Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-13-2023 Council PacketAgenda Council Meeting Monday, March 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 February 27, 2023 2. City Council Work Session Minutes of February 27, 2023 3. Claims/Bills 4. Adopt Fee Schedule 2023 ORD 281 5. Close Fund 322 - 2016 Refunding Bonds – Resolution 6. Disposal of Firearms 7. Updated Parks Commission Calendar 8. 2023 Appointment of Seasonal Employees V1 9. Authorization to Purchase Parks Equipment 10. Parks Mowing Services 11. Encroachment Agreement – Rick Shideman, 4075 Highwood Road 12. Work Session Schedule 13. 2023 Sewer Rehabilitation Rebid 14. City Administrator Summary Evaluation Community Development Report 15. LA23-000001 – Lecy Bros Home & Remodeling, 2617 Casco Point Road, Variance 16. LA22-000070, Stacy Kromenhoek, 4085 Watertown Road, After-the-Fact Variance 17. LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal o/b/o Mark & Lisa Thostenson, 2815 Casco Point Road, After-the-Fact Variances Finance Report City Attorney Report City Administrator/Engineer Report Public Comments – (Limit 3 Minutes per Person) 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. Agenda Council Meeting Monday, March 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 Mayor/Council Report 18. 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) 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. (New Member) 04/24 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 04/24 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 05/01 Park Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 05/08 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 05/08 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 05/15 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Victoria Seals) 05/22 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 05/22 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 05/29 City Offices Closed MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 22 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 7:16 p.m.), and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, City Administrator/Engineer Adam Edwards, Community Development Director Laura Oakden and City Clerk Anna Carlson. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CLAIMS/BILLS 2. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH SPRING PARK FOR THE PROVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE 3. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF PARKS EQUIPMENT 4. NO FAULT SEWER INSURANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7343 5. LA22-000065 – TIM & LESLIE OARE, 2967 CASCO POINT RD, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7344 6. APPROVAL OF PARK COMMISSION REAPPOINTMENTS – RESOLUTION NO. 7345 Johnson noted Item 6 is the approval of the Park Commissioners. I'd just like to say a special thanks to Brian Roath, Kjersti Duval and Gordon Stofer who all renewed, and thanks to Taylor Stevens for service on the Parks Commission. That's been a hot seat for some people and we really need their volunteerism and we appreciate it. Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Agenda and the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 7. LONG LAKE FIRE DEPARTMENT ANNUAL REPORT Shane Gardner, Interim Chief at Long Lake Fire Department for the past two months, presented the fire department annual report. He began with the department’s mission, vision and value statements. Gardner presented a slideshow of his complete report. Slides included the fire department’s Organizational Chart, training levels, a listing of staff and equipment at both fire stations, call statistics and response times. Gardner said the department leadership consists of Fire Officers, including Chief, Assistant Chief, Battalion Chief, Deputy Chief of Administration, Deputy Chief of Training, and Fire Captains and Lieutenants. We have 42 active members today. All members are current and recently MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 22 passed hazardous materials operations. We're firefighter I or II state certified, first responder or EMT, and then hazardous materials as well. The 2022 emergency call activity by City: Long Lake represents 14.15 percent of all our calls; Medina , 5.34; Orono, 72.16; Minnetonka Beach, 6.5 percent; and Mutual Aid is 1.86, for a total of 100 percent. There have been some questions about what a “good intent” call is and that's any alarm that gets sounded and gets canceled before we go in service. The first unit average on-scene time by City and said the total average is 9 minutes and 1 second. In 2022 we had an average of 13.5 members respond per call which is a pretty good average. A total of 44.3% of our calls happened weekdays between six and 1800 hours. Call hours per City in 2022: Long Lake with 893; Medina with 307; and Minnetonka Beach was 417 (a big bulk of that number was due to that Minnetonka Beach fire), Orono was 4,932, and mutual aid was 240 hours for a total of 6,789 firefighter hours. Firefighter Kelly Shaughnessy retired with 46 years of service.. Sam Paulison, Lance Swearingen and Veronica Vasina are our newest additions to the fire department. Gardner outlined training goals for 2023 and named the top five responders at each of the two Stations. We added a couple of milestones that are noteworthy this year. Chris Adams, Pat cotton, and myself all started pretty much the same day, 15 years ago. Chris Rhea and Ben Veach are five years. Upcoming events include the pancake breakfast April 23; The long Lake Fire Department Memorial 5K in July; the open house in October, and then the SBB toy and food drive in December. Seals said Gardner had given statistics on the average number of firefighters responding per call, but asked if he knows how many or the percentage of Station 2 firefighters respond during daytime hours. How broad are we looking for support of Station 2 during the day because we know people are working? Her second question was, for each of the cities, what are the statistics on the difference in response time when it's daytime versus evening. She apologized for not bringing up those questions earlier when Gardner had asked and said she understood if he had to come back with those answers. Gardner said it's just a matter of pulling the data so we can certainly do that. I don’t want to give you misinformation so I can get that for you. CLERK REPORT 8. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES a. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 9, 2023 b. City Council Meeting Minutes of January 23, 2023 c. City Council Meeting Minutes of February 13, 2023 d. City Council Work Session Minutes of February 13, 2023 City Clerk Carlson presented two options for approval of the City Council minutes and the work session minutes for the meetings that have been held in 2023, adding that staff is also looking for formal guidance as to how the Council would like the minutes prepared for future meetings. She said at the January 23 Council meeting, draft minutes for January 9 were removed and tabled because Councilmember Benson had found inaccuracies concerning discussions had at the meeting. The minutes were brought back to the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 22 Council at the next meeting and by clerical error, the original draft minutes had been resubmitted into the packet. They were requested to be removed once again to make changes as requested. Council removed and tabled the draft minutes for the January 23 meetings as well. Those minutes have been prepared for you tonight as options that are exhibits in the packet. Councilmember Benson reviewed and provided corrections as well as some content additions to the minutes for those meetings. Corrections were incorporated in the Clerk-edited minutes in Exhibit A. However, some of the additions provided went beyond our normal practices and minute requirements. Therefore, a version with those additions is also provided as Exhibit B, for Council consideration. Council minutes are the official record of the Council proceedings. They should be thorough but are not intended to be verbatim. Recent feedback from individual Council members indicates a potential change in the level of detail. Therefore, we request feedback and guidance for how you'd like the minutes to be prepared for future meetings. Walsh said historically minutes are supposed to be a summary of everything but not verbatim. He said if the Council or someone else has to start going through and listening to the video to make sure everything was exactly verbatim, now every Council member has to go through all the videos and read and look at all those, which seems like a lot of extra work when the minutes are supposed to be a summary document. He noted the City also makes video and audio available and asked the City Administrator if he had any input on past practices. City Administrator Edwards said as the Clerk outlined, Council meeting minutes are supposed to be a summary, but an official record of what happened within the meeting. There are certain minimum requirements that must be met according to State Statute. We did give a listing of those as part of Exhibit C in your packet. And then there are also a number of items that are recommended by the state auditor that should be included. As a normal matter of practice, I believe that the that the minutes that we provide do include both the required as well as the recommended. And then you have the spectrum that is subjective between meeting the bare minimum and all the way on the other end to giving actual verbatim minutes like you might have in a court recording or something like that, where it's word for word, everything that was said. We as a City over the years seem to have chosen to have a little bit more detail in our minutes than a lot of our neighboring cities. But we really have never gotten all the way to verbatim. At least in my time with the City, I don't think we've ever gone to a complete summary version with just the minimums either. So within there, there's some wiggle room, that the statute leaves up to the judgment of the City Clerk. However, staff would want to meet your intent as a body as to how much you'd like to have included in there. The other thing to understand is we use a contractor or a service to provide to do the initial creation of the minutes. If we decided we were going to have more detailed minutes, we pay by the page, so there's also a cost involved with that. That’s another thing to take into consideration. Seals clarified, so you're saying what we currently do is comparable to other neighboring cities? Edwards said I think we provide more. We provide more detail than a lot of other cities, including cities that use the exact same service provider that we do. He suggested the City Attorney, who represents other cities as well, may be able to give some context as to the level of detail he sees in other places. City Attorney Mattick said the Clerk and the Administrator had explained that there are bare MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 22 minimum requirements. Summary versus almost transcript is, of course, up to the Council. But they are intended to be a summary-type document. Benson said everything you said makes sense. I'm not interested in creating a make-work program. As the person who did watch many, many hours of the videotape and check that against the written record in the minutes, this is why this has come before us a few times. In addition to the inaccuracies, I didn't feel that the flavor at times on the interactions during these meeting notes was being captured accurately in the minutes. The reason I'm bringing this up, again, is that it's fair to say that for other cities, perhaps a summative expression in the minutes is going to be sufficient. I would put forth that other cities perhaps are not struggling with some of the issues that this City is. This is why I'm interested in capturing an accurate reflection of not just the information, but also flavor of certain exchanges, especially as it relates to public hearing, public comment, or debate amongst Council in these meeting minutes. We do have video, but as Mr. Mayor just indicated, it is tedious to watch video, and I know because I've done it. We don't have closed captioning. And I know having talked to a number of people in the community, not everybody sits down and watches video. What is possible is for anybody to access minutes from the City of Orono, download those, do keyword searches and get information a lot more easily than they would through video capture. So the video is okay. However, it’s really not as useful as having accurate minutes. As it relates to the minutes that are before us today, I'm prepared to approve some of those but not all of them. So I also want to introduce the idea that with regard to the transcriptionist service that we are currently utilizing, without an accurate or almost verbatim capture, we are essentially requiring that a transcriptionist who may or may not know the issues of our City is tasked with the responsibility of summarizing information that maybe they're not even familiar with. What I'm really trying to work towards here is an agreement between us about how we feel about accurate capture, reflecting for our citizens and ease with which they can search through the minutes find the information they need. Also if they weren't at a meeting, or they weren't able to watch the video, they're able to understand the flavor of the interactions that are happening in these meetings. I do think that other cities do a great job of some of their meeting minutes. I think we've used this vendor for quite a few years. Perhaps there's room for finding a vendor that's either more cost effective if we have to pay for extra pages, or is going to have less errors because it is tedious. And I'm not looking for more to do any more than staff is with this, but I feel deeply committed to having accurate records for the benefit of the public. Seals asked what Benson means by flavor. Are you saying you want the emotion of the room? Benson said without verbatim you lose a lot. So for example, in the public comment in the February 13 meeting there was a citizen who gave quite a bit of public comment, but it was summarized in about four sentences. And given the length of that interaction, I didn't feel that the flavor of that interaction of those comments was accurately reflected in the minutes. Johnson said he was comfortable with the current arrangement. I think we should always be open if there's a more cost-effective way or a different vendor. I have no problems looking into different vendors. But we do have our meetings live, we do put a record of those videos. From a Council person's perspective trying to approve what another Council member’s interpretation of a meeting was, that doesn't seem like a very effective way to go. I think it's very important to have a third party do it because they're just recording the information; they are not putting a spin on it. So the first question is, as a Council, are MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 22 we giving staff direction to put more information into these? I'm saying no, I think we already exceed it so that’s my vote on that and maybe now's a good time for a motion? Edwards explained staff was asking for a motion on which set of minutes to approve, and then direction on what the expectation is on minutes -- two separate but related items. Johnson said I think we should do it in reverse order, because then we'll answer our question on this other one. So my motion is to keep our method that we're currently using for maintaining the minutes, status quo. Crosby said he would second it. Benson asked to have a little more discussion. I would just like to understand what it is about verbatim capturing because I would agree with Councilmember Johnson. I think it's tricky to leave flavor up to anybody, whether it's a Council member or a transcriptionist. That's why for where we are right now, with some of the issues that we're grappling with, having a verbatim capture, I don't see the downside to that. Maybe we pay a little bit more in the interim for 100 percent accurate notes. There's a distinction between what's appropriate best practices for other cities, and then there may be what's appropriate for us, as a City. And I think those two things right now are different. I'm trying to understand from other Council members, what is the downside to a verbatim capture at this time? Walsh said I think everybody appreciates your opinion of the matter. But I think you're making the opinion that you want verbatim minutes for a particular agenda of what's going on that you're projecting on the Council through what's happening in the public. And that's your opinion. Benson said she was elected by the public so she is here to represent the public. Walsh pointed out the other four Council members were also elected by the public. Benson responded she meant no disrespect and she does respect the order of meetings. I know how much this Council has supported the idea of transparency. So I'm trying to understand what it is about this ask that doesn't support that. Walsh said you have your opinion of what you want, and your opinion is valid. We have different opinions, of course, and the three opinions that rule the roost are the three opinions that vote yes or no on every item. That's how the Council works. Crosby said the videotaping of the meetings is full transparency and it doesn't leave opinions. Somebody can sit there and watch it and get the tenor of the meeting and so forth in the conduct of everybody that's present. It doesn't leave it up to opinions, or somebody deciphering it. I think the way the minutes have been is fine and nonpartisan. Benson pointed out the videos have no closed captioning. Folks who don't have the ability to watch or listen to the videos are unable to understand exactly what's happening in those meetings with some of MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 22 these exchanges. It also leaves me wondering where we're going to head from here in terms of corrections to the minutes because it is very important to me, this is being voted into permanent record. And I don't take that lightly. And I don't think anyone else up here does either. Carlson said the very first minutes, the January 9 minutes were done by a new recorder who did not know voices and there was no video, only audio. Just like any new recorder, the first few meetings they do need a little bit extra help on those. It was our error for maybe not catching every single one of those things that you caught but we did fix them. And they are in the minutes now. Benson asked about how the transcriptionist makes decisions on what to include. Seals asked what direction is provided to the contractor. Carlson said she could provide the information that was given to the contractor on her understanding of what should be included in the minutes. Seals said it would be good for everyone to have a common understanding of the rules and for the City to look into other features like closed captioning on the videos. Because on the flip side, I hear all the time that people don't read. Frankly, they just want to listen to things. So I don't think you're ever going to make everyone happy. Benson brought up changes to the January 9 minutes. Johnson said that discussion would pertain more to the second motion. Carlson noted she is working on an agenda management program that will affect the videos and include closed captioning. She hopes to have it in place by May. Walsh restated the motion on the floor to keep the same method for summary minutes as is being done currently. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to continue the current practice for maintaining minutes. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Johnson said his second motion would be to adopt the minutes from Exhibit A because they meet the standard of what we just agreed upon in that motion. Crosby said he would second it. Benson said she would need to have more discussion because she would feel comfortable with some of the minutes but not with one in particular. We have them all together lumped into this motion; they're not separate. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 22 Walsh said the problem we're going to have is nobody else here has gone through the video verbatim. And so you're saying trust me, this is the transcription. I think what Matt is saying is, we've approved the standard service summary that we already have. And that's what we have as the exhibits in Exhibit A from our City Clerk. That's the motion that's been raised and seconded. Do you have any more discussion about that particular motion? Benson said if these are all going to be essentially together then I'll just vote that way. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the City Council Minutes in Exhibit A for the dates listed. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Benson). FIRE CHIEF REPORT 9. ALL-HAZARDS INCIDENT MANAGEMENT TEAM (AHIMT) PARTICIPATION Fire Chief Van Eyll said what I have in front of you is an opportunity that I've done in the past with the hazard incident management team. In order for me to be a member of that team, the City of Orono needs to be part of the organization. It really comes down to that the City of Orono agrees to hold the workers comp and some of the HR stuff for me if and when I would ever be deployed, and then also take in a reimbursements for my salary or any expenses or anything like that. We get reimbursed back to the City at that point in time. Van Eyll said as a member of this group in the past, he’d been deployed to a wildfire, helped with the Superbowl and also helped with some of the civil unrest by the University stadium. He said he has not deployed outside the state and is not really interested in doing so, although that can happen. Staff recommends the authorization to become a participant in this organization. Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the authorization for the City of Orono to become a participant in the Minnesota State All hazardous Incident Management Organization. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 10. AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE MOBILE & PORTABLE RADIOS FOR LADDER TRUCK Van Eyll reported the Council had voted on January 9 to purchase portable radios for the ladder truck. In my research, the mobile radio that is in the truck is no longer available to use on Hennepin County's system. In talking to Mark Parker at the County, that radio is no longer used on their system. So we needed to purchase a new mobile radio and that costs about $6,500. When I went back to the vendor to obtain that quote for the mobile radio, he talked to me about the APX 4000 radios that we had quoted in the past, and also use at Long Lake Fire. Those portable radios are going to be sunsetted soon by Motorola. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to come off Hennepin County’s system just yet. But it makes no sense to purchase radios that are going to be sunsetted by the manufacturer. So I had them quote up four new APX 6000 XE portable radios. The cost has risen significantly to $27,622 for those four portable radios, chargers, and spare batteries. It nets out to an extra $20,000 that I'm asking for radios for that particular truck. The new APX 6000 radios are the same ones that the PD uses also. APX 6000 radios are the ones that the officers use right now for Long Lake fire, but we don't use them on all of our portable radios for our crews. Staff would recommend the approval of the purchase of the mobile and portable radios for $34,100. