MCWD comment. 3. The county will need to approve access onto Shoreline. Please provide Hennepin County comment 4. Under current requirements, this project will require a conservation design plan. Included in this document is the cataloging of substantial trees and identifying those that would be removed. 5. All lots will be served by municipal sewer and all costs associated are the responsibility of the subdivider. 6. Easements may be necessary over drainage and utility areas, access, etc. 7. Connection and other fees will be due at the time of final plat, and include the following: 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 Per Lot fee x Number of New lots =Total fee Stormwater Truck Fee 3,025.00$ 2 6,050.00$ Sanitary sewer Connection 5,380.00$ 2 10,760.00$ SAC fees also due at time of Permit Park dedication 5,550.00$ 2 11,100.00$ Total Fees 27,910.00$ To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Date: January 17, 2022 Subject: #LA22-000069, Brett and Amanda Larson, 2480 Carman Street, Sketch Plan Background 2480 Carman has street frontage on Shoreline Drive. The lot is long and narrow with a lagoon that divides the land. A survey was done of the property. The parcel is 97,933 sq.ft in total area (roughly 2.25 acres). With the removal of the lagoon space (under the 929.4’ OHWL) the parcel is 80,767 sq.ft (1.85 acres). The lot is improved with a single family home on the portion of the lot south of the inlet which is currently under construction (RPS22-000088). The home has access via a private driveway off of Carman Street. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is unimproved. It is the applicant’s goal to split the lot to facilitate a new building site north of the inlet. The applicant included a narrative as Exhibit D. The applicant has noted their goal is to allow for a home on the north portion of the property. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is heavily wooded. The lot grade drops off quickly from Shoreline Drive. There are rumors of debris buried within the property, though the city is not aware of any official findings or soil borings. The property is unique in that the portion of the lot south of the inlet is zoned LR-1B (1 acre minimum), and the portion north of the inlet is zoned LR-1C-1 (0.5 acre minimum). The applicable minimum required lot areas and widths are illustrated in the table below for each district. A similar application was made in 2020 for 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street. The 2020 application contemplated a subdivision of the 2 existing lots with the division at the lagoon to create 4 total lots. At that time, the Planning Commission and the City Council were not in favor of creating any nonconforming parcels. Proposal Application Summary: The applicant is requesting informal feedback on the proposed sketch plan for 2480 Carman Street. Staff Recommendation: While no formal action is required, this memo will serve as a foundation for the Commissions discussion with the applicant to bring to light potential issues to be addressed prior to submission of a formal Preliminary Plat application. Planning Department Staff recommends the Commission provide feedback. FILE # LA22-000069 January 17, 2023 Page 2 of 3 The applicant is proposing to split the parcel at the lagoon and creating 2 parcels total. The lots would be required to connect to municipal sanitary sewer. The applicant has not indicated how they would access the northern lot off Shoreline Drive. The southern parcel has an existing family home. Planning Staff Analysis LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Lot Analysis Area Required Width Required Conforming? Existing-2480 Carman Street 1.85 Acres Split Zoning 125/177’ 140’ Yes, width is measured at the lake Proposed- Lot North of Inlet (LR-1C-1) 1.05 Acre/45,900 sq.ft 0.5 acre/ 21,780 sq.ft. 125’ 100' Yes Proposed- Lot South of Inlet (LR-1B) 0.8 Arce/ 34,867 sq.ft 1 acre/ 43,560 sq.ft. 177’ 140’ No, Lot is substandard in area Due to the configuration of the lots and the shoreline, the lot south of the inlet cannot meet the LR-1B lot area requirements unless it is combined with additional land. The Planning Commission and City Council would have to support a variance for lot area for the southern lot. Engineer Comments City Engineer: • City sewer and Water would be available however there are not an existing stubs so applicants would have to tap into the mains. Due to their locations this would require excavating into the county road which would require a county permit in addition to the City utility permits. • Per the wetland mapper most of the area is a class one preserve wetland. Buildable land may be very limited Hennepin County Provide comments in 2020 regarding the development of 2474 and 2480 Carmen Street. They provided the following comments for consideration. • We recommend the applicant to pursue an access easement from the east (commercial parcel). With the intense traffic off of Shoreline Dr the goal would be avoid direct access when we can. If an easement proves not to be a viable option, will need to combine two sites into one shared access. • Location of access would be based on adequate sight distance and maintaining a positive offset for opposing left turns. Driveway needs to have level landing to allow for optimal sight distance • No retaining walls along Shoreline Dr would be allowed, additionally grading may be required. FILE # LA22-000069 January 17, 2023 Page 3 of 3 • If/when replatting we will require right-of-way dedication to match a 45’ half section (33’ half ROW today). • A review of a drainage report when available is required. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. In the Planning Commission comfortable with the proposed variances necessary to create a new nonconforming parcel? 2. Does the Planning Commission have any concerns with the layout? a. Hennepin County and the City Engineer provided comments on accessibility to the upland parcels 3. The applicant should discuss the concerns regarding the building able area on the proposed north parcel with the existing sloping topography. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff requests feedback to the applicant by discussing the issues identified above. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Subject Parcels Exhibit C. Proposed Subdivision Sketch Exhibit D. Narrative Exhibit E. Wetland information 2017 Exhibit F. #LA20-00009 Application History. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 6. LA22-000069 BRETT LARSON, 2480 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN. Oakden said this application is similar to the previous one. They're requesting to split their lot. Again, it fronts on Shoreline Drive and it's a long, narrow lot with that lagoon. This parcel is slightly larger; it's roughly 1.85 acres of land. The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion that is currently under construction. In 2020, it was an older home. They have since applied for a new home permit, and that's under construction today. I believe on the survey it's calling out the footprint of the original house to be removed. The northern inlet on the north side of the lagoon is unimproved. The property is unique with, again, the split zoning LR 1B or a one-acre minimum to the south and LR 1C one half-acre minimum to the north. Again, it's heavily wooded with the grading drops but less impacts of wetland on this parcel. The applicant’s goal is to facilitate a new building site on the north of the inlet. And similar to the 2022 application, they are proposing the north lot would be conforming. The southern lot would be non-conforming. The existing parcel is conforming to the zoning district. The proposed northern parcel is the half-acre minimum and would propose to meet all the zoning requirements. The proposed southern parcel in the LR 1B district would be substandard in area so there still is not enough land to meet the LR 1B zoning district. Planning Commission and Council would have to discuss if they are in support of a lot area variance to create a new non-conforming lot. This one has the same engineer comments as before including the discussion of connectivity and then County permitting requirements with access to Shoreline. Are you comfortable with a proposal that includes variances to create a new non-conforming lot? And then do you have concerns about any layout regarding Hennepin County and the engineers comments for access? You are asked to discuss and provide feedback to the applicant. Brett Larsen, 2040 Carmine Street and Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, Long Lake, appeared as the applicants. Mr. Larsen said he and his wife are building a home on the southern portion. On the northern portion we've looked at a few different things. We've talked about a few different options, including putting commercial on the northernmost part, and residential on the southernmost part. It is all buildable; there are no wetland issues. After working through the options with Mark, it gets kind of tight when you're trying to create an easement or a roadway between the two. So the plan would be to have one single family home, one lot, one single family home on that lot. Mr. Gronberg said they looked at putting a shared cul-de-sac with both properties but it takes up too much area and the setbacks are onerous. We’re certainly in favor of a shared access between the two properties so that there's only one there. And I think like Bob said, right in, right out. It makes a lot of sense on a busy road like that. A couple other things, looking at your 2030 land use plan, it shows that it's two to three units per acre. So we're certainly in favor of doing a rezoning here to get that maybe before the 2030. But another thing I wanted to bring up is back a couple years ago we had a neck going up to a 25 foot strip that went up to the north, just to make the dry land on that southerly lot over an acre. And then the northerly lot was still 100 feet wide. It seems stupid to have a 25-foot strip up there that they could never use, but it did technically meet the requirements. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ McCutcheon said he appreciated that the applicants are willing to work with the landowner to the west because it really looks like it's going to be a compromise between both parcels. Libby asked if they have pursued looking at an egress from Kelly Ave. Mr. Gronberg said it sounds like a good idea but who knows if those owners would be willing to give up access there. And then Brett would then have to give up access across his property to the right property of the West. Mr. Larsen said they work through the City with building permits, and wanted to be can-do. We didn't ask for a variance. We tried to do everything outside of the setback. We had to scrap the existing house, fill in the foundation and do a new foundation in order to accomplish all that. We did have the same approach here. I've talked to Scott Edwards. We've talked about sharing that curb cut, if that makes this easier to do. Our strong preference would be to work with Mr. Edwards to find a way that we can access 15. And we have spoken with the LMCD, and they are telling us that a dock is doable. Erickson