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 22 Walsh said it makes sense with the planned equipment being sunsetted. We want to make sure we get the right equipment for you guys. Benson asked what the turnaround time would be to get the radios and why the quote said Orono Police Department. Van Eyll said turnaround would be anywhere from eight to 12 weeks for the radios and the vendor did not have Orono Fire Department in his system so he used Orono Police Department but stated Fire Department in the quote. Benson asked if the radios are for the ladder truck currently housed at Public Works and are able to be used on that truck. Van Eyll said that was correct. It's a mobile with a remote head for the ladder truck and that stays mounted directly onto the vehicle. And then there's four portable radios for the officer and the crew members to utilize on scene. They can be programmed and used as soon as they are received. Benson also asked where the equipment is currently being used and how the firefighters are currently communicating. Van Eyll said the mobile radio that's mounted in the truck right now is not used on Hennepin County system anymore. It's been discontinued, so they won't allow it on their system. There are no portable radios in that truck. Coon Rapids kept their portable radios. So that's why we had quoted portable radios in the original equipment listing. The firefighters do currently communicate with portable radios. Johnson said he agrees that getting the same equipment and same chargers for the police and fire makes a lot of sense to me going forward. Benson said she just wanted to state that the City currently has a needs assessment that's due in June, which is going to determine a lot more about the direction that we're heading in with regard to Orono Fire in the negotiations with Long Lake. And then there's also members of the public who have certainly asked many times to have a better understanding about this -- the funds being spent and also the direction that Orono, the City, is taking with regard to its plan to establish an independent fire district. And this ladder truck that this equipment can be used on is currently parked. And again, we're not certain given the contract currently with Long Lake Fire to the end of 2025 where that's going to go and I am not comfortable. Given that the public doesn't feel they have the right answers right now about why we're doing this as a City, and this is funding that is coming from the citizens of Orono, I don't feel comfortable going forward with an expense, especially given that the turnaround time on these radios is not significantly long. Therefore, after a needs assessment, if we are really sure that we want to go in a certain direction I’d feel a lot more comfortable making a significant purchase like this. Seals said that's fair but regardless of where we land, whether we're with Long Lake or not with Long Lake, the truck will be usable. And for it to be usable, you have to have radios, so it's not really an option. I get where you can say we can take time, but my concern is every time we wait on this equipment, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 22 almost every quarter, the cost goes up. I respect your opinion on that but at the end of the day if we want to even loan this to Long Lake it's got to be fully stocked, just for them to train on it. The best way we can make that happen is to make sure all this is done. A ladder truck can be very useful. A lot of our engines are old. We have numerous engines that are in the late 90s, early 2000s. A lot of these departments are on a ten-year replacement. We blew through the 10-years a long time ago. She pointed out the ladder truck can also provide back-up for our neighbors. Maple Plain and Wayzata have older trucks. Wayzata has ordered a new one but the turnaround is three years. If anything happens, there's not a backup. So I get what you're saying but I don't see these getting cheaper and regardless of where we land, I think you're going to need the radios. Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the purchase of mobile and portable radios for the ladder truck. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Benson). CITY ATTORNEY REPORT City Attorney Mattick reported it is his understanding that last week the LMCD (Lake Minnetonka Conservation District) was prepared to pass a motion to deny the dock permit that staff had been working on communicating with them and that we talked about briefly. It's my understanding that that item may be pulled from Consent. I was not able to put a response in writing, but I do plan on responding to some of the correspondence that has been submitted on behalf of the applicant and some of the neighboring property owners. I don't know what will happen at the next LMCD meeting. But I do plan on putting together a response to some of the letters that have been written. Mattick said he would plan to attend the next LMCD meeting. Walsh noted it would be the last time to have our word, basically put in that the LMCD should not be in the judge role of trying to adjudicate legal opinions. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT 11. 2022 CITY OF ORONO ANNUAL REPORT Edwards said this 2022 City of Orono Annual Report is the second annual report that we've attempted to prepare. The intent is to encapsulate what the various departments achieved over the previous year, provide maybe some numbers and some metrics to what was done over the last year. It's modeled on what the police department has been doing for decades, and what some of our sister cities do. So in your packet, you should have a copy of it. What we normally do is once adopted by the Council, then we'll also hang it on our website. I do have a quick slideshow if the Council is interested. Seals asked about the graph that talks about the different licenses permits. She asked if there was an update on Lurton Dog Park passes because the Parks Commission talked about some of the rowdiness at the Lurton Dog Park and how certain individuals aren't getting their licenses.. Have we made any progress on solving any of those things? Edwards said the City hasn't done any focused enforcement at the park yet but is looking at some possible ordinance change recommendations and then the police department and the parks department are kind of gearing up for the spring once we start seeing the larger increases of traffic out there. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 22 Switching back to highlights of the annual report, Edwards noted the Council has made no change to the City mission, vision and goals over the last year. He gave an overview by department. The biggest organization change we had in 2022 is the creation of our fire chief position and the hiring for that. Operationally, it was our first full year for the Public Works Department to provide public works services to the City of Spring Park and that went fairly well. Also, operationally in 2022, we transitioned the responsibility for facilities maintenance from the Public Works Department to the Parks Department. There was not nearly as much turnover in personnel as we had in 2021, but we did bring on nine new full- time staff members. Senior staff updated the personnel handbook which the Council approved last summer. The City renegotiated all four three-year union contracts in 2022. The administrative department headed by City Clerk Anna Carlson had no changes in personnel. The number of data request didn't increase but the extensiveness of some of those data requests may have gone up. He showed the numbers of various permits and licenses issued which increased over 2021. Seals complimented the City Clerk on work done with communications including emails and social media, noting the high “open rate” for emails sent by the City. Edwards said the administration department is also responsible for elections and did an excellent job in the 2022 election period, recruiting and training election judges and running the primary season, early voting and then the November election. That department also created an organics program for the City and 147 residents have signed up for that program. The Finance Department also stayed steady in personnel and maintained a Triple A credit rating. Edwards said Orono is one of the few municipalities of its size to have that rating. The workload stayed fairly consistent and workman’s comp went down a little. The City brought payroll back in-house which has improved efficiency and also our internal customer service to our own employees. Billing was an area of focus because the City has had some issues in the past with utility billing errors. That has been cleaned up a lot and they've done a great job. In the Community Development Department the biggest change was the hiring of Laura Oakden as the new director. Edwards said it was a smooth transition, noting that in 2021 the department has some major personnel changes bringing a building official and inspector back in-house. He said the City did a relatively large code amendment regarding ADUs (Auxiliary Dwelling Units) and started the process of recodification including the zoning code which has been forwarded to the City Attorney. The Police Department submitted a detailed report, Edwards said. The biggest challenge that we had in 2022 with our police force was recruiting, however, we were able to overcome those hurdles and recruit, and we're currently at full strength within the police department. He said with negative comments about policing at the national and state levels, cities are seeing a drastic reduction in the number of young people coming up through development programs to become police officers, which raises the competition among departments to recruit quality individuals. Walsh interjected it was just in the news recently that the City of Golden Valley went through a very big change in their City Council and went to, I guess we'll call it more of an anti-police defund woke. They've MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 22 gone from 30 officers a couple years ago to 12 and they can barely field one or two officers a night even for 911 calls. So that's why you support your first responders, support your police as we have from day one, and that's why we're fully funded. We make sure our citizens are taken care of first. Edwards said another highlight is that the police created the cadet program using CSO Cadet positions to bring students that are in law enforcement education into the department part time an intern setting to be able to set them up for future employment. He also cited the embedded social worker program, which is largely funded by Hennepin County. In just this year, we have been able to have 72 different cases referred to the embedded social worker and we tried to get that integration between our law enforcement and social services. The social worker has been shared among six departments however as time goes on the number of cities sharing one person will probably decrease as the workload increases. The Parks Department grew this past year, adding another full-time parks maintenance worker, and as I mentioned earlier, they took on the role of facilities. Some key accomplishments for Parks in 2022 were a playground refresh at Crystal Bay Park and marking a number of our lake access points. Parks did a number of studies including the Summit Beach master plan, the golf course, fees, and permanence feasibility. The crowning event of every year is our Holiday Tree Lighting event, which was brutally cold, but well attended this year. The Public Works Department continues to do good work. The City has been using an asset management workflow tracking system for public works and parks for a number of years. There has been a large increase in the number of tasks from 5800 to 8100 year to year. A big piece of that is the fact that the City is now maintaining that fleet with an in-house mechanic, which allows for preventative maintenance and quicker reaction to a problem. Edwards said, for example, during the snowstorm the past week, one of the City’s larger plow trucks went down and the crew was able to get that truck back on the road pretty quickly. Recent Council actions have also improved public works equipment and facilities, he said. And then finally, Engineering. It was pretty much a normal year for Engineering with the same level of support to the Planning and Zoning Department or the Community Development Department. The road project and the watermain replacement project along County Road 19 south of 15 are substantially complete. A ravine stabilization project on North Shore Drive is 90 percent complete waiting to do some vegetation restoration in the spring. The Public Works facility was awarded last year and construction is underway and will continue in earnest in April, when additional groundbreaking and foundation work begins. Seals moved, Benson seconded, to adopt the 2022 City of Orono Annual Report. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 12. 2023 STREETS – TOWNLINE ROAD AGREEMENT AND FEASIBILITY STUDY Edwards explained Townline Road is on the City’s northwestern boundary and shared with the City of Independence and the City of Medina. If you're looking at the road as it runs north south, we own most of the eastern side of the pavements. Independence owns most of the western side of the pavement. And then the road continues and transitions in the north into Medina and serves one of their developments in the far north, just south of Highway 12. We've had this road on our capital improvement plan to be maintained for a number of years, but since it's owned by three different government entities, we've been waiting for MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 22 the coordination and all three cities to be in a place where they would be willing to do the project. We think we're there. The City of Medina has agreed and wants to take the lead in managing the project. Their Public Works Director put together a feasibility study. They have already done bids; they do bids a little differently than we do for roadwork with an annual materials bid. So we have some costing for what we think the project will cost. You have before you today the copy their feasibility study, but we're looking for approval of the Joint Powers agreement, which is the agreement between the three cities. We are the first City to have this on our agenda, so there is still a chance that I may have to come back for an amendment, but at the staff level we feel confident that we're at a decent place with that. The JPA has also just been reviewed by our City attorney. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) Exhibit B. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Walsh recessed the meeting at 7:16 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 7:21 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Walsh opened public comments noting that Councilmember Crosby was no longer present and that public comments are limited to three minutes. If things do get out of control, he said he would end public comments and move on. Dave Pierson, 2160 Webber Hills Road, said he just wanted clarification on a couple of things. You know that I'm concerned about the direction of Orono going to their own fire department, whether it's right or wrong, that will be determined. But I do have two questions. One on the fire truck? Can it, by contract with Long Lake, can that fire truck be put into service? So you could put that fire truck in the fire in the firehouse and it could go into service, even though it hasn't the Long Lake part, people have not approved or disapproved or whether that can happen, and use of that truck because it's your truck. So I'm just asking that question. Is it? Can it be put into service by Orono into the Long Lake Fire Department before the end of the contract? It was pointed out by the Council that Public Comments is not a question and answer session. Pierson said I'm not asking you for the answer. I'm just saying that's my question. I'd like to know that answer. How you choose to answer it, that's up to you guys. But that's my question. I would like to see from your Chief, who was the Chief of the Long Lake Fire Department, does he have any complaints or thoughts about the failure of the Long Lake Fire Department over the last number of years? Is there a document as to why people are maybe unhappy with the Long Lake Fire Department, why you may be unhappy with the Long Lake Fire Department, the Orono people are unhappy or if the Long Lake people aren't happy? I think we deserve to see why you're going the direction that you're going. Nancy Brantingham, 3185 County Road 6, and that's Orono even though I accidentally said Long Lake last time, but that's my mailing address. This is my third time standing up to request a public hearing on issues related to the fire department. Others have also requested that. I want to thank Councilmember Seals, in particular, for approaching me the last time after the meeting and inviting me to be in MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 22 communication with a list of things I'd like to hear about. I did send an email to Mayor Walsh and to all members of the Council. But I'm just here tonight to quickly say that again, I request that the City of Orono hold a public hearing to provide citizens with detailed information as to how and why the decision to withdraw from the current fire services contract with Long Lake was made, as well as detailed information regarding all the options currently under consideration for providing fire service to Orono residents. I request that detailed information as to expenses already accrued by Orono be provided, as well as estimates of expenses likely to accrue related to all the fire service options currently under consideration by Council. And I just wanted to deliver this in a hard copy so that you all know what I've asked for and are clear about what I hope that we will get in a public hearing for the citizens of Orono. Kevin Reilly, 3405 High Lane, Orono, said I have lived here for over 33 years. I speak to address my concern about the behavior I have observed at every Council meeting that I've attended over the past few months. I believe this behavior adversely affects the ability of the Council to function in the best interest of the citizens of Orono. At every meeting that I have attended, Mr. Erickson stands up during the three- minute public address period to express his complaints directed at certain Council members while sometimes using inappropriate language. The response that I have witnessed from those Council members has been to raise up an open newspaper blocking the view of Mr. Erickson or to tell Mr. Erickson that he is making a fool of himself. And on several occasions, as again tonight, one Council member has walked out of the Council meeting before adjournment, presumably to avoid Mr. Erickson's remarks. I believe this repeated and continuing conflict is disrespectful to the citizens of Orono and that it interferes with the proper functioning of the Orono City Council meeting. The time has come where the issue that is creating this conflict needs to be addressed and hopefully resolved outside the regular business of the Orono City Council. Please find a way to resolve this conflict as soon as possible and avoid the public displays of rancor and hostility. Jahn Dyvik 1780 Martha Lane, Long Lake and also a Long Lake Council member. It's been exactly one month since our counteroffer for the fire department and with no formal response, I wanted to give a refresher for everybody. Our counteroffer consisted of two options. Option A was to return to the negotiating table where we were last summer to work towards the fire department being owned and operated under an independent fire board. Councilmember Seals supported that at that time. Councilmember Johnson was a little bit more hesitant, but said at that time with Council support, he would support that. So that's our first option is to continue those discussions with the partnership of the fire department being operated under an independent fire board. If that's not an option for Orono, then we had Option B as a counteroffer to your offer. Your offer was roughly $1.6 million, taking Long Lake’s half of Station 1 and owning that and then also paying for the $1.5 million of deferred maintenance. Our counter to that was $2 million, and Long Lake taking Orono’s half of Station 1 and then Long Lake paying for the $1.5 million dollars of deferred maintenance. And then we would lease that back to Orono at about three and a half dollars per square foot which would match then the fire service costs to Long Lake and would give Orono full ownership of the fire chief, the firefighters, the rolling stock, the capital equipment, all the donated equipment, oversight of the relief fund which includes the pension for the firefighters and full control of the budgets and operations and capital improvement planning. Then Long Lake would maintain ownership of Station 1 which would give us an asset that perhaps we could use in a future fire district if that ever materialized. The benefits to Orono would be having a fully-functioning and highly-trained fire department from day one with no transition and would save significant cost. It's MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 22 estimated that building out public works for a fire station would be $3 to $4 million. There would be significant cost savings of not having to buy new equipment of about $2 to $3 million, so about $7 million would be saved. In addition, you'd avoid the supply chain delays like we heard about 36 months for new fire trucks, and then roughly two to three years to build up the fire department from scratch to the level that it is today. Also your facility costs for Station 1 would actually be lower in the leasing agreement. The benefits to the firefighters and the broader community would be that the firefighters stay together and maintain unity and trust that's been developed over many years. There's no disruption in service to the broader community of Long Lake, Orono, Medina and Minnetonka Beach and the high quality of service from our firefighters will continue with the same equipment and facilities that they've been trained on from day one. Kim Carswell, 261 Cygnet, I have two statements, one following on Mr. Dyvik. I think Long Lake did send a letter to Orono on January 27 with an offer regarding the fire department. I believe it's a tactical error not to acknowledge the receipt of this letter in a public way. I asked that the Council share with the public that you received this letter and demonstrate in a public way that you will continue to work with Long Lake to reach the best solution for all. And then secondly, as I learned more about this, I requested the Council and the City Attorney to investigate if there is any potential conflict of interest with a City Council member and Ms. Seals leading this negotiation given that her husband works for the Long Lake Fire Department and receives compensation. Kendall Nygard, 5658 Judith Road Bokeelia, Florida, and I've owned a home in Orono at 1386 Rest Point Road for 27 years. In December 2019 I was criminally charged by the City of Orono for the heinous crime of not obtaining a permit before replacing a driveway with a one and five-eighths inch lip. And I just want to show you all what one and five-eighths inch is. So this is what I was criminally charged for not getting a permit for on a driveway of an investment property. Now I'm just going to take this from the taxpayer perspective for the rest of this because it's not about me, it's about our tax dollars and where's the governance that we would subject the taxpayers in Orono, the State of Minnesota to have this ridiculous, asinine level of criminal charges on a citizen who did nothing wrong. Stephen Tallen was the attorney who was representing the City in 2020, when this actually went to trial in August of 2020. Now I just tried to look up how much per hour Mr. Tallen makes when he's working for the City of Orono. But if you looked at the bill to take me to court and have this misdemeanor level charge leveled against me, which then got dropped to a to a petty misdemeanor, which I was actually acquitted for, because there was no probable cause. Former Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, you had an employee taking their time to prepare for this big trial in August of 2020 instead of doing community development work, so I'd say, where are we prioritizing the precious resources, the taxpayer-funded employee salaries for them to be in a setting like we were. So what happened when we went to our trial in August of 2020 -- there was a bailiff, there would have been a jury if Mr. Tallen hadn’t dropped it to a petty misdemeanor, there was a judge, there was a court reporter and there was court administration. This took a half a day. This is our tax dollars again, at work for this failure to obtain a permit. I was dismissed right away for lack of probable cause because Mr. Barnhart lied about my involvement in this project. So what did Kendall Nygard do after I was acquitted? I have a malicious prosecution lawsuit against the City of Orono. At the federal level, it has gone all the way up to an appellate court judge. Walsh called time and asked her to take her seat. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 22 Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, I'm not you, thankfully. I'm completely embarrassed of this Council. You know how much time you wasted of all these people today talking over minutes as if this should be an issue, and you're arguing that it should be the same. People don't understand minutes are counted on for lawsuits, for accuracy and for other things. And when you were sitting here saying we're gonna go with minutes that might be kind of along the way -- I remember when you specifically Mr. Mayor lied about me. And I read the minutes. And it wasn't even close to what you had said. Judges and courts don't watch videos, they look at minutes. And if you guys are going to do a disservice to this community by doing a disservice to the minutes of these meetings, then you guys are wrong. And what's really disappointing is that guy right there, Mr. Mattick, who's supposed to be in charge of explaining this stuff to you, how important it is. Because he don't care about the people of this community. He cares about defending and making money and doing other BS crap. The minutes are important to this community. Every single word everybody says, especially at a time like I am right now speaking in this community are the most important and for anybody to summarize anything is BS, period. These minutes need to be accounted for word for word, specifically because of when you lied before, Mr. Walsh, specifically because of people like you. And people like you, Mr. Mattick who don't care about the community and don't care to protect us and allow people to be defamed, and don't speak up and say, you know what, we need an accurate accounting of what goes on here. That's what's wrong. Do we get accurate accounting of what goes on in this community? Change will never come and things will never get better. Todd Newcomer, 1070 Old Long Lake Road, said he wanted to speak quietly for a moment. I think I've spoken with most of you before. Thank you very much for having me here this evening, opening up this opportunity. I know we don't go back and forth, but I wanted to ask a couple questions. Victoria (Seals), on January 9 you made a statement and you can clarify if you'd like. The statement was that there weren't any reserve fire apparatus available in the area. Having done a little research and talked to a number of firefighters, and then we have two chiefs here with us this evening. They seem to contradict what you had said that there weren’t adequate fire apparatus. The other part of that was that you had mentioned that the fire truck that was recently purchased by Orono would be able to supplement and act as an attack fire apparatus. One of the things I think a lot of people in the public don't understand is there's a huge difference between a fire engine and a fire truck. A fire truck is not designed to fight fires, it doesn't have a pump capable of fighting fires or hose capable of fighting fires. It does not do any of that. So it could in no way, shape or form, take the place of a fire engine, and all of ours are well over 20 years old or close to. So that being said, just for public clarity, and since this is recorded, fire trucks under our NFPA code are not allowed to fight fire. I don't think either of the chiefs that are in the room would ever put their line staff in a building that was on fire behind a fire truck. So that truck can’t be used as a backup fire engine, we're still in need of fire engines in the community. Seals said I know we're not supposed to respond, but you have a long background in firefighting. So you've got my cell, you know, as we're doing all the things. Newcomer said I think everybody here, no matter what, wants the best for the community, wants the best for everybody, the safety of our kids, the public, the people who pass through who don't even live here. So that being said, once again, and I know you've heard it, and everybody's heard it, I think the direction MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 22 of a fire district combining all the local communities that is already being discussed into a fire district oversight. Seals said there will be a meeting May 22 and staff is putting together all the options with all the data. And that will be one of them that they will look at. We'll look at what doors does this open for us? What doors are really tough? Every model that we look at is going to have pros and cons. Newcomer said he thinks there's so many concerns of where our money being spent. I'm just looking at hiring a fire chief, purchasing a million-dollar ladder truck, making an offer for $1.5 million, the original offer was $3 million, which correlates to about $335 per every man, woman and child in Orono to get what we have right now. Seals responded you have my commitment that you’re going to have all that out. And the great thing about that May 22 date is there's three weeks between the next date, June 12. She said anyone with additional questions should send them in. James Elder, 195 South Brown Road, Orono, said I will also keep my voice calm. Every organization on which I ever served and which had minutes required of the members of that committee to review the minutes. And when the minutes were asked to be approved at the following time, there was a commitment that the Board of Trustees, the Council members, whomever, had reviewed them and agreed with them. You had a long debate tonight about verbatim versus general and I would remind you that is fiduciary. You are supposed to read your own minutes, correct them and then when they are submitted for approval at the following meeting or whatever, you all agree that they're accurate. So I would observe that might be your solution. Take responsibility, review your minutes and correct them. Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Road, said I also have a business that I’ve owned for 10 years in Orono. I also want to say, because I know you've had some issues with me living in Independence and speaking here, that I feel if Mr. Crosby, who is again not here for the fifth time in a row for these public comments, can travel to the governor's mansion to redress his government, and out to Washington DC on January 6 of 2021 to redress dress the government, I certainly can drive five minutes down the road to redress mine. Well, it's official, Mr. Walsh. You've cemented your legacy. Orono Mayor Minimizes Holocaust; Council Member Fundraises for Proud Boys. That's from a leading Jewish media outlet in the Twin Cities here, TC Jewfolk. Remember those people from St. Louis Park, where you grew up? Four days after that article came out some posts were discovered that you put on nextdoor.com. To Orono residents on Next Door Mayor Dennis Walsh doubles down on the video he sent. Finally, you admit publicly online to sending out the Holocaust video on Valentine's Day, no less. But then you attempt to minimize the message and its implications by stating, quote, The three and a half minute video that talks about government overreach regarding COVID mentions the Holocaust for five to 10 seconds as a reference point, unquote. That's you even after being confronted by members of the Jewish community. You double down by posting. I stand by my statement. Well, Mr. Mayor, the extermination of 6 million Jewish people is not a reference point for you to be used as a political football, footnote, or anything else. You sir, are a disgrace to your hometown, and to this town, your legacy is forever stained. You have had ample opportunity to apologize or step down, yet still you refuse to do either. So I turn to this Council and asked for appropriate action to be taken. We're better than that. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 22 Richie Anderson, 3205 Crystal Bay Road, said everybody can have a beef with the City. I've had plenty. I have lived here in the City of Orono for 44 years and had a business in this community and multiple marinas since 1976. I've obviously had issues with the City of Orono for this, that and the other thing, but the Mayor when he got elected, said something that I bought into and that's public/private partnerships and doing good for the City of Orono. Over the years I've sponsored numerous sports teams and coached numerous sports teams when my kids were in it. The Orono hockey rink got built. Me and another gentleman put the new locker room together. We built a little league field at Bederwood Park, I was there with Gronberg scoping out and we built that fencing, the whole shootin’ match. We put an Ice Arena behind the elementary school here for the kids to play in. So my concept is, we can all bitch and moan about this, that or the other thing, but the fact of the matter is, at the end of the day, you have to do something positive for the City of Orono. You know we located the generator at our property now in Smith's Bay because you didn't have an automatic generator. We did that. I sponsored through public/private relationships the therapy dog for $10,000. I’ve hauled equipment for public works at the Big Island on my barge. I store the Big Island docks, I helped the funding of the fire department and relief fund. I've given life vests to every patrol car that you have for the cop shop because they hook up with the Hennepin County Water patrol and that way they can just get on the boat. I gave life jackets to public works so they can go out to Big Island safely. So people can bitch and moan but you're doing a good job. As your LMCD rep I've saved the City over the last two budget periods, plus or minus $30,000. We are currently looking at starting a LID in Crystal Bay through your help. The City of Minnetonka Beach had that fundraiser so to speak the other night. And one thing looking forward in a public/private relationships, I talked to the park guy. I want to put a sport court similar to Shorewood’s by the post office. Chelsea Wetrick, Independence, Minnesota. Walsh stated the address as 2485 Independence Road. Chelsea Wetrick said unless you're gonna answer some questions or maybe apologize, it's my three minutes. So anyway, I understand that there's an ethics meeting coming up here soon. I'm thinking you might want to have a part in it. I’m wondering why Crosby keeps running out? Why you guys can't answer some simple questions? You've been accused of stuff. And you just sit here and call people fools and clowns and interrupt and make a fool of yourself. So everybody wants this resolved, everybody in the community, the Council members, everybody. I'm talking to you, Mr. Walsh, can you look at me at least? Too much of a wussy to make eye contact? Thank you. So no, by the way, I'm not afraid of you either. There's a very, very simple way to solve all this. You could have apologized in the beginning. But no, you're stuck on stupid and want to keep going. And he can't even stay in for a meeting. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Walsh closed public comments and opened Mayor/Council reports. Benson said I want to share with everyone that I had the opportunity to attend the foundational program for the League of Minnesota Cities on Friday and Saturday this week. It's a great opportunity for newly- elected officials to learn about things like ethics, like good governance, share resources and network with MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 22 other professionals and newly-elected individuals in our community. It was a really great way to spend a day and a half. I appreciate that the City of Orono is a member of this organization because they are actually very helpful with trainings, ongoing education and just a fantastic resource. And it's very important for me as an elected official to connect closely with other elected officials, leaders and to have positive relationships with them in and around our community. And on that note, I do want to spend just a couple minutes addressing or I should say discussing the organization called Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities or NWHLM. This organization is a collective of municipalities within the north and western part of Hennepin County. It's been in existence for about over 55 years. It meets about 10 times per year. And the purpose of this organization is to promote cooperation, collaboration, and education in different areas. We didn't get to Mayor/Council at the last meeting, but some issues and questions were brought up in our work session on February 13. So I did want to clarify a few things about that because the last thing I want to do is create more confusion. I want to be a clear communicator. I want to share that I was invited by this organization to attend their monthly meetings by representatives in their group. And I did feel that that would be a great opportunity to connect with other elected officials and grow relationships that will benefit the City of Orono. I learned that the City of Orono has not been represented in this group since 2017. So I did think it would be a good opportunity for me to revitalize outreach with other cities and grow connections with our neighbors. There was discussion at the February 13 work session about my participation. And I just want to clarify that my intention in attending this meeting was never to create discord, or confusion. And I do apologize if my attending this meeting did that. Going forward, I do plan to continue to attend this monthly meeting. On a financial note is that with membership in this organization, one meal associated with monthly meetings is covered by annual dues. It is now my understanding based on our discussion at the February 13 work session that Mr. Mayor would like the opportunity as well to attend the meeting. So it is my intention when I attend, to pay for my own meal out of respect for the Mayor and to ensure that he has his covered. And finally, the Executive Committee of the NWHLM has written a statement addressing the remarks that were made about Orono’s membership at the February 13 work session. So hopefully, their statement about the discussion that was had at our work session will clear up any misunderstandings about the purpose of their group, Orono’s history with the group and their invitation to me to attend and join the group because, again, I don't want to cause confusion. So that organization has put out or has a statement available with regard to my participation in the group. And on that note, I just want to say that I do look forward to continuing to build strong relationships between the City of Orono and the communities around us. Johnson thanked people for introducing a calm tone in Public Comments. Congratulations to the Orono girls hockey team, the high school team, who got second in the State. The boys are still making their march. So had a really great opportunity to talk to many, many Orono residents at the hockey rink about the performance of this Council and some of the current topics, fire being a major one, of course, and so I was really pleased. It's often that we hear a lot of negative feedback here, but I received an overwhelming amount of support for what this Council is doing and trusting us to do what's best for the City and working with Long Lake. So that was nice to get that direct feedback from those citizens. I'll just address a couple of the public comments. Mr. Pierson was asking about if we can put into use the firetruck. We've had similar arrangements with Long Lake that are in existence already. I wasn't sure if he was asking if Long Lake won't allow us, would we use it? But I would think we offered it. They would accept it. And then Ms. Brantingham, I received your email. And we're definitely going to have some very public conversations about the fire department when we get our assessment done. Ms. Carswell had asked why MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 19 of 22 we hadn't publicly acknowledged the offer from Long Lake. I felt like we did. If we didn't, we did get their offer. And we're going to do our assessment that James (Van Eyll) is completing and give very public and extensive, thorough information to the public. He commented on the City Administrator’s annual report. I'm really proud of this staff and their commitment to making Orono better. And they are doing it for all the right reasons, so it's nice to bring attention to that. Adam (Edwards) also has his review this evening. He's been a very important component in making the City better. Seals also congratulated the high school girls hockey team. Big kudos to make it to the finals the first time ever. Several of the girls I've known since they were four and five and played soccer. So it's pretty unique to see the young ladies they become and see how impressive they are on the ice. Good luck to the guys when they come up. We do have a Parks Commission meeting next week, a work session, March 6 at 6 pm. They are going to be talking about pickleball, where do we go next? If that's a topic you're interested in, definitely join them. And then, as I mentioned earlier, May 22, is going to be the presentation of the fire department draft proposal. Please do reach out if there's things that you really want to make sure that we address. It’s really helpful to know from your perspective, what's missing. I think Kim, you mentioned we may need to go back further in the history and update people. So those nods are good for me, because sometimes when you're in it, you assume everybody else knows all the things. So please do email me and let me know your thoughts. She offered to meet with anyone interested. It is not us talking about it. We don't have the information. We're waiting for staff to put through a very thorough response. Long Lake’s offer will be feathered in there and very much looked at. My hope is that gives not only the rest of the Council and the mayor, but also the community, some good optics on what all the options are. Walsh said he wanted to talk a little bit about the Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities that Councilmember Benson had been attending. There was probably just more of a shock to know that she was going and never told anybody, so I appreciate her letting us know what was going on there. I do have a mayor friend that was there in the January meeting. In my opinion, there was some inappropriate stuff going on in that meeting from Councilmember Benson in terms of how she talked about me in the meeting, how she talked about the Council. This is a meeting of mayors having dinner. They also had a guest from Hennepin County Commissioners and I guess from the Metropolitan Council come and speak. And my friend who was a mayor who was there said he found it very inappropriate to talk negatively about people on your Council while there's guests and other mayors, and to also not only do that but also suggest to the Hennepin County Commissioner not to approve a grant that she doesn't like that was applied for, so basically undermining our staff for the work that they do, applying for grants with elected officials that we have to work with all the time. I found it inappropriate and so did the mayor that was there who was telling me about it. So that's all I have to say about that. We'll have more discussion at the meeting when I'm there next week to find out why these meetings are being run like that, because it's very inappropriate as well. I also want to say congratulations to the girls hockey, that was the first time ever. Also in the last couple of weeks, we've had the girls jazz dance team take first place. They're State championships. For jazz, it's the first time they've ever won that. The girls kick team, which my daughter is on the varsity team, also took third place. It's the first kick dance team for Orono that has ever medaled. I will also say congratulations to Mound Westonka, who actually were the State championships on the kick side. So between Orono and Mound, we have won all the dance competitions in the State of Minnesota for Double A. I want to say a shout out to Richie for the Crystal Bay meeting that he put MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 20 of 22 together. The information he put together was amazing. I also had an opportunity to meet with lots and lots of Orono residents who actually came up to me to say that we are doing a great job and to keep doing what we're doing and that we're doing it right. I mentioned earlier about the police department. You get a City who doesn't support their police department like the City of Golden Valley and they've seen their ranks go from 30 officers to 12. They’ve got to start leaning on Hennepin County and everybody else to come and help even address 911 calls because they’ve got some serious problems in addition to Minneapolis who has their own problems. In Minneapolis it's not only the police that have problems. They're down 20 and 30 percent of Public Works Administration, the water and sewer workers, so they're not getting anything done. So just remember to support like we do. We fly the Blue Line flag, the Red Line flag, we've got public works out there. We support all of our first responders. And I think I've told all my friends who are mayors and council members: the first thing you do is take care of public service in terms of your citizens being safe with all your first responders because if you don't have a City to manage, you don't have really anything else going on. Walsh said he attended the fire department retirement party for Kelly Shaughnessy and enjoyed the roasting and old stories. Since it's been awhile since we had Mayor/Council report, I hope everybody had a great Valentine's Day. It was a great Super Bowl to watch. I don't know if you guys watched the game when the Orono hockey played Hermantown in the semi- finals, and it went into overtime. It was an unbelievable kick pass to the young lady who scored the final goal. It was just unbelievable to watch. Those girls will remember those moments for the rest of their lives. CLOSED SESSION 13. The meeting will be closed as permitted by §13D.05, Subd. 3(a), to evaluate the performance of the City Administrator Walsh moved, Johnson seconded, to enter into closed session at 8:08 p.m., as permitted by Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(a) to evaluate the performance of the City Administrator. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. (The City Council was in closed session from 8:08 p.m. to 8:37 p.m.) Walsh moved, Seals seconded, to reopen the Orono City Council meeting at 8:37 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. Walsh said he had one more thing he wanted to talk about. We had a work session recently where we didn’t have a lot to talk about so I wanted to move it to 5:30 p.m. Councilmember Benson had it moved back to 5 p.m. because that’s what it says in the calendar. We’ve been operating for years, if we don't have anything, or if we don't have much we adjust it. I say we have a discussion of changing what’s on the calendar to give us more flexibility. Johnson said what I would suggest then is that we cancel all our work sessions and we have that a function of our Council meeting to approve the next work session, and then staff at those meetings can give us recommendations or a Council member can put something on. Walsh said we could do it at the Council meeting, because then we can say, if we need one, let's just set one at the time and what the agenda is. And that way, we have flexibility on a time. Johnson suggested making that part of City Administrator Edward’s report. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 21 of 22 Edwards said it could be a standing Council agenda item, which would be setting the draft agenda, so to speak for the upcoming work session or confirming it. He said for the next work session right now he has nothing on that agenda. So you would say okay, we're going to cancel it. I think the only people that can cancel it are the Council. Benson said just to be clear it’s not that I directed Adam, because we already had that discussion. We all were in agreement that no one person directs Adam or staff to change anything. So when the work session was changed from 5 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. and I asked you, why is that and you said Mayor Walsh said it to be so and I'm thinking well, that's something that the Council should discuss. It should not come from either me, Councilmember Johnson. Walsh said I like Matt’s idea that we just cancel all work sessions. And we put it either on the Council itself, if we don't want to have it at the work session, or we have to approve any work session, the time and the agenda at the Council to begin with. Seals said for example, are we saying there'll be a standing item that would say next meetings work session, and then if there was anything and then maybe we'd look at it and be like, okay, that's 30 minutes, that's an hour, whatever that might be. The benefit of that, I guess, is this community gets a heads up what's coming two weeks out. And control that we cancel all work sessions and we have to approve any work session and the agenda at the previous meeting. Benson said I'm not in favor of this. And I'll tell you why. It's because there's been accusations from people showing up at these meetings, saying when are you deliberating when you make a decision? So I do think that this discussion would be a great one to have in the next work session about work sessions. Let's figure it out at a work session, because that's what work sessions are for is doing the business of the City. I'm not in favor of this. And I don't think we should be taking a vote on this, if that's where this is headed. I am not in any way approving of this. This was not on the agenda. This is done after our closed session. And while we've reopened the meeting, I am not in favor of this. Mattick said if I could just weigh in on it a little bit, this is a regularly-scheduled meeting. So you can add items to be discussed. The way it traditionally works is you, at the beginning of the year, you post your regularly-scheduled meetings like tonight's meeting, and you have the flexibility then at a regular meeting to either add to the agenda, take off the agenda, do those sorts of things. If you cancel all of your work sessions, those are still a meeting subject to the Open Meeting Law. And so if I understand what's being proposed is like, tonight, we'd have an agenda item, next work session, that then becomes a special meeting because you have no scheduled work sessions. So at that point, the one drawback is that you are limited to whatever that agenda is posted as -- you cannot add other items. And maybe that's not a drawback, but that is something I'd like you to be aware of. Seals asked could you leave the work sessions on the calendar? And then at the meeting prior to the next one, you discuss the work session topic, so they're all scheduled. So instead of adding the canceled one back in, you would have a discussion two weeks prior saying we have this work session scheduled. Adam, what are the topics? And if Adam says there's nothing and we say there's nothing then you could cancel. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 27, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 22 of 22 The Council reviewed the past formats and schedules for work sessions over the last few years and ideas for how it would work to confirm the next work session on each Council agenda. City Attorney Mattick said I'm not trying to weigh in on the pros and cons but like your March 13 meeting, the gold standard would be for the Council to cancel that meeting, not put that on staff. Now. I'm not saying staff hasn't ever canceled a meeting because there's no agenda. We've done that. And I think as long as we put up notices, there's an argument to do it that way. But the gold standard certainly wouldn't be if you guys don't want to meet on March 13, that would come from the Council. Benson said her concern is that Council is going to just decide to cancel work session after work session. I'm just saying it again, this is staff’s opportunity every two weeks to have Council together to work out issues, to provide education, whatever it is. We're reducing that ability for staff to be in communication with a quorum of the Council. And that's where my issue comes in is that I don't appreciate feeling rushed. And I don't know anyone does. So I just want to ensure that if we're having a work session, that it's not like, well, we could probably do that in 10 minutes, when that is an opportunity to engage and ask questions, because again, that's the only time we're able to be together. I'm just not interested in whittling away at the ability of the Council in a forum with staff to be able to talk about issues and not feel rushed. That's important to me. Seals asked is it fair to say this would be a running agenda item? Adam can say this is an important topic, we need this amount of time. I’m comfortable with it. It helps me to know what is coming. Johnson moved, Walsh seconded, to cancel the March 13 City Council Work Session. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ADJOURNMENT Walsh moved, Johnson seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 8:57 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, February 27, 2023 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 1 PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Victoria Seals, Alisa Benson and Matt Johnson. Staff members present were City Administrator/Engineer Adam Edwards, Public Works Superintendent DJ Goman, Community Development Director Laura Oakden, Golf and Parks Superintendent Josh Lemons, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. City Council – Staff Procedures City Administrator Adam Edwards revisited the staff procedures and processes for staff- council interactions, procedures for setting the agenda, Council meeting procedures, and meeting minutes standards to the Council and gave a brief overview of each at the work session. There was discussion and questions raised about how Council should contact and interact with staff regarding council action items and other inquiries members have prior to meetings. There was also discussion about how items get to be placed on the agendas. Adjourned: 5:24 p.m. CITY OF ORONO: ATTEST: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor _________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk 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 120714 to 120797 and ACH transaction 2013330 to 20130335 totaling $417,462.04. 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: March 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: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount THE HOME DEPOT 03/13/2023 0 02172023 602-49450-240 M12 COREDLESS CAMERA Sewer 579.00 THE HOME DEPOT 03/13/2023 0 02172023 101-43000-240 SHOP BRASS PLUGS Public Works Department 31.05 THE HOME DEPOT 03/13/2023 0 02172023 602-49450-240 WALL CABNET Sewer 254.99 THE HOME DEPOT 03/13/2023 0 02172023 101-41900-221 LASER LEVEL PARKS Central Services 49.95 MEDSURETY LLC 03/13/2023 0 21707 101-41900-319 VEBA/FSA/COBRA HSA FEES 3/23 Central Services 212.50 Total 0:1,127.49 A 1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WA 02/28/2023 120715 5352 601-49400-403 BRINE PUMP REPAIRS Water 343.00 A 1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WA 02/28/2023 120715 5376 601-49400-405 SOUTH WATER PLANT ELECTRICAL REPAIR BRI Water 531.49 Total 120715:874.49 Century Link 02/28/2023 120716 2023.01 GC 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 1/19/23-02/18/23 Golf Course 232.61 Total 120716:232.61 CITY OF MOUND 02/28/2023 120717 2022.06 101-35105 2022 ADMIN CITATIONS 2,579.17 Total 120717:2,579.17 CITY OF SPRING PARK 02/28/2023 120718 2022.06 101-35105 2022 - ADMIN CITATION 90.00 Total 120718:90.00 FIDELITY SECURITY LIFE INSU 02/28/2023 120719 165618277 101-21716 VISION PLAN 2/2023 289.45 Total 120719:289.45 HAAPALA, ROBERT 02/28/2023 120720 2023.01 HAA 999-10015 UB REFUND - 4015 DAHL RD 93.74 Total 120720:93.74 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/28/2023 120721 2023.02 651-49910-322 02/23 UTILITY BILLS Storm Water 344.80 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/28/2023 120721 2023.02 602-49450-322 02/23 UTILITY BILLS Sewer 344.80 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 02/28/2023 120721 2023.02 601-49400-322 02/23 UTILITY BILLS Water 344.80 Total 120721:1,034.40 ALL ENERGY SOLAR 03/02/2023 120722 2023.02 ALL 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA20-000073 3145 NORTH 700.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120722:700.00 BEAUDRY OIL AND PROPANE 03/02/2023 120723 2023.02 BEA 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA22-000063 2160 WAYZAT 700.00 Total 120723:700.00 DENALI HOMES 03/02/2023 120724 2023.02 DEN 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - D22-000003 1837 FAGERNE 1,000.00 Total 120724:1,000.00 HAYES & SONS EXC INC 03/02/2023 120725 2023.02 HAY 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - SE22-000021 65 STUBBS BA 1,000.00 Total 120725:1,000.00 JOHNSON, MATTHEW 03/02/2023 120726 2023.02 JOH 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA22-000050 1003 WILDHU 700.00 JOHNSON, MATTHEW 03/02/2023 120726 2023.02 JOH 101-11500 OUTSTANDING LEGAL INVOICE - LA22-000050 1 165.00- Total 120726:535.00 OUTDOOR INNOVATIONS LAND 03/02/2023 120727 2023.02 OUT 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RAS22-000017 4035 DAHL 1,000.00 Total 120727:1,000.00 PRECISION DECKS 03/02/2023 120728 2023.02 PRE 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RAS22-000046 1950 CONC 1,000.00 Total 120728:1,000.00 THREE RIVERS PARK DISTRICT 03/02/2023 120729 2023.02 THR 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - CPS22-05 2840 NORTH SH 1,000.00 Total 120729:1,000.00 WILDENBERG, SARA 03/02/2023 120730 2023.02 WIL 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA22-000055 3838 CHERRY 700.00 WILDENBERG, SARA 03/02/2023 120730 2023.02 WIL 101-11500 OUTSTANDING LEGAL INVOICE - LA22-000055 111.50- Total 120730:588.50 A 1 ELECTRIC SERVICE OF WA 03/13/2023 120731 5402 101-43000-403 CONTROL BOX REPAIR NAVARRE Public Works Department 389.75 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120731:389.75 ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 03/13/2023 120732 495340507 710-49970-413 PW COPIER LEASE 2/20/23-03/20/23 132.76 Total 120732:132.76 ALLSTREAM 03/13/2023 120733 19259879 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 02/23/2023-03/22/2023 Police Department 301.99 ALLSTREAM 03/13/2023 120733 19259879 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 02/23/2023-03/22/2023 Central Services 422.78 ALLSTREAM 03/13/2023 120733 19259879 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 02/23/2023-03/22/2023 Water 70.46 ALLSTREAM 03/13/2023 120733 19259879 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 02/23/2023-03/22/2023 Sewer 161.06 ALLSTREAM 03/13/2023 120733 19259879 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 02/23/2023-03/22/2023 Golf Course 50.34 Total 120733:1,006.63 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-222 PASSENGER MIRRIOR 428 Public Works Department 220.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 TOOLBOX ORGANIZER Public Works Department 24.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-221 SOP WIRE CONNECTORS Public Works Department 34.96 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 GREASE GUN Public Works Department 75.83 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-41900-407 HOOVER BAGS Central Services 26.46 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-221 WORK LIGHT Public Works Department 83.40 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-221 SAFTEY TAPE RED/WHITE Public Works Department 126.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-221 LED PODS Public Works Department 25.99 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 JACK STANDS 10-TON Public Works Department 251.77 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 AIR LIFT JACK 10-TON Public Works Department 734.38 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 1" DRIVE 40" BREAKER BAR Public Works Department 80.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-222 CAMBER GAUGE Public Works Department 13.00 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 TORQUE WRENCH 100-700 FT POUNDS Public Works Department 379.67 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 PLASTIC WELDER Public Works Department 53.71 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 %PCS PICKLE BALL JOINT SEPARATOR Public Works Department 22.40 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 PORTO POWER Public Works Department 149.80 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 WORK LED LIGHTS Public Works Department 12.74 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-240 PORTO POWER Public Works Department 536.86 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 03/13/2023 120734 139V-LWHY-101-43000-489 SHIPPING Public Works Department 14.99 Total 120734:2,868.85 Aspen Mills 03/13/2023 120735 309587 101-42110-226 NEW HIRE UNIFORMS LYREK Police Department 192.58 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120735:192.58 Awards by Cindy LLC 03/13/2023 120736 5229 101-41900-221 NAME PLATE - FIRE CHIEF Central Services 30.92 Total 120736:30.92 BAGY JO Inc 03/13/2023 120737 2023 EXPLO 101-42110-226 EXPLORERS UNIFORMS Police Department 122.04 Total 120737:122.04 BOYER TRUCKS INC 03/13/2023 120738 003S8781 701-49800-402 REPAIRS TO 427 EXHAUST SYSTEM 3,990.12 Total 120738:3,990.12 Capital One Trade Credit 03/13/2023 120739 3282047230 101-41900-404 REPLACMENT VENT REGISTERS FOR PD AREA Central Services 25.47 Total 120739:25.47 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/13/2023 120740 2023.02 137 602-49450-381 GAS SERVICES 1377 VINE PL 1/21/23-02/20/23 Sewer 18.90 CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 03/13/2023 120740 2023.03 140 101-42110-381 GAS SERVICE 2/20 - 3/22 Police Department 135.83 Total 120740:154.73 CENTRAL PENSION FUND SOU 03/13/2023 120741 CFP0309202 101-21707 LOCAL UNION #49 2/20/23-3/5/23 960.00 Total 120741:960.00 Century Link 03/13/2023 120742 2023.02 GC 101-45210-321 GC PHONE/INTERNET 2/19/23-03/18/23 Golf Course 238.61 Total 120742:238.61 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/13/2023 120743 0019599 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT # 260 OIL/FILTER CHANGE Police Department 58.29 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/13/2023 120743 0019606 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #259 OIL/FILTER CHANGE - RPM Police Department 818.68 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/13/2023 120743 0019609 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #265 OIL/FILTER CHANGE Police Department 58.29 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 03/13/2023 120743 0019616 101-42110-402 SQUAD MAINT #269 OIL/FILTER CHANGE Police Department 58.29 Total 120743:993.55 CITY OF LONG LAKE 03/13/2023 120744 20230001 101-42260-318 1ST QTR 2023 FIRE SERVICE Fire Protection Services 135,990.75 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120744:135,990.75 City of Orono Utilities 03/13/2023 120745 2023.02 CH&101-41900-382 FEB 2023 UB CH Central Services 83.68 City of Orono Utilities 03/13/2023 120745 2023.02 CH&101-42110-382 FEB 2023 UB PD Police Department 83.69 City of Orono Utilities 03/13/2023 120745 2023.02 PO 101-41900-382 FEB 2023- UB - PO Central Services 86.37 City of Orono Utilities 03/13/2023 120745 2023.02 PW 101-41900-382 FEB 2023 UB- PW Central Services 177.53 City of Orono Utilities 03/13/2023 120745 2023.02 WT 601-49400-382 FEB 2023 UB - WTP Water 156.74 Total 120745:588.01 CITY OF WAYZATA 03/13/2023 120746 FEB 2023 W 601-49400-387 FEBRUARY 2023 WATER Water 2,538.90 CITY OF WAYZATA 03/13/2023 120746 FEB 2023 W 602-49450-387 FEBRUARY 2023 SEWER Sewer 5,278.50 Total 120746:7,817.40 City of Wayzata\DMV 03/13/2023 120747 2023.02 201 101-42110-441 VEHICLE TABS #843 Police Department 14.25 City of Wayzata\DMV 03/13/2023 120747 2023.02 201 101-42110-441 SQUAD TABS #255 Police Department 14.25 City of Wayzata\DMV 03/13/2023 120747 2023.02 201 101-42110-441 VEHICLE TABS #256 Police Department 14.25 Total 120747:42.75 CITYVIEW PLUMBING & HEATIN 03/13/2023 120748 130321569 601-49400-405 SOUTH WATER PLANT FURNACE FOR FILTER R Water 7,989.00 Total 120748:7,989.00 CIVICPLUS 03/13/2023 120749 254498 614-49840-329 CIVICPLUS WEBSITE Cable Franchise 334.86 CIVICPLUS 03/13/2023 120749 254522 614-49840-329 CIVICPLUS WEBSITE Cable Franchise 1,686.90 Total 120749:2,021.76 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CO 03/13/2023 120750 0042661 701-49800-213 BREAK CLEANER 256.92 Total 120750:256.92 ESKUCHE DESIGN 03/13/2023 120751 2023.03 ESK 101-34420 REFUND - NO PERMIT NEEDED LA23-06 3001 C 375.00 ESKUCHE DESIGN 03/13/2023 120751 2023.03 ESK 101-34420 REFUND - NO PERMIT NEEDED LA23-06 3001 C 375.00 ESKUCHE DESIGN 03/13/2023 120751 2023.03 ESK 101-22205 REFUND - NO PERMIT NEEDED LA23-06 3001 C 700.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120751:1,450.00 FASTENAL COMPANY 03/13/2023 120752 MNPLY1395 701-49800-215 GRADE 8 BOLTS STOCKING INVENTORY 347.78 Total 120752:347.78 FAUL PSYCHOLOGICAL 03/13/2023 120753 1446 101-42110-319 OFFICER WELLNESS Police Department 1,800.00 Total 120753:1,800.00 FLOCK SAFETY 03/13/2023 120754 INV-7936 101-42110-319 LPR CAMERAS Police Department 750.00 Total 120754:750.00 G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 03/13/2023 120755 00166996 701-49800-403 HYDRANT HOSE - UNIT 429 60.78 G&H Distributing & Supply Inc 03/13/2023 120755 00167192 701-49800-221 HYDRAULIC HOSE #423 94.96 Total 120755:155.74 GB Auto Service, Inc.03/13/2023 120756 10990 701-49800-402 FRONT END ALIGNMENT UNIT 710 - LLFD CMD1 129.71 Total 120756:129.71 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/13/2023 120757 3270-562077 701-49800-215 OIL FILTERS 87.22 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/13/2023 120757 3270-562228 701-49800-215 WIPERS FOR UNIT 112 46.98 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/13/2023 120757 3270562246 701-49800-215 BLOWER MOTOR UNIT 110 99.98 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 03/13/2023 120757 3270-562880 701-49800-215 BALL JOINTS, OIL SEALS FOR UNIT U11 728.40 Total 120757:962.58 GUSTAFSON, PAUL 03/13/2023 120758 2023.03 GUS 999-10015 ESCROW REFUND - LA22-000056 200 WOODHIL 700.00 Total 120758:700.00 HAYES & SONS EXC INC 03/13/2023 120759 2023.03 HAY 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - SE22-000003 670 PINEHUR 1,000.00 Total 120759:1,000.00 HOTSY MINNESOTA 03/13/2023 120760 16248 701-49800-403 REPAIR PORTABLE PRESSURE WASHER 117.14 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount HOTSY MINNESOTA 03/13/2023 120760 16248 101-43000-221 WASH SOAP Public Works Department 381.18 Total 120760:498.32 JOSH RAZE 03/13/2023 120761 2023.02 101-42110-402 SQUAD #264 HEADLIGHT REPLMT Police Department 29.02 Total 120761:29.02 LAKE MTKA CONSERVATION DI 03/13/2023 120762 2023Q1Oron 651-49910-433 1ST QTR 2023 LEVY PMT Storm Water 10,200.50 Total 120762:10,200.50 LEAGUE OF MN CITIES 03/13/2023 120763 2023.03 703-49960-151 2023 1ST HALF WC INSURANCE 116,863.00 Total 120763:116,863.00 LENZEN 03/13/2023 120764 310724 101-42260-221 PROGRAM REMOTE Fire Protection Services 137.85 Total 120764:137.85 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53314 101-42110-401 2023 SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT Police Department 9,300.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53349 710-49970-401 2023 NETWORK WELLNESS 3,850.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 101-42110-310 POLICE RECORDS 2/2023 Police Department 8,119.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-329 INTERNET 2/2023 600.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-311 HOSTED BACKUPS 2/2023 1,125.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-311 HOSTED SERVERS 2/2023 1,399.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-311 HOSTED COMPLIANCE ARCHIVE 2/2023 537.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-311 HOSTED WATCHGUARD 2/2023 650.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53414 710-49970-401 FIBER SERVICES 2/2023 163.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53489 710-49970-401 CUTOVER TO HC FIBER 4,421.25 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53502 101-42110-221 TOKENS Police Department 30.00 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53563 710-49970-416 VMWARE LICENSING 717.98 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53563 101-42110-575 SWITCHES - PD Police Department 17,940.98 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53563 440-48970-530 SWITCHES - PD 9,549.11 LOGIS 03/13/2023 120765 53563 710-49970-416 ADOBE LICENSING 134.70 Total 120765:58,537.02 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 03/13/2023 120766 24041352 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 780.57 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120766:780.57 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/13/2023 120767 00106130 101-43000-224 OXYGEN, ACETYLENE Public Works Department 63.76 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/13/2023 120767 00106131 101-42110-221 O2 FILL Police Department 127.51 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 03/13/2023 120767 00106132 101-43000-415 ACETYLENE, OXYGEN Public Works Department 18.45 Total 120767:209.72 MISSION COMMUNICATIONS LL 03/13/2023 120768 1072981 602-49450-319 MISSION ANNUAL SERVICE GS#7,8 LS#24 Sewer 1,042.20 Total 120768:1,042.20 MOUND TRUE VALUE 03/13/2023 120769 185491 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 29.98 Total 120769:29.98 Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 03/13/2023 120770 31602513 405-48500-580 TIRE CHANGING EQUIPMENT 686.02 Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 03/13/2023 120770 31602594 405-48500-580 CREDIT ON FREIGHT CHARGES 11.02- Myers Tire Supply Distribution, Inc 03/13/2023 120770 31602625 405-48500-580 TIRE CHANGING EQUIPMENT 7,013.00 Total 120770:7,688.00 NAVARRE HARDWARE 03/13/2023 120771 340891 101-43000-224 SCREWS - MAILBOX REPAIR Public Works Department 2.00 Total 120771:2.00 OLIVER WHITE AND ALLISON C 03/13/2023 120772 2023.03 WHI 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - D20-000030 1040 LOMA LIN 1,000.00 Total 120772:1,000.00 OLSEN CHAIN AND CABLE INC 03/13/2023 120773 697542 701-49800-222 CHAIN LINKS 188.47 Total 120773:188.47 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 03/13/2023 120774 2917758970 101-41900-201 OFFICE/KITCHEN SUPPLIES Central Services 146.20 Total 120774:146.20 PFEIFER, AMBER 03/13/2023 120775 2023.02 PFE 999-10015 UB REFUND - 2745 ETHEL AVE 121.58 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120775:121.58 QUALITY STAINLESS INC 03/13/2023 120776 INV380671 701-49800-215 BRIM TANK ON TRUCKS VALVE HANDLE 36.96 Total 120776:36.96 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 03/13/2023 120777 P6530214 701-49800-215 WIPER BLADES FOR GRADER UNIT 423 223.20 Total 120777:223.20 Riverside Design 03/13/2023 120778 3607 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 554.75 Riverside Design 03/13/2023 120778 3631 101-42110-240 RECRUITING/DISPLAY - TABLE RUNNER Police Department 164.80 Total 120778:719.55 SECURITY & SOUND CO 03/13/2023 120779 26440 101-43000-404 PANIC BUTTON Public Works Department 360.00 Total 120779:360.00 SHAVER, JAMIE 03/13/2023 120780 2023.03 SHA 999-10015 UB REFUND - 1385 FOX ST 89.32 Total 120780:89.32 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 03/13/2023 120781 0227231504 701-49800-240 MECHANIC TOOLS 66.25 Total 120781:66.25 STATE OF MINNESOTA 03/13/2023 120782 02242023 701-49800-441 DOT CVI ANNUAL INSPECTION DECALS 44.00 Total 120782:44.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1616747 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - HENNESSEY Police Department 18.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1616792 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - LYREK Police Department 584.91 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1616888 101-42110-226 UNIFORM EQUIPMENT - KLUKAS Police Department 53.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1617427 101-42110-226 TASER HOLSTER -SONNEK Police Department 91.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1617600 101-42110-226 VEST CARRIER - STRUM Police Department 276.