said as a point of information, reviewing the previous comments from Hennepin County a couple of years ago, the question was raised about the right-of-way for County 15. Hennepin County might want possibly another 12 feet of right-of-way, which then in discussing that, they also pointed out that they didn't want to see any retaining walls are along that stretch of 15 for sightline visibility. Oakden said the County had asked for a 45-foot from centerline and now it's 33 foot so they'd ask for additional right-of -way, and that they wouldn't want any structural improvements in that right-of-way, like retaining wall. A new retaining wall would have to go within the parcel itself, not within the right-of- way space. Mr. Larsen said when they had the home design for the new home on the southern portion, they asked that the architect ensure that the hardcover minimums be met, even after the lots are separated. Oakden explained hard covers and structural coverage is commonly accounted by lot total. The applicant is saying that when they rebuilt their house, or when they put in for their application, they made sure that their hardcover and their structural coverage totals would be met with just the southern portion as a standalone parcel. So that if they were to divide off the north, they'd still be in compliance, and they wouldn't be creating new, additional non-conformities regarding hardcover and structural coverage. Libby asked having dealt with turnouts, turn lanes, and driveway aprons as much as you have, would you anticipate them? If there was a feasibility of an egress from County Road 15, that there would be a necessity for two? Mr. Gronberg said usually for two houses, they aren't that particular, but they’d have to work through it with them. They may want a short little deceleration lane and a short little acceleration lane. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Ressler said he’d like to answer the applicant’s question on the hardcover. We don't want to have three non-conforming lots if we're talking about the adjoining property. In terms of zoning right now are those northern lots even technically also zoned commercial? Oakden said they're zoned residential. LR 1C one is a residential zone. Ressler said if it was for the higher density, then they would still be creating a problem because they'd be asking for one non-conforming lot. The whole idea would be, let's get the zoning corrected to the spirit of the neighborhood and then create conforming lots. And by doing so, then you would be able to do that. McCutcheon asked if we were to rezone the northern parcels as LR 1B, does that help instead of having lots of variances with this one to make it as is it? Oakden said LR 1B is a larger zoning district, one acre minimum. Right now, with the split the LR 1C1 is the half-acre lot minimum. With the split at the lagoon, the LR 1C one meets the half-acre needed, but then that leaves the southern lots not being an acre in size. So that's the creation of a non-conforming lot on both applications. Libby said he thought the discussion had been very healthy, especially with applicants in-house. I think that bringing this back to us and talking is kind of what we're here for. We can't always do a vote. But we can always give our input. So I feel gratified that we had this time to spend. McCutcheon said he felt if they’re going to change something, let's do it the best fit that checks, the most boxes that we've talked about here, whether it's the access to Shoreline Drive, the buildable areas, wetland, easements, all these sorts of things that we talked about. I guess we'll end the discussion there. AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: JVE Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the action item is to provide staff direction on the time line for the formation of the Orono Firefighters Relief Association. 2. Background / Summary. The City Council passed resolution 7293-notice of intent to establish a fire department at the September 26th 2022 Council meeting. Orono must have a firefighters relief association if they are to employ paid-on call firefighters. The goal is to keep the firefighters, who transition to Orono firefighters from Long Lake firefighters, whole with the funds earned by them during their time as Long Lake Firefighters. The relief association is a separate entity from the city whose main purpose is to manage the public pension funds for the Orono Firefighters. 3. Process. There are many steps in forming the Orono Firefighters Relief Association. The time critical one is the step of creating special legislation to move the funds earned by the firefighters from one relief association to another. a. Special Legislation: We will need special legislation written by the Minnesota Legislative Commission on Pensions and Retirement, sponsored by our legislators and passed through the Minnesota State Legislature to move funds from the Long Lake Volunteer Fireman’s Relief Association to the newly formed Orono Firefighters Relief Association. In the framework of the bill, we will need language for a possible phased in approach of the firefighters, also we will need some direction for the relief association benefit type i.e., defined contribution or defined benefit. b. Remaining Steps: The remaining steps can be worked on but not completed without the hiring of firefighters. The firefighters must elect a relief association board who will need to file articles of incorporation with the Secretary of State. They must also pass a set of by-laws for the association that will need to be filed with the State Auditor’s Office and create an investment policy. We must also pass an inspection by the State Fire Marshall’s Office, who will issue us with a fire department ID. Once this is complete, we are able to complete and file the state aid forms with the Department of Revenue before the deadline of March 15. Then they can open up a checking and savings accounts for the general and pension funds. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff is looking for direction on the timeline for having to complete the special legislation. The special legislation is passed once per year during the legislation session. The language of the bill needs to be submitted to our legislators early in the session and the Executive Director of the MN Legislative Commission on Pension and Retirement is asking for us to have a meeting with Long Lake representatives and our legislators to discuss the language of the bill. In order to have relief association established to possible receive firefighters in 2024 legislative language must be initiated in the next couple weeks. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff move forward with the special legislation process during the 2023 Legislative Session. Further move to authorize the Fire Negotiation Committee, Council members Seals and Johnson to coordinate/ negotiate the details of the legislative language with our state legislators for this item on behalf of the city. Item No.: 19 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Orono Firefighters Relief Association Presenter: James Van Eyll Fire Chief Agenda Section: Fire Department AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: JVE Reviewed By:A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the action item is to provide staff with direction on the Fire Department Needs Assessment. 2. Background. In 2021, the city of Orono notified the City of Long Lake that we would not be extending the current fire service agreement. Following negotiations for the transfer of the existing fire department to Orono control were unfruitful, in September of 2022, the City Council passed a resolution of intent to establish the Orono Fire Department. At the November 14th meeting the council appointed a new Fire Chief to build and then lead the new department. One of the Fire Chief’s primary duties prior to the standup of the department is to complete a needs assessment for the city of Orono’s emergency service needs. Initial work has begun. 3. Needs Assessment Scope of Work. The Fire Department Needs Assessment will analyze the organization and management, service areas, regulatory environment, historical operations, service demand needs and future growth of the department and the area. The assessment will review the different options and levels of service for a municipal department to provide fire and EMS protection for their citizens. The assessment will then provide recommendations for the new department’s organization, manning, equipping and infrastructure needs both in the near and long term. The report will outline the resources (costs) and major activities required to stand up the department while offering the Council several courses of action on how to get there. 4. Other Deliverables. At the request of the Fire Negotiating Committee the study will include cost comparisons for the various negotiating offers that have been proposed since negotiations began with Long Lake. 5. Time Line: In order to meet some key deadlines from the most time sensitive course of action the negotiating committee has considered the study must be complete by June. When What Who January 3, 2023 Preliminary study work started Fire Chief February 3, 2023 Committee direction on needs assessment Fire Negotiating Committee May 5, 2023 Progress update to Negotiating Committee Fire Chief May 22, 2023 Draft report to City Council Fire Chief June 12, 2023 Final Report and Presentation to City Council Fire Chief 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends proceeding with a Fire Department Needs Assessment. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to complete a Fire Department Needs Assessment no later than June 12th, 2023. Item No.: 20 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: Fire Department Needs Assessment Presenter: James Van Eyll Fire Chief Agenda Section: City Administrator Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to confirm whether or not to continue with or pull the City’s Grant application. 2. Background. In October of 2022, the city council passed Resolution 7305 requesting consideration for a Hennepin County Youth Sports Program Grant in the amount of $200,000. In the last two weeks City staff has received inquiries from Hennepin County to confirm, or not, that the project the grant would fund is still planned for construction. The Parks Commission at their last meeting delayed any decisions about moving forward to March and April. These delays and the status of fundraising by partners make it highly unlikely that final design, permitting, bidding and construction could be completed in 2023. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the city pull our grant application from contention and resubmit for a future construction year if/once a clear path forward has been determined. COMMISION ACTION REQUESTED Move to authorize staff to request our grant application be removed from this round of consideration. Exhibits A. 2022 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant application Item No.: 21 Date: February 13, 2023 Item Description: 2022 Hennepin County Youth Sports Grant Presenter: Adam Edwards, P.E. City Engineer Agenda Section: City Administrators Report