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1617658 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS - SONNEK Police Department 35.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1618448 101-42110-229 EXPLORERS - NAME PLATES Police Department 59.95 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 03/13/2023 120783 1618651 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS LYREK Police Department 74.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 120783:1,193.83 Strictly E-Commerce 03/13/2023 120784 02232023 701-49800-240 MECHANICS TOOLBOX FOR SHOP 6,880.00 Total 120784:6,880.00 THOMPSON, DOUGLAS 03/13/2023 120785 2023.02 THO 999-10015 UB REFUND - 662 SANSTON ECIR 299.90 Total 120785:299.90 THONVOLD, JACK 03/13/2023 120786 2023.02 101-45200-226 WINTER GEAR REIMBURSMENT Parks 369.98 Total 120786:369.98 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 03/13/2023 120787 M27994 101-45200-319 PARK COMMISSION MINUTES 5/3/21 Parks 286.50 Total 120787:286.50 TITAN MACHINERY 03/13/2023 120788 18114827 GP 701-49800-215 WATER PUMP FOR UNIT 429 100.10 TITAN MACHINERY 03/13/2023 120788 18117444 GP 701-49800-215 ENGINE BELT UNIT 429 56.00 Total 120788:156.10 TOLL GAS & WELDING SUPPLY 03/13/2023 120789 40170446 101-43000-415 CYLINDER & DEMURRAGE Public Works Department 6.98 Total 120789:6.98 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 36.77 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 36.77 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT Water 36.77 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 36.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0752142 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 36.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 36.77 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 36.77 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT Water 36.77 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 2/28/2023 - 3/13/2023 Mar 09, 2023 03:34PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 36.78 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 03/13/2023 120790 090 0753515 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 36.78 Total 120790:427.52 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVI 03/13/2023 120791 2023.03 PRE 101-41900-322 1ST CLASS PRESORT 2024 Central Services 290.00 Total 120791:290.00 US Bank Equipment Finance 03/13/2023 120792 495363467 710-49970-413 COPIERS 596.76 Total 120792:596.76 WALLACE, KEEGAN & JESSICA 03/13/2023 120793 2023.02 WAL 999-10015 UB REFUND - 1180 GARDEN CT 130.38 Total 120793:130.38 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 03/13/2023 120794 0101029-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 3/2023 17,944.60 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 03/13/2023 120794 0101029-280 603-49500-301 RECYCLING FEB 23 ORGANICS 86.81 Total 120794:18,031.41 WESTLING, ADAM 03/13/2023 120795 2023.03 WE 999-10015 UB REFUND - 4040 WATERTOWN RD 77.11 Total 120795:77.11 ZAHL-PETROLEUM MAINTENA 03/13/2023 120796 0277862-IN 701-49800-403 DIESAL PUMP FAILURE INVESTIGATION.441.00 Total 120796:441.00 ZARNOTH BRUSH WORKS 03/13/2023 120797 0192757-IN 651-49910-227 REPLACEMENT BROOMS - UNIT #604 Storm Water 2,307.60 Total 120797:2,307.60 Grand Totals: 417,462.04 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the action item is to make two minor changes to the 2023 Fee Schedule. 2. Background. The Council adopted the 2023 fee schedule on December 12, 2023. It has come to staff’s attention that two items need to be corrected in the Planning and Zoning section. a. Municipal Connection Permit for water and sewer will be changed from $50 to read “See Utility Fees Section.” The fee is currently listed in both sections and this led to it being changed in one location but not the other. b. The escrow of $1,000 for a septic permit is being removed. When the fee schedule was adopted the escrow requirement was removed from the septic demolition permit, but was inadvertently left on the installation permit. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends amending the 2023 fee schedule to make the identified changes. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve ordinance number 282 amending the 2023 Fee Schedule. Exhibits A. Ordinance 282 Amending the 2023 Fee Schedule. B. Amended 2023 Fee Schedule Item No.: 4 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Amend 2023 Fee Schedule Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 1 ORDINANCE NO. 282, THIRD SERIES CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE 2023 FEE SCHEDULE AND AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 281, THIRD SERIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Ordinances Repealed. Ordinance No. 281, Third Series, entitled 2023 Fee Schedule is hereby repealed. SECTION 2. The City Council of Orono per Section 2-171 of the Municipal Code hereby ordains the fees attached as Exhibits A effective during the calendar year 2023: SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance establishing the 2023 Fee Schedule shall be published as a Summary Ordinance and shall be effective on March 13, 2023 and publication. ADOPTED this 13th day of March, 2023 on a vote of ayes and nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: ______________________________ _____________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2023. A. Buillding, Planning, and Zoning B. License Fees and Miscellaneous Charges C. Utility Rates and Fees D. Administrative Offenses E. Park Fees F. Police Administration G. Documents and Services Zoning Applications Joint Use Dock Sanitary Sewer and Municipal Water Connection Traffic/ Vehicle Golf Course Dogs at Large Zoning Documents Zoning Permits Rental License Municipal Connection Permit Snowmobile Violations Lurton Park Animals at Large General Administrative Documents Building Code Administration Garbage Hauler Point of Sale Fees Animals Summit Beach Large Assemble Permit Building Permits Home Occupation Sewer Projects Public Nuisances Field/Facility Reservations Fireworks Contractual Inspections Temporary Trailers and Buildings Water Connections Open Burning Firearms Fire Kennel Licenses Water Meter and Horn Noise Trapping Park Dedication Beer, Wine, and Liquor Sewer and Water Unit Adjustment Charges Park Violations Special Events Storm Water Trunk Amusement Devices Utility Service Fees Sign Violations False Alarm Public Dance Municipal Water Rates Juvenile Violations Fingerprinting General Administrative Licenses/Fines Stormwater Utility Rates Seasonal Overweight Vehicles Police Special Services Miscellaneous Charges Recycling Charge Parking Copy Service Sump Pump Surcharge Miscellaneous Photos PW supplies and service No Parking Signs Statements Fire arm storage Table of Contents 2023 Orono Fee Schedule Fee Escrow Notes Variance $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees 1st Extension $55.00 Staff approved 2nd and subsequent $55.00 City Council meeting Conditional Use Permit $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees CUP amendment $375.00 $700.00 1st Extension $55.00 Staff approved Interim Use Permit $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees Site Plan Review $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees Zoning Amendments including map amendments $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees Concept Review $375.00 Comprehensive Plan Amendment $375.00 $700.00 + Consultant fees Subdivision Subdivision: Sketch Plan $375.00 Subdivision: Class III Prel Plat $550.00 $5,000.00 + Consultant fees Subdivision: Final Plat $550.00 $2,500.00 + Consultant fees Subdivision: Preliminary plat extension $375.00 Subdivision Exception $100.00 n/a + Consultant fees if Applicable Vacations Vacations: Road $375.00 $700.00 Vacation: Easement not associated with subdivisions $375.00 $700.00 Vacation: Easements associated with a subdivision $0.00 Easement Creation $165.00 $700.00 Appeal of Administrative Decision $165.00 $700.00 Stairway to Lake $55.00 Structures not requiring a building permit $55.00 Plus Engineering Costs Encroachment Permit/ Agreement $165.00 Tree removal in shore setback $0.00 Signs (Alteration of cabinent or raceway)$55.00 Vehicle Storage $55.00 78-1577 (C) Land Alteration $100.00 May also require a IUP All after the fact applications are double fees. All applicants are responsible for actual costs incurred by the City by its' consultants in the review of the application. ZONING APPLICATIONS: Exhibit A Buillding, Planning, and Zoning PLANNING, BUILDING, ZONING All fees, unless otherwise noted, are application fees and are non-refundable after staff work has begun on the application. ZONING PERMIT: Fee Escrow Notes Tent/ Canopy Permits $55.00 *City Administrator may require an erosion control escrow for projects disturbing soils or tree replacement. $1,000.00 Variable depending on project scope, but not to exceed Zoning confirmation letter $55.00 Request for zoning confirmation letter Address Change Request by Owner $55.00 BUILDING CODE ADMINISTRATION: Building Permits Based on Value Table Building permit fees (Building, Plumbing, Mechanical, unless otherwise noted) Based on 2012 Building Valuation Table Plan Review Fee 65% of Building Permit Fee Rereview Plan Fee Up to the cost of the Plan Review Fee Based on Building Offical Recommendation Minimum Fee $26.25 Moved-In Structure (not including foundation, interior remodel, etc.)$275.00 Pre-Move Inspection $165.00 Special investigation fee (work started without obtaining a permit – applies even if no permit is pulled) 100% of Building permit fee Manufactured Home Installation $275.00 plus State Surcharge and requires a regular building permit if also doing basement, foundation, garage or entryway, fees are based on sq. ft. State Table $275.00 City Administrator may require an erosion control escrow for projects disturbing soils.$1,000.00 Refunds: 80% of building permit fees on projects not yet started (within 90 days of permit issuance by municipality). No refund on plan review fees, state surcharge or maintenance permits Fee Escrow Notes Valuation based on ICC 2012 Building Valuation tables Total Valuation Fee $1.00 to $500 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $500,001.00 to $1,000,000.00 $1,000,001.00 and up State Surcharge as required by State Demolition Demolition: Principal structure $100.00 Demolition: Accessory structure/Septic system (Per unit fee)$50.00 Retaining walls Based on Value Table May require City Council approval (Variance or CUP) City Engineer may require an erosion control escrow for projects disturbing soils. Not to Exceed $1,000.00 Plumbing 1.25% of project value, based on valuation table n/a Backflow registration $10.00 Plumbing minimum $26.25 $6,254.92 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $4.20 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof $715.92 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.88 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00 $1109.92 for the first $100,000.00 plus $6.30 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $500,000.00 $3,629.92 for the first $500,000.00 plus $5.25 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $1,000,000.00 $26.25 for the first $500.00 plus $3.41 for each additional $100.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00 $77.40 for the first $2,000.00 plus $15.49 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00 $433.67 for the first $25,000.00 plus $11.29 for each additional $1,000.00, or fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00 $26.25 Fee Escrow Notes Mechanical (All Types) 1.25% of project value, based on valuation table n/a Mechanical Minimum $26.25 Tent/ Canopy $50.00 Municipal Connection permit n/a Sewer $50.00 See Utility Fee Section SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) (MCES)$2,485.00 Water $50.00 See Utility Fee Section Septic Tank or Repair Permit $350.00 New or replacement Type I or Type III, Residential $750.00 $1,000.00 New or replacement Advanced Septic System Residential $750.00 Plus additional actual costs upto 600.00 All Commercial $750.00 Plus additional actual costs upto 600.00 Subdivision site evaluation review $60.00 Per lot Inspection surcharge for RS zones (Big Island and Deering island) $30.00 plus cost of boat rental if transportation not provided. Reinspection fee $30.00 plus $60/ hour after 1st hour Site inspection without permit Actual costs Quarterly Septic Fee 11.25 Septic Late Fee 3%/Qtr Miscellaneous Projects Retaining walls requiring building permit Based on Value Table May require City Council approval (Variance or IUP) Sign structure Based on Value Table Entrance monuments Based on Value Table Fences Based on Value Table Only required for fences above 7 feet. Tent/ Canopy $50.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy Escrow 3% of project value, not to exceed $10,000 Fee Escrow Notes Contractural Inspection Service Plan Review Charge Per 2012 Building Permit Fee Based on Valuation FIRE Fire Protection inspection Actual Cost Per 2012 Building Permit Fee Based on Valuation Fire Plan review fee 65% of permit fee Burning permits No Charge Reinspection $50.00 PARK DEDICATION 0.1 acres of land per residential dwelling unit Sec. 82-227 0.1 acres for every acre of commercial or industrial zoned land, or 0.1 per every 14 expected employees, whichever is greater Cash contribution maximum Residential density of 3 units per acre or less: maximum 4 percent of the predeveloped value Residential density of 3.1- 8 units per acre: maximum 8 percent of the predeveloped value Residential density of 8.1 - 15 units per acre: maximum 12 percent of the predeveloped value Residential density of 15.1 units per acre or more: maximum 20 percent of the predeveloped value STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE TRUNK FEES Stormwater and Drainage Trunk fees as established by Subdivision IV, Section 14-283 of the City Code. Where the anticipated park needs are greater than the number of acres to be developed, the city establishes a maximum park dedication maximum: Storm water trunk fees apply to new development and redevelopment of existing properties and provide funding for the storm water infrastructure necessary to serve the City. The trunk fee is based on the land use and acreage of the property being developed. An equivalency factor multiplier is assigned to each land use type, with a 2-acre residential lot considered as the standard in the City with an equivalency factor of 1.0. The table below lists the storm water trunk fees per acre for the various zoning districts and land uses in the City. Land Dedication Minimum Area - Developers shall be required to dedicate to the City for parks, playgrounds, trails, open spaces and other public purposes an amount of land proportional to the amount of land being developed and to the number of residential units or commercial industrial employment, as set forth in Section 82-226: All fire suppression and alarm permits are based on value, and include a plan review fee and are subject to the state surcharge. Cash contribution is equal to the amount of land required In those instances where a cash contribution is to be made by the developer, in lieu of a conveyance or dedication of land, the cash contribution to be contributed shall be equivalent to the fair market value of the land to be dedicated. Fee Escrow Notes NEW DEVELOPMENT LAND USE Per new lot, or new structure on previously vacant lot Per buildable acre $16,150.00 $8,060.00 $5,250.00 $3,025.00 $7,275.00 $8,490.00 $9,690.00 - acreage of stormwater ponding or similar improvements that provide additional treatment benefits beyond what is required to treat the stormwater runoff from the development site. - acreage of conservation easements resulting from Conservation Design process Commercial or Industrial Multi-family and High-Density Single Family Developments. Trunk fee shall be charged on a per-acre basis, except that the following acreages will not be subject - all wetland acreage up to the delineation line Single Family Residential 1/2 Acre Zone Multi Family Residential 4 Units/Acre or Less Multi Family Residential Greater than 4 Units/Acre Single Family Residential 5 Acre Zone Single Family Residential 2 Acre Zone Single Family Residential 1 Acre Zone Fee DOCK LICENSE $325.00 Per Year License Application Fee $50.00 Canoe Rack Rental $45.00 Per Slip RENTAL LICENSE License Fee $120.00 2 year term GARBAGE HAULER LICENSE Flat Rate $75.00 Ch. 54, Article III Per Hauler $15.00 Per Truck Transfer Fee $30.00 HOME OCCUPATION LICENSE (Level 2)$100.00 Initial Review Fee Sec. 26-76 $30.00 Annual Review Fee $30.00 KENNEL LICENSES Sec. 62-161 thru 62-185 Commercial Application & Inspection Fee (Annual)$150.00 Residential Application & Inspection Fee (Annual)$50.00 Exhibit B Licenses and Miscellaneous Charges TEMPORARY TRAILERS & BUILDINGS License Fees for new licenses may be prorated; after 75% of the license period has elapsed, the fee is reduced by 50%. Fee BEER, WINE & LIQUOR LICENSES Initial Investigation $500.00 Per License Ch. 34, Article II On-Sale & Off-Sale Intoxicating Liquor Licenses Ch. 34, Article II Ch. 34, Article II In state investigation Out state investigation Actual cost Off-Sale Liquor License $150.00 Sec. 34-66 On-Sale Liquor License $5,000.00 Sec. 34-66 On-Sale Wine License $2,000.00 Sec. 34-77 3.2 % Malt Liquor Off-Sale (Annual)$50.00 Sec. 34-66 3.2 % Malt Liquor On-Sale (Annual)$100.00 Sec. 34-66 Setup (Annual)$100.00 Sec. 34-126; 34-143 Club Liquor License Sec. 34-66 (weekday)$200.00 Sec. 34-66 (Sunday)$200.00 Sec. 34-66 Temporary Set-up Permit (1-4 days)$25.00 Each Sec. 34-42 Temporary On Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor (1-7 days)$25.00 Each Sec. 34-82 Temporary Off-Sale Wine License (wine auction)$25.00 Each Sec. 34-42 Temporary On-Sale Wine License (1-4 days)$25.00 Each Sec. 34-42 Temporary On-Sale Liquor License (1-4 days)$25.00 Each Sec. 34-42 1st Violation $500.00 Sec. 34-41 2nd Violation $1,000.00 & 3-day license suspension 3rd Violation $2,000.00 & 2-week license suspension 4th Violation License revocation On-Sale & Off Sale 3.2% Malt Liquor/Wine Licenses Actual cost up to $10,000 Liquor Violations (3 years immediately prior to date of most current violation) Fee AMUSEMENT DEVICE LICENSES Sec. 38-601 thru 38-603 Per Establishment (Annual)$100.00 + Machine fee Per Machine Fee $25.00 Each PUBLIC DANCE LICENSE Annual License $100.00 Individual License $10.00 Gambling & Raffle Investigation $10.00 Ch. 38, Article II Massage Therapy License $100.00 Ch. 31, Article II Background Investigation $150.00 Annual Renewal $100.00 Solicitor/Transient Merchant/Peddler License $100.00 + Actual costs up to $1,500.00 Ch. 30 Tobacco Licenses $125.00 Ch. 50, Article II 1st Offense $150.00 2nd Offense $400.00 3rd Offense & Over $500.00 Penalty for Use of Tobacco Where Prohibited $100.00 Sec. 51-5 MISCELLANEOUS FEES Convenience Fee - Credit Card Transactions 3.00%+ $0.50 for $100.00 or less Returned Check $30.00 Licensee or Employee Violations within 24 month period GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE LICENSES/FINES Sec. 38-501 thru 38-506 Fee Sewer (Includes one inspection)$150.00 SAC (Sewer Availability Charge) (MCES)$2,485.00 Water (Includes one inspection)$150.00 Horn Quote Basis Additional Connection inspection (Water or Sewer) $100.00 Additional Disconnection inspection (Water or Sewer)$100.00 Residential - City Inspection $250.00 Residential - Private Inspection Review $100.00 Commercial $750.00 Connection to existing City Sewer System: $5,800.00 Fee 2010 North Farm Road $22,120.00 2014 Green Trees $23,710.00 2015 Green Trees Extension $22,650.00 Exhibit C Utility Rates and Fees Connection fees have been determined as a way to provide a fair and equitable recovery of the costs associated with providing water and wastewater utility services to new customers to avoid placing these costs on existing customers. The connection fee includes those portions of existing assets that will benefit new customers together with any anticipated future capital improvements constructed for the purpose of providing utility services to new customers. The connection charge applies to those properties not previously assessed for the associated utility project. Connection to City Sewer in areas still within their assessment window (less than 15 years since project was assessed) shall pay an amount equivalent to the assessment amount plus interest that residences were charged at the time of the project: MUNICIPAL CONNECTION PERMIT SEWER PROJECTS ALL SANITARY SEWER AND MUNICIPAL WATER CONNECTION CHARGES POINT OF SALE SEWER SERVICE INFLOW & INFILTRATION INSPECTION FEES Fee Connection to Sewer System in adjacent city Fee Connection to Long Lake Sewer System $1,900.00 or per current Long Lake Fee Schedule Connection to Wayzata Sewer System $1,050 or per current Wayzata Fee Schedule Connection to existing City Water Main $4,370 per unit *or 20% over adjacent city's fee schedule, whichever is greater of Connection to Wayzata Water System $2,470 or per current Wayzata Fee Schedule 5/8" (3/4"x7-1/2") meter with horn including sales tax Actual Cost 3/4" (3/4"x9") meter with horn including sales tax Actual Cost 1" meter with horn including sales tax Actual Cost Larger meter Actual Cost CHARGES CREDIT Credit for previously assessed sewer or water units shall be applied against the total number of sewer and water units established for the new use. Current Fee per Adjacent City $1,900.00 or per current Long Lake Fee Schedule WATER CONNECTIONS Fee Connection to Long Lake Water System WATER METER AND HORN SEWER AND WATER UNIT ADJUSTMENT CHARGES Charges shall result from either an intensification of an existing non-residential use or a new non-residential use that replaces a former use on a property located within an area already assessed and served by municipal sewer and water. Fee UNIT CHARGE Municipal Sewer Rate By Unit: 1st $70.37 per month By flow ($70.37/month minimum): $7.04/1000 gallon plus$6.15/month/SAC unit Long Lake Service Minimum Charge (10,000 Gallons or Less Water Usage)$70.37 per month Over 10,000 Gallons Water Usage, per 1,000 Gallons additional $7.04/1000 gallon Wayzata Service Metered Service Minimum Charge (10,000 Gallons or Less Water Usage)$70.37 per month Over 10,000 Gallons Water Usage, per 1,000 Gallons additional $7.04/1000 gallon Unmetered Service Per Property $70.37 per month Residential Billing & Ready to Serve Charge $16.67/month Unconnected Property Charge $16.67/month UTILITY SERVICE FEES MUNICIPAL WATER RATES Some Properties on Mytlewood and Old Long Lake Road are not connected to water. Wayzata bills Orono based on a quarterly usage of 25,000 gallons. Charge is based on the metered rates and 25,000 gallons. Each sewer and each water unit adjustment charge shall be equal to the current Service Availability Charge established by the Metropolitan Council Wastewater Services or its successor and shall be payable to the City of Orono upon application for a building permit. Fee Water Usage Rate Navarre Area (Area #1) and Hwy 12 (Area #2) Tier 1 (0-3,300 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (3,300 - 8,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>8,300)$16.67/1000 gal Chevy Chase Area (Area #3) Tier 1 (0-5,000 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (5,000-8,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>8,300)$16.67/1000 gal Long Lake Area (Area #4) Tier 1 (0-2,600 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (2,600-7,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>7,300 gal)$16.67/1000 gal Multi-Family Billing & Ready to Serve Charge per SAC Unit $16.67/month Unconnected Property Charge $16.67/month Water Usage Rate Tier 1 (0-8,300 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (8,300-33,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>33,300 gal)$16.67/1000 gal Commercial Billing & Ready to Serve Charge per SAC Unit $16.67/month Unconnected Property Charge $16.67/month Water Usage Rate Tier 1 (0-8,300 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (8,300-33,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>33,300 gal)$16.67/1000 gal School Billing & Ready to Serve Charge per Meter $50.00/month Fee Unconnected Property Charge $50.00/month Water Usage Rate Tier 1 (0-8,300 gal) $7.94/1000 gal Tier 2 (8,300-33,300 gal) $11.11/1000 gal Tier 3 (>33,300 gal)$16.67/1000 gal Federally Mandated Safe Drinking Water $2.43/quarter or $0.81/month Testing Program (Charged per service connection) Quarterly Service Charge for Non-Functioning or Inaccessible Water Meter $100.00 Bulk sale to Minnetonka Beach for Lafayette Ridge Area Processing Fee (Per Monthly Billing Cycle)$25.00 Plus Water Usage Rate $7.94/1000 gal Bulk sale - All Others Processing Fee (Per Monthly Billing Cycle)$25.00 Plus Water Usage Rate $7.94/1000 gal i.e. Fill swimming pool or watering sod. Assessment Charge for Unpaid Accounts Certified $30.00 Water Turn-On $50.00 Water Turn-off $50.00 Water System Repair/Replacement if damage caused by property owner: Labor - Current Hourly Rate Parts - At Cost Penalty for late payment of sewer/water bills - 1% monthly if not paid by due date (applied to the total unpaid balance). Interest at 8% on unpaid water/sewer bills certified. Fee One residential unit: $16.00/month or $48.00/quarter Non-residential unit:Based on “Residential Equivalent Factor” $6.25/month or $18.75/quarter Recycling Cart from Waste Management No Charge $100.00 per month Right of Way Permit $50.00/permit Right of Way Escrow (for other than Public Utility) $1,500 New Street Intersections (See zoning section - Special improvement fees) On-Call Service to Other Cities Base On-Call Fee $70.00/day Call-Out Fee Actual wage and equipment rates The basic intent of storm water regulations is to minimize the impact of development on natural drainage systems. Any development in an PUBLIC WORKS SUPPLIES & SERVICES SUMP PUMP SURCHARGE RECYCLING CHARGE STORM WATER UTILITY RATES Fee Applicable Code or MN State Statute (MSS) Number Unsafe Operation 66-259 Unreasonable Acceleration $60.00 66-258 Exhibition Driving $60.00 66-7 Failure to Obey Traffic Control $60.00 169.06 MSS Expired Registration $60.00 169.79 MSS Unsafe Equipment $60.00 169.47 MSS Loud Exhaust $60.00 169.69 MSS No Driver License in Possession $60.00 171.08 MSS Failure to Change Address on DL $60.00 171.11 MSS Driving to Avoid Traffic Signal $60.00 66-5 Operation $60.00 66-159 Equipment $60.00 66-160 Hours of Operation $60.00 66-159 $60.00 Dog at Large $60.00 62-104 Animal License Required $60.00 62-131 Feces Clean Up $60.00 22-95 & 22-114 Barking Dog $60.00 62-10 $60.00 Public Nuisance/General Prohibition $60.00 70-4 Peace and Safety Violation $60.00 70-166 Discharge of Firearm $60.00 70-97 Exhibit D Administrative Offenses TRAFFIC/VEHICLE OFFENSES SNOWMOBILE VIOLATIONS ANIMALS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFENSES (POLICE ADMINISTERED) PUBLIC NUISANCES Fee Applicable Code or MN State Statute (MSS) Number No Permit $60.00 58-186 Negligent Burning $60.00 58-193 No Open Burning $60.00 58-193 Loud Noise Prohibited $60.00 58-120 Hours of Operation $60.00 22-89 Operating a Motor Vehicle within Park $60.00 22-92 No Permit $60.00 22-102 Feces Clean Up $60.00 22-95, 22-102 & 22-114 $60.00 Violation of General Provisions $60.00 18-4 Sign Impoundment Fee $25.00 78-1473 $60.00 Curfew $60.00 70-274 Possession of Tobacco $60.00 609.685 Sub 3 MSS 1,000-9,999 lbs overweight .15 cents per lb over 169.824 Sub 1 MSS General $25.00 66-78 Seasonal 0200-0600 on $25.00 66-80 Street Prohibited Handicapped $60.00 66-85 Fire Lane $25.00 46-85 JUVENILE SEASONAL OVERWEIGHT VEHICLES PARKING OPEN BURNING NOISE PARK VIOLATIONS SIGNS VIOLATIONS Fee Applicable Code or MN State Statute (MSS) Number Watering Restrictions $60.00 610.50 Sub 15 MSS Placing Snow on Street $25.00 18-5 SPECIAL EVENT VIOLATIONS 1st Violation $250.00 2nd Violation $500.00 3rd Violation $1,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS Fee GOLF COURSE FEES MONDAY THRU SUNDAY RATES Individual (Regular)$20.00 Juniors (10-18 years old)$12.00 Seniors (62 years or older)$16.00 Second Round $10.00 Children under 10 golf free with an adult Base Resident Individual Season Pass $570.00 $455.00 Junior Season Pass (10 - 18 years old)$320.00 $280.00 Senior Season Pass (62 years or older)$470.00 $350.00 Family* Season Pass $700.00 $550.00 GOLF CART RENTAL RATES Motorized Cart Rental/Per Person for 9 holes $11.00 Motorized Cart Rental/Per Person for 18 holes $15.00 Pull Carts/Per Round $5.00 Golf Clubs/Per Round $5.00 CONCESSION RATES As Posted Exhibit E Park Fees * Family meaning: Immediate family living in the same household. Children must be 18 years old or younger. SEASON PASS RATES (Unlimited Non-League Play) The golf course superintendent shall have the authority to deviate from these prices for the purpose of promoting specials and for special events. Fee Resident $40.00 Non-Resident $55.00 Admin Fine - No Permit See Admin Fines Passes will go on sale for the following year on Nov 1st. Passes to be prorated at 50% on August 1st. SUMMIT BEACH CANOE RACK RENTAL See Licenses and Miscellaneous Charges FIELD/FACILITY RESERVATIONS PARK FACILITY USE PERMIT Resident (Individual, business or group)$15.00 Non-Resident (Individual, business or group)$25.00 Golf Course Club House $40.00 / Hour LURTON PARK PASSES The cost to cover replacement passes will be $5.00 The administrative fine will be enforced on vehicles that do not display a current parking pass. The fee will be waived with proof of a current parking pass. Payment of the fine will qualify as payment to obtain a permit. Fee Sec. 62-104 1st Offense $60.00 2nd Offense $80.00 3rd Offense $100.00 After Hours, Weekend & Holiday Release Charge $75.00 Ch. 62, Article I 1st Offense $55.00 2nd Offense $65.00 3rd Offense $75.00 Trace & Catch Animal $35.00 Per Hour Trailer Charge $55.00 Actual Cost $200.00 + $60.00 each additional day; actual costs up to $1,500 Sec. 38-801 thru 38-803 Sec. 70-99 Sale and/or Storage of Consumer Fireworks $100.00 Ch. 70, Article III Pest Control (limited use)$25.00 Game Animals (limited use)$25.00 Annual (Club Only)$25.00 $20.00 Sec. 70-71 FIREARMS DISCHARGE PERMIT LIMITED TRAPPING PERMIT Exhibit F Police Administration DOGS AT LARGE - RELEASE FEE CARE OF IMPOUNDED ANIMAL LARGE ASSEMBLY LICENSE (over 300 people) FIREWORKS PERMIT ANIMALS AT LARGE (Other than dogs) - RELEASE FEE + 0.31/Mile (Total Distance) Fee $100.00 Ch. 66, Article VI Special Events involving fireworks $250.00 Ch. 42, Article III 1st false alarm/per calendar year No Charge 2nd false alarm/per calendar year $100.00 3rd false alarm/per calendar year $200.00 4th false alarm/per calendar year $300.00 5th and over false alarm/per calendar year $400.00 Ch. 42, Article III 1st false alarm/calendar year No Charge 2nd false alarm/calendar year $100.00 3rd false alarm/calendar year $250.00 4th false alarm/calendar year $350.00 5th & over false alarm/calendar year $500.00 Each Call $50.00 Per Application Officer 119 Rate $140.00 Per Hour Police Reserve Officers $30.00 Per Hour First Two Copies $0.25 Per Page Additional Copies $0.25 Each More than 100 pages (actual costs) SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT POLICE SPECIAL SERVICES (3 Hours Minimum) FINGERPRINTING SERVICE FALSE FIRE ALARM USER FEES FALSE POLICE ALARM USER FEES COPY SERVICE - Police Records NON-RESIDENTS ONLY (Residents No Charge) Fee PHOTOS $10.00 On CD VIDEO Booking Room Video $20.00 Squad Videos $20.00 Body Worn Cameras $50.00 AUDIO BTA Audio $10.00 Paper signs (no lath included)$1.00 STATEMENTS $10.00 $50.00 For CD & (transcribed copy or CD when available; subject to Data Privacy Act - will be charged an actual hourly fee) Per Gun (Police Policy 3056)FIREARM STORAGE FEES SIGNS: "NO PARKING ORDER OF POLICE" Fee Municipal Code Book - Portions Ch 78 only (Zoning Code) w/revisions Ch 82 only (Subdiv. Code) w/revisions Other Individual Chapters Binder $5.00 Building & Planning Publications Listing Information $10.00 Assessment Search - Written (Verbal searches not given) Fax Charge Copy Service 8 1/2" x 11" (for public City records only)$0.25 11" x 17" copies $1.00 Individual copies of Ordinance Sections (1 copy)No Charge Reprint of Oversized Documents that have been microfilmed Building Plan Copies Labels from Utility Billing System Electronic Labels Information Provided on CD or USB Drive Information Provided on DVD Shipping/ Handling mailing of requested information Professional Time Clerical Time Building/Legal/Engineering Consultants Mileage/Copies/Postage/Etc. Returned Check Charge $30.00 Ex G Documents and Services Cost of copying service, ZONING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS As Posted - Prices subject to Change $25.00 loose $15.00 loose $ .25 Per Page GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DOCUMENTS $20.00 Per Parcel No charge up to 6 pages; $.25 Each Additional page No charge up to 6 pages; $0.25 Each Additional page No charge up to 6 pages; $1.00 Each Additional page Surcharge for Staff Expense in Excess of Regular Fees $ 60.00 Per Hour Cost of Copying, Messenger Service & Min. Clerical Fee of $5.00 (Entire amount to be paid upon request) $ .05 Per Label (Approximately $150.00) $10.00 Per sheet , 30 Labels max per sheet $ 40.00 Per Hour Actual Billed Cost Actual Cost $ 10.00 Per CD/USB $ 20.00 Per DVD $ 3.00 + cost of information (DVD, pages, etc.) AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. To close Fund 322 – 2016 Refunding Bonds Series 2016A and transfer the residual balance as of 12/31/2022. 2. Background. The final payment on the 2016 Refunding Bonds was made on 02/01/2023. By State Statute municipalities are required to levy 105% of debt service requirement. This requirement is meant to ensure that debt service funds will be available in the event the total levy is not collected. Because of Orono’s high rate of levy collections, this results in a residual cash balance once the bonds are paid in full. The cash balance of Fund 322 as of 12/31/2022 is $582,223.05. The residual funds are routinely transferred to other debt service funds. The debt service fund for the Series 2010 bonds currently has a cash balance of ($235,266.96). The negative balance occurred when the bonds were retired early and the levy for the bonds was ended a year early. By retiring the bonds early, the city saved $115,000 in interest. By transferring a portion of the residual balance to the 2010 debt service fund the negative balance will be cleared. The balance of the funds can be transferred to the 2021 bond debt service fund. 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution closing fund 322 and transferring the residual balance to the 2010 Refunding Bond Fund (310) and the 2021 Bond Fund (323). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the attached resolution closing Fund 322 and distributing the residual balance to the 2010 Refunding Bond Fund and the 2021 Bond Fund. Exhibits A. Resolution Item No.: 5 Date: March 9, 2023 Item Description: Close Fund 322 – 2016 Refunding Bonds – Resolution Presenter: Ron Olson Finance Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7346 A RESOLUTION TO CLOSE THE 2016 GENERAL OBLIGATION REFUNDING BOND FUND WHEREAS, the 2016 GO Improvement Bond Fund was established to service the debt on the 2016 GO Refunding Bonds; and WHEREAS, the 2016 GO Improvement Bonds have been paid in full and has a residual balance that is available to be used to fund other City debt service needs; and WHEREAS, the 2010 Debt Service Fund requires an additional amount of $235,266.96 and; WHEREAS, the 2021 Debt Service Fund has been created to serve the 2021 GO Capital Improvement Bonds; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2016 GO Improvement Bond Fund debt service fund be closed and that $235,266.96 of the residual equity be transfer to the 2010 Debt Service Fund with the balance being transferred to the 2021 Debt Service Fund. ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, ____, by the City Council of the City of Orono. CITY OF ORONO By: _______________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: CF Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval for the disposal of a firearm. 2. Background / Summary. The police department has acquired two firearms that were given to the police department for department use and is seeking approval to use/sell the firearm. An addition firearm was acquired through a court action. The firearms will be sold to a reputable firearms dealer and if there is no value to the firearm, the firearm will be destroyed by Public Works. 3. Main Paragraph. Firearm to be used/sold/destroyed. Glock Model 19 9mm S#NSV255 (Department use) Browning Buck Mark .22 S#615ZZ21586(sale/disposal) H & K .40 S#22070348(sale/disposal) Court Action 4. Staff Recommendation. I recommend the department use of the Glock and sale/disposal of the remaining firearms. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the department use of one firearm and sale/disposal of the other firearms. Item No.: 6 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Approval to Dispose of a Firearm Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Lemons Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The Park Commission has requested changing several meeting dates on the 2022 meeting calendar. The change in the April meeting is not a change of date, rather a change of the meeting type. April 3, 2023 was originally scheduled as a Work Session. The changes are noted below: 2. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends updating the changes to the 2023 Official Meetings Calendar. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve changes to the 2023 Official Meeting Calendar. Exhibit A. 2023 Official Meetings Calendar Revision 1-Draft. Item No.: 7 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: 2023 Official Meetings Calendar Update Presenter: Joshua Lemons, Parks and Golf Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Current Meeting Date Proposed Date Change Proposed Meeting Type Monday, April 3, 2023 Monday, April 3, 2023 Regular Meeting Tuesday, September 5, 2023 Wednesday, September 6, 2023 Work Session Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 31 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 10 *11 12 13 14 15 16 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30 24/31 25 26 27 28 29 30 * H October November December July August September January February March April May June Park Commission Work Session at 6:00 p.m. Council Meeting at 6:00 p.m.Council Work Session at 5:00 p.m. 2023 Official Calendar Council Meeting w/ Truth in Taxation at 6:00 p.m. Park Commission Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Meeting at 6:00 p.m. Planning Commission Work Sessions Scheduled and Posted as Needed 5:30 p.m. Official Holidays CITY OF ORONO 2023 OFFICIAL MEETINGS CALENDAR AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Lemons Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this agenda item is to gain approval of seasonal employee hiring. 2. Background. The city hires seasonal employees to accomplish a variety of tasks. The hourly pay is proposed to be $14.00-$15.00 for the Golf Course Clubhouse Attendants, Brush Site Attendants, and Sledding Attendants; $14.00-$18.00 for Parks and Golf Course Maintenance Employees, $14.00-$18.00 for Public Works Maintenance Workers, and $14.00 for Administrative Scan Clerk. Seasonal employees fall under the 6-month PERA Classification and are therefore excluded from PERA membership. 3. Seasonal Employee Appointments and Candidates. Name Position Wage (Per hour) Remarks Requesting Approval Jacob Goman Park Maintenance $16.50 Returnee Cal Schmidt GC Maintenance $16.00 Returnee Craig Smith GC Maintenance $16.00 New Hire Roger Adams GC Maintenance $14.00 New Hire Max Dailey Clubhouse Attendant $14.50 Returnee Barry Blievernicht Clubhouse Attendant $15.00 Returnee Wendy Middendorf Clubhouse Attendant $15.00 Returnee Paul Tolzmann Clubhouse Attendant $15.00 Returnee 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval to hire of the seasonal employees in Table 3. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve hiring the seasonal employees as listed in the table above. Item No.: 8 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Appointment of 2023 Seasonal Employees V1 Presenter: Joshua Lemons Parks and Golf Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Lemons Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to purchase park equipment. 2. Background. The Parks Department will be implementing its own pesticide management program for the parks and golf course in 2023. All pesticide services have been contracted in the past. Staff looked into building a sprayer but ultimately it was cheaper and more efficient to go with a company that specializes in custom building sprayers. The sprayer is built on a steel plate that is meant to be used in the back of UTV’s and trucks. Having a sprayer that can be used in multiple pieces of equipment will allow for many opportunities of use for the Parks Department. The City Council approved of staff implementing the pesticide program for the parks and golf course. 3. Cost. The City Council approved the budget for the pesticide program but the sprayer was not included in the estimate. The cost of the sprayer will be able to be covered in the parks and golf operational budget. Vendor/ Company Description Cost Parallel Ag FS Manufacturing Sprayer $4349.00 Parallel Ag 20’ Boom $836.00 Total $5185.00 4. Funding. This purchase was not budgeted for in the 2023 CIP. The purchase will be funded through the Parks/Golf operational budget. 5. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the purchase of the FS Manufacturing Sprayer and Boom. The sprayer is an integral component of the 2023 pesticide program and is needed to improve conditions in Parks, Facilities, and the Golf Course. The purchase will allow for staff to provide a beneficial and sustainable pesticide program for the City of Orono. The pesticide program will provide savings through eliminating contract services while allowing for a higher quality product provided through a staff-controlled program. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the purchase of the FS Manufacturing Sprayer and Boom from Parallel Ag for $5185. Item No.: 9 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Authorization to Purchase Park Equipment Presenter: Joshua Lemons Parks and Golf Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: J. Lemons Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this item is to gain Council Approval to accept the proposal for lawn mowing services for 2023-2025. 2. Background. The latest three-year mowing contract ended in 2022. Parks Department staff solicited quotes for 2023-2025 annual lawn mowing services and proposals were received from 4 contractors. 3. Project Scope. The scope of work includes the mowing of selected parks and city property (see exhibit A) from April through November. The agreement for park mowing services is for 3 years, providing the company is continuing to provide high quality work. 4. Cost. The table below is a summary of the three proposals received. Firm One (1) Year Agreement Two (2) Year Agreement Three (3) Year Agreement Three (3) Year Total Shaughnessy Lawn Care $29,000 $30,000 $31,000 $90,000 JK Enterprises LLC $34,292.50 $37,294.50 $40,294.50 $111,881.50 Andersun Lawn Service $52,106 $54,106 $54,106 $106,318 KP Miller Construction LLC $96,500 $98,500 $98,500 $293,500 5. Funding. Mowing is funded through the Park Operation and Maintenance budget and the Central Services budget. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends acceptance of the quotation of $90,000 received from Shaughnessy Lawn Care. Shaughnessy Lawn Care was awarded the 2020-2022 mowing contract and is familiar with the service needs of the parks in Orono. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to accept the proposal from Shaughnessy Lawn Care for park mowing services for the 2023-2025 seasons in the amount of $90,000. Exhibit A. Map of Lawn Maintenance Areas Item No.: 10 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Parks Mowing Services Presenter: Joshua Lemons Parks and Golf Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda A. Lawn Maintenance Areas AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LLO Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The property owner is requesting an encroachment agreement to address an existing building located in a right-of-way. 2. Background/ Summary. The property owner has an existing building that bisects the property line. A portion of the existing structure is located in a right-of-way. The owner stated their intent is to obtain building permits for maintenance of the building (re-siding, reroofing, etc.). Because the building is not located fully within the subject property, the City cannot issue building permits for maintenance. No plans or permit applications have been submitted to the city at this time. 3. Analysis. Granting the encroachment agreement will allow the proper permits to be issued for the existing structure. The City Engineer has reviewed the request and noted the current right-of-way is being used for utility infrastructure. The current right-of-way has storm sewer and sanitary sewer infrastructure throughout. The current building does not appear to be in conflict with the existing utility infrastructure. The following is a summary of the conditions listed in the proposed Encroachment Agreement for the Council to consider: • Plans for maintenance of the building must be approved by the City, prior to beginning the work. • The maintenance of the building will not exceed the current 253 square feet of encroachment in the Easement Areas. • The building and other existing improvements located on the Subject Property must not impact or increase water drainage on the abutting properties or cause any adverse drainage patterns or erosion to the abutting properties. • Owners are fully responsible and liable for any and all damage caused to the building or other existing improvements, or damage resulting from the modification or maintenance of the building within the Easement Areas. • Owners will be responsible for the building and other improvements. • The City shall have no responsibility to maintain or repair the building and other existing improvements located on the Subject Property or encroaching into the Easement Areas. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to adopt Encroachment Agreement attached as Exhibit A. Exhibits A. Proposed Encroachment Agreement B. Existing Survey Item No.: 11 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: 4075 Highwood Road, Rick Schideman, Encroachment Agreement Presenter: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda 225073v1 (reserved for recording information) ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made this _______ day of _____________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF ORONO, a Minnesota municipal corporation (“City”), and FREDERICK J. SHIDEMAN and JACQUELINE H. SHIDEMAN, married to each other (“Shidemans” or “Owners”). 1. BACKGROUND. Shidemans are the fee owners of certain real property located in the City of Orono, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as follows: Parcel ID No. 07-117-23-44-0009 Lot 11, “Highwood Lake Minnetonka” (COT 1461848) having a street address of 4075 Highwood Road, Orono Minnesota (“Subject Property”). The City owns easements for right-of-way/alley over portions of the Subject Property (“Easement Areas”). Shidemans desire to maintain an existing boathouse with attached deck (collectively "Improvements") located on the Subject Property and which encroach on the City’s Easement Areas as depicted on the attached Exhibit “A”. 225073v1 2. ENCROACHMENT AUTHORIZATION. The City hereby approves the encroachment in its Easement Areas on the Subject Property for the Improvements subject to the conditions set forth in this Agreement. Further conditions of encroachment approval are as follows: • Plans for modification or maintenance of the Improvements must be approved by the City, prior to beginning the work. • The maintenance of the Improvements will not exceed the current 253 sq. ft. of encroachment in the Easement Areas. • The Improvements located on the Subject Property must not impact or increase water drainage on the abutting properties or cause any adverse drainage patterns or erosion to the abutting properties. • Owners are fully responsible and liable for any and all damage caused to the Improvements, or resulting from the modification or maintenance of the Improvements within the Easement Areas. • Owners will be responsible for the Improvements. • The City shall have no responsibility to maintain or repair the Improvements located on the Subject Property or encroaching into the Easement Areas. Further, Owners agree that the Improvements shall be maintained consistent with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations. 3. HOLD HARMLESS AND INDEMNITY. In consideration of being allowed to encroach in the Easement Areas, Owners, for themselves, their successors, heirs and assigns, hereby agree to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any damage caused to the Subject Property, including the Improvements located in the Easement Areas, caused in whole or in part by the encroachment into the Easement Areas. 4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT. The City may, at its sole discretion, terminate this Agreement at any time if it is reasonably necessary for the City to occupy the Easement Areas by giving the then owner of the Subject Property thirty (30) days advance written notice, except that no notice period will be required in the case of an emergency condition as determined solely by the City and this Agreement may then be terminated 225073v1 immediately. The property owner shall remove that portion of the Improvements to the extent it impacts the Easement Areas to the effective date of the termination of this Agreement. If the owner fails to do so, the City may remove the Improvements to the extent it impacts the Easement Areas and charge the cost of removal back to the owner for reimbursement. 5. RECORDING. This Agreement shall run with the land and shall be recorded against the title to the Subject Property. [Remainder of page intentionally left blank. Signature pages follow.] 225073v1 CITY OF ORONO By ___________________________________ (SEAL) Dennis Walsh, Mayor And __________________________________ Adam T. Edwards, City Administrator STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _______ day of __________________, 2023, by Dennis Walsh and by Adam T. Edwards, respectively the Mayor and City Administrator of the City of Orono, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to the authority granted by its City Council. ____________________________________ Notary Public 225073v1 PROPERTY OWNERS: Frederick J. Shideman Jacqueline H. Shideman STATE OF MINNESOTA ) )ss. COUNTY OF ____________ ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this ______ day of _________________, 2023, by Frederick J. Shideman and Jacqueline H. Shideman, married to each other. ____________________________________ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, Professional Association Grand Oak Office Center I 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 SMM 225073v1 EXHIBIT "A" AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the action item is to forecast future work session agendas. 2. Background / Summary. The Official Meetings Calendar Adopted by the Council establishes a work session meeting at 5 PM on the same days as regular council meetings which begin at 6 PM. 3. Next Work Session. The work session is reserved for interviews of candidates for the Planning Commission. 4. Work Session Items. The table below depicts topics for works sessions. Those shaded have already occurred. Those in the future are predicted topics based on past years. Date Subject Date Subject 9 Jan 23 -THC License discussion - Navarre Parking Lot Funding 10 Jul 23 23 Jan 23 None-Mtg Cancelled 24 Jul 23 - General Fund Budget Update 13 Feb 23 - Brush and Leaf Disposal - City Council -Staff Procedures 14 Aug 23 27 Feb 23 - City Council -Staff Procedures - Park Commissioner interviews-if needed 28 Aug 23 13 Mar 23 -No items -Cancelled 11 Sep 23 - Enterprise Budgets Update 21 Mar 23 - Planning Commissioner interviews-if needed 25 Sep 23 10 Apr 23 - 2024 Street Maintenance 9 Oct 23 - CIP Update 24 Apr 23 23 Oct 23 8 May 23 13 Nov 23 22 May 23 - Draft Fire Needs Study Report 27 Nov 23 - Fee Schedule Update 12 Jun 23 - THC Legislation Update 11 Dec 23 26 Jun 23 - Preliminary Budget Guidance 5. Staff Recommendation. As there no potential planning commissioners available to interview o nthe 21st, staff recommends cancelling the work session. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to cancel the March 21st City Council Work Session. Item No.: Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Next Work Session Draft Agenda Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to rejection of all bids received for the 2023 Sewer Rehabilitation (23-014) and authorization to rebid at a reduced scope. 2. Background. The city of Orono solicited and received Bids for the 2023 Sewer rehabilitation project. Bids were opened on February 22, 2023. Four bids were received. The lowest bid was for $334,810. The CIP budget amount for the project is $250,000 including administrative costs. The administrative costs (design and construction oversight) are planned at $40,000 leaving $210,000 for construction. The cost per foot of 8” pipe lining has increased ~$10 since last year. The only way to bring the project into budget is to reduce the scope of work. 3. Scope. The originally planned scope of the work project includes the lining of 6400 feet of sewer main. The revised scope of work would include 4330 feet of sewer main 4. Funding. The project is funded from the Sanitary Sewer Fund. The CIP allocated $250,000 for the project. The projected 2023 year-end balance is $1,176,080. 5. Staff Recommendation. I recommend council reject all bids and direct staff to resolicit bids at a reduced scope. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to reject all bids and direct staff to resolicit bids at a reduced scope of work. Exhibits A. Bid Tabulation Item No.: 13 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: 2023 Sewer Rehabilitation (23-014)- Rejection of All Bids Received and Authorization to Rebid at a Reduced Scope. Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent Exhibit A. Bid Tab CONTRACTOR TOTAL AMOUNT BID Hydro-Klean $ 337,281.69 Insituform Technologies $ 334,810.60 S.J. Louis Companies $373,030.00 Visu-Sewer $ 351,847.50 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Item is to summarize the Closed session held on February 27th to review City Administrator Adam Edwards’ performance in 2022. 2. Background. Pursuant to the State’s Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. Section 13D.05, Subd. 3(a), the City Council conducted a closed meeting for approximately 30 minutes as part of its February 27th Regular Council Meeting to evaluate the performance of City Administrator Adam Edwards. 3. Summary. The Mayor and Councilmembers Seals, Johnson and Benson, Administrator Adam Edwards and City Attorney Soren Mattick attended the closed session. At the meeting, the Council received a brief summary report regarding the administrator’s achievement in 2022 and that the conclusion of that evaluation found that Administrator Edwards was meeting or exceeding expectations of all the Councilmembers in all evaluated categories (Professionalism, Knowledge, Performance, Communication & Customer Service, Leadership and Management). Each of the Councilmembers indicated that they shared the conclusions of that review, and no deficiencies or problem areas were identified as needing improvement in any area. Administrator Edwards provided Council with a summary of his personal performance goals. He also discussed future performance and career goals and his personal work plan for 2023 and beyond, which will focus on continuing to Lead the Staff, Support the City Council, Coordinate with other Agencies and Perform the Duties of City Engineer. Based on the Administrator’s performance the Council approved the next pay step increase to take effect on the anniversary for employment as City Administrator. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve this summary of the performance evaluation, approve the step increase to compensation of Administrator Edwards. Item No.: 14 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: City Administrator Evaluation Summary Report Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/ City Engineer Agenda Section: Consent AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: NAN Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: Item No.: 15 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: #LA23-000001, Lecy Bros Home & Remodeling, 2617 Casco Point Road - Hardcover Variance Presenter: Natalie Nye Planner Agenda Section: Community Development 1. Purpose. This application is requesting a hardcover variance for the construction of a new deck. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on January 6, 2023 and considered to be complete on January 13, 2023. The original 60-Day review period expires on March 14, 2023. A 60- day extension was administratively granted and therefore the application expires on May 13, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the lakeside of the home. The lot as it exists today is over on hardcover at 28.4% when a maximum of 25% is allowed per the Stormwater Overlay District. The proposal includes a 288 square foot new deck. The applicant is also proposing to remove a stone walkway in the side yard and a portion of an existing patio on the lakeside of the home. Through the removal of existing hardcover and the 100 square foot hardcover credit for the new deck, the property will reduce overall hardcover to 27.9%. The proposed deck meets all required setbacks including the 75-foot lakeshore setback and the average lakeshore setback. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 21, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, no public comments were made. The Commission reviewed the application and concluded that the existing hardcover is not the result of the current homeowner and the request of a main level deck is reasonable and will not impact the character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission found practical difficulties validating the requested variance and voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance as applied. 5. Public Comment. Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Forms are included in the Planning Commission packet (Exhibit F), no other public comments were received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial. Staff finds the request is out of convenience and not necessary for full enjoyment of the property. The property currently has a patio within the 75- foot lake yard, an at grade patio abutting the home and a 3rd story rooftop deck to use to enjoy the lake. Staff has directed the applicant to remove the necessary hardcover to meet the 25% hardcover limit which would eliminate the need for a variance. Staff believes there are practical ways to bring the lot into conformance with the required hardcover regulations. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to draft a denial resolution. Exhibits A. Proposed Plans B. Draft PC Minutes 2/21/2023 C. PC Staff Report 2/21/2023 References PC Exhibits 2/21/2023 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Survey D. Plans E. Hardcover Information F. Neighbor Acknowledgment Form G. Property Owners List and Map PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 19 Erickson noted the mistake didn't get caught in the frame inspection. Ideally would have been caught during framing. And so it's after-the-fact after everything's all done, we come up and say, well, it needs to seven inches to the left. I guess knowing that and understanding there's a survey error is that enough practical difficulty to let us to allow this this variance to go through? As the applicant pointed out if the application would have been for 17.3 instead of 19 when we approved it, hindsight is 20/20. But it's not that big of a distance. I was originally pretty harsh on this one, but as I think about it a little bit more, is there some wiggle room here that we can understand this? Bollis said it's not like they applied with the stairs in a different configuration. This happened. It wasn't their fault it ended up being like this. It's not like they had a different configuration and decided to change it. It wasn't intentionally done. I guess I would be in favor of leaving them. I don't see that it's harming anyone. But I do agree with Mr. Libby. Libby stated again the variance would need to be a material fact disclosed and fully transparent. I don't favor remediation. Erickson stated his belief that if it had been proposed that way the first time around it would have been approved. Bollis said he would move to approve LA 22-70 as applied. Libby asked again that the non-conforming aspects of the stairway be fully disclosed in perpetuity, because they'll never be corrected. Nye said if the variance were to be approved, the resolution noting this action would be recorded against the property. It would be able to be found and noted for any title or historical purposes associated with the property. Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA22-000070, 4085 Watertown Road after-the-fact Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 3. LA23-000001 LECY BROS. HOMES & REMODELING - BRENDA KOEHNEN, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating at 2617 Casco Point Road, the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the west side of the home, serving the first floor and overlooking the lake. The lot as it exists today is over on hardcover. This lot is tier one, which limits its hardcover to 25 percent of the lot. Currently, the lot is at 28.4 percent. The proposal is to construct a 288 square foot deck partially over an existing patio. The proposal also includes the removal of a portion of the patio and the removal of a flagstone walk. Through the removal of 104 square feet of hardcover and taking advantage of the City's 100 square foot hardcover credit for the new deck, the site will go from 28.4 percent hardcover, to 27.9. The hardcover credit offered by the City is a maximum of 100 square feet and can be applied to permeable pavers, decks and other improvements where water can seep through. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks. The applicant is requesting the hardcover variance because MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 16 of 19 the proposal will still be over that 25 percent hardcover limitation. Although the deck meets all the required setbacks, and the overall hardcover on the site will be reduced, staff is recommending denial based on practical difficulties not being met. The request for the additional deck is more out of convenience and not necessary for the use of the property. The property currently has a lakeside patio and an at-grade patio next to the home as well as a rooftop terrace or second story deck. The property currently has a non-conforming boathouse and lakeside patio that are within the 75-foot setback. If these were removed, the lot would be within five square feet of compliance with hardcover. Staff believes there are practical ways to bring the lot into conformance with the required hardcover regulations. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties and is here today. A Neighbor Acknowledgement Form has been included, but no other public comment has been received. The applicant has reached out to staff and informally discussed possibly the removal of the lakeside patio to further bring this into conformance That would be an additional reduction of 76 square feet, but I'm not sure if that's going to be proposed tonight or not. McCutcheon asked if removing the lakeside patio would bring the site to 25 percent hardcover. Nye said it would bring them to 27.4 versus 27.9, so it just slightly reduces it. Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers Homes Remodeling, 3250 County Road 10 N, Watertown, MN, explained. the buyers of the property just purchase it in the last few months and his company is remodeling the home including a main level bedroom and a deck. He said they were aware of the set-back regulations but not the hardcover calculations. Our initial deck design actually was 18 feet by 19 feet with a deck stairs that we removed when we met with Melanie (Curtis, City Planner), back a few months ago. So the deck that we're seeing right now, as Natalie (Nye, City Planner) mentioned, we are removing the patio that's out in front of it. We're also moving the flagstone steps. We'd love to keep the patio along the lake. Natalie mentioned in our staff report (the possibility of removing the lake patio). I discussed it with my clients. They're open to the idea of it. But that's the big thing that we're looking at as you know. The dwellings on both the north and south side and the lakeside setback, all was great. I thought when we removed hardcover, I didn't realize we needed a variance. Natalie informed us of that, so that's why we're here. And that's also why we reduced that deck four feet along with a four-foot stair that would go down to be parallel with the lake. Currently the property does not have a deck on the lake side, and I would say most of the homes along there would have a deck on the lake side. We are going to choose to leave some steps that are going to be left, instead of putting steps on the deck, which we initially wanted to do. Kirchner asked if the footprint of the home changed at all as part of the remodel and if the excess of hardcover that exists today is not a result of your client, it would be from prior homeowner or homeowners? Mr. Johnsrud said the footprint of the house would not change and the excess hardcover did go back to a previous owner. McCutcheon asked if the applicant had looked at all the design possibilities to get to 25 percent hardcover like tearing down the boathouse or making the deck smaller. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 17 of 19 Mr. Johnsrud said there's a patio below that existing deck right now. We reduced the deck already by four feet, along with removing the staircase. And right now, it's just a matter of the existing structures that were there. He said they had had conversations about the driveway and a walkway to the front door. There's a set of little wood steps there. So there's not a lot to remove. The only thing that we mentioned when Natalie brought it up in our staff report was that lakeside patio. We can remove that 76 square feet. The existing home is 28.4, I believe. And we're bringing it down to 27.9. With the calculations we're doing, that lakeside patio would bring it down to 27.4. Bollis noted the deck off the second floor which the applicant said was at a bedroom. In, in your practical difficulty analysis, I think one of the reasons you mentioned is the poor interior layout from a 1920s built house, and there's no main level deck. Now this solves that issue. Libby asked if a main floor bay window would be removed to add the new deck. Applicant, right, the bay windows coming out and the door’s getting put in there? The portico or entrance is existing. Only the deck is being added. Libby said, but I'm just looking for hard surface. Mr. Johnsrud said we did, too. And we've removed everything that we can remove. And like I said, we already reduced the size of the deck. McCutcheon asked if they can make smaller deck. I don't know if the math works out. But is there a dimension to hit the 25 percent hardcover and have a usable deck in your opinion? Mr. Johnsrud said no, because they removed 152 square feet of the deck, and we're adding a deck that is netting 188 square feet (by removing the patio below the deck), so it's not okay. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Patti Kubalak, 2623 Casco Point Rd. said she is right next door. I think it's a great idea. You're just trading one for another, and it'll just make the house even better. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Kirchner said he believes the applicant has established practical difficulties in two regards -- that the existing hardcover overage is not a result of the current homeowner and the remodel project. It was from prior homeowners. And there's no main level deck, I guess maybe that's not a practical difficulty, but I can understand where they're coming from on a lakeside of the home. I don't think it's egregious. We've been here before; we've talked about improving the position. We're going down from 28 percent (hardcover). And so based on all those factors, I think practical difficulty has been established. We're improving our position, and I'd be in favor of supporting this. McCutcheon said he would tend to agree with Kirschner. You're right. We do see this a lot. And I think it is an improvement on the hardcover. And as already mentioned, the homeowner already did reduce the deck size, we do appreciate that, to make the hardcover formula better. You could probably save a few MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 18 of 19 feet here, but it still doesn't get that magic number. It's a trade-off on the patio below it. We're putting a little bigger structure above it. He said he thinks it would look better and the neighbors would appreciate it. We’ve already got one neighbor confirming that. So I'd be in favor of approving this one. He added it wasn’t part of the application but should the commission add removing the lakeside patio? Kirchner said I personally wouldn't. I'd take the application as approved. We're still bettering our position. Bollis said I would point out too, that we're actually not just bettering in hardcover, but we're bettering in distance from the lake. The patio does extend farther than this proposed deck would. So it checks the boxes, I think. Erickson said if they took that lakeshore patio out then that would help as far as the hardcover percentage. It would still require a variance but a smaller area. McCutcheon said it is almost even steven. I wouldn't want to take anything away from them, just give them the deck the way it's applied. That's my opinion. Erickson clarified if the patio is existing and not proposing an additional patio. It does reduce the hard cover. They're going in the right direction. Libby asked if there was access from the house to the lower patio. He noted it looks like a slider. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA23-000001, 2617 Casco Point Rd. Hardcover Variance for a deck as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. OTHER BUSINESS – Update on FEBRUARY 13, 2023 City Council Meeting Community Development Director Oakden updated the Commissioners noting the City Council reviewed several planning requests at the Feb. 13, 2023 City council meeting that had first come before the planning commission. They included the variances to move a lot line over on Briar and Arbor Street, variances approval for 3365 Crystal Bay Road that was changing the awning to the deck or on Crystal Bay Road. And then the spiral staircase on 1270 Wildhurst. Council also moved forward with 3600 Ivy Place and requiring them to remove those hardcover improvements within the 75-foot setback. That was the larger driveway and some patio spaces that were after-the-fact permits. Additionally, Council decided to give direction to give an approval for 2967 Casco Point that was the ADU variance. So that was the first time we've seen variances for that brand new ordinance. And then they gave some direction on those Carman Street sketch plans. On one they gave direction to not support the center one that was 2474 that had the non-conforming lot area and non-conforming lot width and then they went back and forth with some new potential designs on 2804 Carman Street. With that, you have been managing a lot of projects. and the council has been working through them as we process all of that. The other thing to note is March is our meeting that we reappointed chair and commissioners. New alternates might come on, that type of thing. So I'm currently working through that administrative process of new appointees potentially and stuff. So you might get an email from me asking about your inputs. She said Scot Kirchner has indicted interest in extending, Gary Kramer may be interested in moving up from alternate and Matt Gettman no longer plans to be on the commission. Date Application Received: 1/6/2023 Date Application Considered as Complete: 1/13/2023 60-Day Review Period Expires: 3/14/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye, Planner Date: February 21, 2023 Subject: LA23-000001, Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling – Brenda Koehnen, 2617 Casco Point Road, Variance, Public Hearing Background The applicant, who is an agent on behalf of the property owner, proposes to construct a new deck on the west side of the house. The property is currently over on hardcover with a total of 28.4% hardcover where 25% is permitted per the Stormwater Overlay District. The proposal includes an approximately 288 square foot deck serving the main floor of the house and overlooking the lake. The proposal also includes the removal of a flagstone walkway and a portion of an existing patio. With the removal of hardcover and utilizing the 100 square foot excludable hardcover deck allowance, the property is proposed to have the total hardcover reduced to 27.9%. With the total hardcover proposed to be over the limitation of 25%, a variance is required. The proposed deck is approximately 95’ from the O.H.W.L meeting all required setbacks including the 75’ lakeshore setback and the average lakeshore setback. The property currently has a boat house, lake yard patio, second story roof top deck/terrace and at grade patio abutting the home which allow for lakeview and full use of the property. The request for an additional lakeside deck seems to be out of convenience and not necessary for the use of the property. Staff recommends denial based on practical difficulties not being met. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot and existing hardcover conditions over 25% of the lot as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance. The new deck will meet all required setbacks and the overall hardcover will be reduced by approximately 104 square feet through the removal of flagstone steps and a portion of the existing patio. The new deck will also receive the 100 square foot hardcover credit bringing the total percentage of hardcover on the lot from 28.4% to 27.9%. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B and detailed hardcover information as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance for the construction of a deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance as applied. LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds that there is a practical difficulty in the existing conditions of the lot. However, staff believes that it is possible to reach compliance through the removal of additional hardcover. There is an existing boathouse and lakeside patio that is nonconforming to current zoning regulations that are proposed to remain. If removed, the property will be within 5 square feet of compliance (25% hardcover). Additionally, the proposed deck is approximately 288 square feet and the existing patio is 194 square feet. A reduction in the size of the proposed deck could also bring the lot closer to conformance. While the proposed deck meets all required setbacks and the project is reducing hardcover, there are practical ways to bring the entire lot into conformance with current standards and therefore staff is recommending denial of the request as applied. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350– Setbacks: DISTRICT LR-1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 30’ 29.9’ No Change Side (North) 7.5’ 2.7’ No Change Side (South) 7.5’ 25’ No Change Lakeshore 75’ 99’ 95’ Average Lakeshore Met Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100’ Actual 16,994.2 (0.39 acre) 64’ @ 75’ / 51’ @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 16,994.2 s.f. 4,248.5 s.f. (25 %) 4,829 s.f. (28.4%) 4,732.9 s.f. (27.9%) Applicable Regulations: Hardcover (Section 78-1680 & 78-1700) The property is substandard in size. The LR-1C District requires a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. The subject property is smaller at 0.39 acres, but still must adhere to the 25% total hardcover limitation. The existing house and improvements on property total 28.4% hardcover. While the proposal reduces hardcover on the site to 27.9%, a variance is required when a property is over the allowed maximum. Additionally, a change in the nature of the hardcover when over the limitation also requires a variance. The nature of the hardcover is changing with the addition of a new deck. 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 LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 3 of 5 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 variance is not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed deck changes the nature of the hardcover on the lot and the total hardcover is over the maximum allowed (25%). There are practical ways to modify the proposed improvements and remove existing surplus hardcover that would bring the lot into conformance with City requirements. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance changes the nature of the hardcover on a site and continues to be over the maximum hardcover allowed per the Stormwater Overlay District. A variance to permit hardcover on a site over the allowed limit of 25% is not 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 the construction of a deck for an existing home on the substandard lot, outside of the required lakeshore setbacks appears to be reasonable. However, the property is currently over the hardcover maximum and has two at grade patios on the property and a second story rooftop deck/terrace. There is reasonable use of the property as it exists today. A new improvement is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the lot as well as the existing hardcover has not been created by the homeowner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is requested in order to permit construction of a new deck partially above an existing patio. 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 LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 4 of 5 defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a 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 does not have any special conditions other than a substandard lot size and existing nonconforming hardcover. Many properties in the same neighborhood have similar conditions so this does not qualify as a unique situation. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. There are no special conditions that are unique to the property. This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The existing home on the property has two at-grade patios and a second story rooftop deck/terrace. An additional deck is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances would be 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 hardcover variance is not necessary as the property has current outdoor space that can be used. There are practical opportunities to reduce hardcover and bring the lot into conformance and allow for additional requested outdoor space without a variance. The requested variance seems to be a convenience to the applicant. 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. 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 propose any grading changes. Public Comments The applicant has provided the adjacent property owners’ acknowledgment form (Exhibit F). Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessa ry to impose conditions in order to mitigate the LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 5 of 5 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 denial of application for a hardcover variance as requested. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey Exhibit D. Plans Exhibit E. Hardcover Information Exhibit F. Neighbor Acknowledgment Form Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: NAN Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: Item No.: 16 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: #LA22-000070, Stacy Kromenhoek, 4085 Watertown Road After-the-Fact Variance Presenter: Natalie Nye Planner Agenda Section: Community Development 1. Purpose. This application is regarding an after-the-fact variance for a side yard setback for deck stairs. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 14, 2022 and considered to be complete on January 20, 2023. The original 60-Day review period expires on March 31, 2023. A 60-day extension was administratively granted and therefore the application expires on May 21, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. The subject property is a substandard lot in the RR-1A Zoning District. Variances were approved in 2021 for lot size, lot width, front yard setback and side yard setbacks for the construction of a new single-family home. During the construction of the home the deck stairs were constructed 17.3 feet from the northern lot line when a 19-foot side yard setback was approved. Staff brought this to the applicant’s attention at the time of the final as-built review. The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact side yard setback of 17.3 feet to accommodate the constructed deck stairs. 4. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 21, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, no public comments were made. The Commission reviewed the application and concluded that the deck stairs were not intentionally built beyond the setback and that the request was reasonable and did not impact the character of the neighborhood. The Planning Commission found practical difficulties validating the requested variance and voted 5 to 0 on a motion to approve the requested variance as applied. 5. Public Comment. Adjacent Property Owner Acknowledgment Forms were received at the Planning Commission meeting (Exhibit B), no other public comments were received. 6. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends denial. While staff acknowledges the lot has practical difficulties in both size and width, no new practical difficulties have been proved for the reduced side yard setback. Staff finds the request is out of convenience rather than practical difficulty. Staff has directed the applicant to adjust or move to the deck stairs to comply with the approved 19-foot setback. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to direct staff to draft a denial resolution. Exhibits A. Proposed Plans B. Adjacent Neighbor Acknowledgement Forms C. Draft PC Minutes 2/21/2023 D. PC Staff Report 2/21/2023 References PC Exhibits 2/21/2023 A. Application B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. As-Built Survey 3/28/22 D. Plans E. 2021 Resolution F. Property Photos G. Property Owners List and Map Variance Application Site Plan 4085 Watertown Road, Orono, MN 55359 1.18.21 Current Proposed Size 22’x36’ 28’x52’ Offset from Road 21’ 37’ Offset from East ~26.5’ to 22’ (due to angle) 22’ Offset from West 35’ to 25’ (due to angle and inset) 32.5’ to 23’ Proposed Site footprint with garage apron (solid) and pervious drive Septic to be determined after design certification Existing house Council Exhibit B MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 19 Bollis clarified his motion to approve the variance as applied with the addition of the suggestion from Kirchner that a licensed civil engineer provide additional feedback specifically to the east to west span of the walls. Erickson asked to add the staff recommendations that it be ensured the wall is not encroaching on the neighbors or is doing so with their permission. Bollis accepted that amendment to the motion. Libby said he would like to see additional scrutiny on completion. Curtis verified the City will inspect it when it's completed. Bollis moved, Kirschner seconded, to approve LA22-000068, 2815 Casco Point Road Variance including staff recommendations, additional engineering review of the width of the wall and final inspection. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 1 (Libby). 2. LA22-000070 STACY KROMENHOEK, 4085 WATERTOWN ROAD, REQUESTS AN AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicant is requesting an-after-the fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck and more specifically deck stairs. In April of 2021 variances were approved for the subject property for the construction of a single-family home. Variances were approved for lot size, lot width, front yard and side yard setbacks. This property is very small and narrow for the RR-1A zoning district. This district requires a minimum of a five-acre lot and 300-foot width. The subject property is less than an acre and only 73 feet in width. The district's 50-foot side yard setback requirements overlap, taking away any compliant building envelope. Based on these practical difficulties variances was granted back in 2021. The building permit for the construction of the home was issued in August of 2021. And construction began after that. As construction drew to a close staff discovered the deck and deck stairs were built 17.3 feet from the northern property line where 19 feet was required. The applicant has chosen to move forward with an after-the-fact variance. They’re here today requesting the variance to keep the deck and deck stairs where they are now to allow a modified side yard setback of 17.3 feet. The applicant has identified the substandard lot size and width as practical difficulties, also noting that the current owner of the property was not responsible for this and would like to keep the stairs in place. Moving the stairs to the rear of the deck instead would impact the view and sunlight entering the home. Staff agrees the lot is substandard in size and width and doesn't have a compliant building envelope. These practical difficulties led to the approval of a variance in 2021. Staff does not believe there are any new practical difficulties that will lead to a modified setback today. The construction error that resulted in the deck stairs being constructed 1.7 feet beyond the side yard setback does not constitute a practical difficulty. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The applicant is here tonight and has provided supporting documentation and can be asked for additional testimony. No public comment has been received. Commissioners asked where the steps were supposed to have been. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 13 of 19 The applicant, Stacy Kromenhoek said she submitted the original permit for the home. I'm not the homeowner nor am I the home builder. However, I'm here to kind of make things right for the current homeowner, Mr. Bard, who's here. Originally, they (the steps) were supposed to stick out from the side of the house. There's two root causes for the 1.7 foot issue. Of the 20 inches, 12 inches of it is attributed to the surveyor misreading the building prints that called for three-foot stairs instead of four-foot stairs. So that's 12 inches. And then eight inches because the general contractor mis-dug the footings. So they are exactly where they were going to be. But they should have been shifted approximately eight inches. And then the 12 inches comes from him misreading the prints. I'm here to help make things right for Mr. Bard. So I agreed that I would submit the application and I would do what I needed to do to make it right. The general contractor is not available to make anything right. He actually has lost his license and there's a warrant out for his arrest. I have a lawsuit pending where he took approximately $400,000. I have also filed a complaint with the City of Orono Police to ask them to file criminal charges. So he's not coming back to fix this. Any fix I probably will just do it to do the right thing. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. McCutcheon said this one's pretty cut and dry. Looks like a contractor screwed up. We had 19 feet and looks like they're encroaching one foot seven inches. The question is, where do we go from here? Is this an acceptable variance? Not to be cold, but it's a situation that we can improve. But it's not the most cost- effective solution. If you could just narrow the deck or move and make the stairs skinnier, to abide by the 19-foot setback that we did approve -- it is kind of harsh, but that's where I'm standing with it. But I'd like to hear the feedback of the commission. Kirchner said he would agree with McCutcheon’s remarks. You know, it sounds like we had a surveyor error of 12 inches. And then as well as the width of the staircase was also messed up and footings were in the wrong spot. I think looking at this one, if it were here in front of us as an application for a variance, I think I would be questioning do we need a four-foot stairwell? Or can we go to three-foot and not take as much and so I would be in favor of denial. Bollis said he feels like there are a couple reasons for this. And I think the piece I could get behind would be the surveyor misreading that and putting the stuff in the wrong spot. That's not the homeowner’s fault. It doesn't really change what's there very much as far as the look and feel of the property. But then there's the other, what is it, seven feet that it's off? So I guess in my mind, I'd be okay with this. If they could modify the stairs to fit they get a 12 inch allowance for the mistake that was made by the surveyor that put it in the wrong spot. So I would say if it's possible to modify it, you get 12 inches of grace, so you'd have like an 18-foot setback there, if that helps to keep that wide enough stairway that you can have adequate access. Ms. Kromenhoek said I know it sounds simple, just move stairs. But you're talking about digging out footings, you're talking about digging up the concrete landing. And this is a homeowner who had no fault in this whatsoever and neighbors who have been putting up with construction for a long time. And they're MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 14 of 19 very pleased with the outcome. I had a great conversation with one of the neighbors this weekend. You're talking about a big burden to the homeowner who is a victim and all of this, and you're talking about more of a burden to the neighbors, more construction. If there was a practical difficulty for ignorance and incompetence, I can point to where that would be, but that's not in there. And so I would ask you look at the harm and the good. Tell me what is the harm? You know, if I would have come to you guys, originally asking for a 17.3 foot setback versus 19, I made a pretty good case for the 19 foot setback, I built a beautiful home in a 70-foot wide space, so I think you probably would have approved that too. And so what is the harm of 20 inches, especially when the culprits aren't going to be the people that pay the price for this? So the harm versus the good. The good is if you can approve it, the homeowners are happy, the neighbors are happy, you don't have another innocent party bearing the cost of somebody else's mistakes. And the harm if we yank this all out, everybody's going to not feel great about this. What's the benefit of those 20 inches? That's the hard thing for me. So I'm asking for like a super common sense approach to this, because ultimately the choice to deny it is a whole lot of harm, and I can't find the good. McCutcheon asked when the problem was caught? Was it during the framing inspection? Ms. Kromenhoek said the mistake was not noticed at the framing inspection but later. The stairs were always supposed to be in that location, it just would have been 20 inches to the left. And if you turn the stairs and make them go across the back, there's a beautiful window there and a big glass sliding doors (below the deck) that the view is now of stairs. If you try to just move it eight inches or the 20 inches, you're going to be digging up all of those footings, all of the concrete landings, you're going to have to re- support it while you're doing that. It's not just a move, it's actually pretty complicated. Mr. Bard is ultimately the person who lives in the home and he had nothing to do with this. I want to make this as easy as possible for him, and of course, for myself, so that's why I asked, what would be the harm in giving that 20 inches? She added the neighbors are very happy with the new construction. If you're familiar with what was there before, the neighbors are thrilled with having a beautiful home in their view. Of course, they didn't love the construction period, no one ever does. I think they'd be pretty heartbroken to know that we will be back and tearing up his yard, which we've hydro seeded, just to do this. Libby asked when there was a certain state of completion and a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Kromenhoek said the home was completed in April, and a temporary certificate of occupancy was granted. It's complicated. Obviously, we have a builder that disappeared from the entire situation at the end, and my partner disappeared at the end. And so I didn't find out until November or December. And huge kudos to the staff for helping catch me up on what the problem was and what I could do to try to get through it. So I just became aware in December, and actually, Mr. Barr just became aware in November. And we've been working together to try to figure out how to get through this. Libby said he has been involved in building processes and this is not the first time I've heard of something like this happening. Rather than the rudely inconvenient reconstruction and demolition of something like this, it would be a material fact knowledge issue that must be made evident in perpetuity. He said future residents would need to be made aware of this material fact so there would be transparency. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 15 of 19 Erickson noted the mistake didn't get caught in the frame inspection. Ideally would have been caught during framing. And so it's after-the-fact after everything's all done, we come up and say, well, it needs to seven inches to the left. I guess knowing that and understanding there's a survey error is that enough practical difficulty to let us to allow this this variance to go through? As the applicant pointed out if the application would have been for 17.3 instead of 19 when we approved it, hindsight is 20/20. But it's not that big of a distance. I was originally pretty harsh on this one, but as I think about it a little bit more, is there some wiggle room here that we can understand this? Bollis said it's not like they applied with the stairs in a different configuration. This happened. It wasn't their fault it ended up being like this. It's not like they had a different configuration and decided to change it. It wasn't intentionally done. I guess I would be in favor of leaving them. I don't see that it's harming anyone. But I do agree with Mr. Libby. Libby stated again the variance would need to be a material fact disclosed and fully transparent. I don't favor remediation. Erickson stated his belief that if it had been proposed that way the first time around it would have been approved. Bollis said he would move to approve LA 22-70 as applied. Libby asked again that the non-conforming aspects of the stairway be fully disclosed in perpetuity, because they'll never be corrected. Nye said if the variance were to be approved, the resolution noting this action would be recorded against the property. It would be able to be found and noted for any title or historical purposes associated with the property. Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA22-000070, 4085 Watertown Road after-the-fact Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 3. LA23-000001 LECY BROS. HOMES & REMODELING - BRENDA KOEHNEN, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating at 2617 Casco Point Road, the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the west side of the home, serving the first floor and overlooking the lake. The lot as it exists today is over on hardcover. This lot is tier one, which limits its hardcover to 25 percent of the lot. Currently, the lot is at 28.4 percent. The proposal is to construct a 288 square foot deck partially over an existing patio. The proposal also includes the removal of a portion of the patio and the removal of a flagstone walk. Through the removal of 104 square feet of hardcover and taking advantage of the City's 100 square foot hardcover credit for the new deck, the site will go from 28.4 percent hardcover, to 27.9. The hardcover credit offered by the City is a maximum of 100 square feet and can be applied to permeable pavers, decks and other improvements where water can seep through. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks. The applicant is requesting the hardcover variance because Date Application Received: 12/14/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/20/2023 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/21/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye Planner Date: February 21, 2023 Subject: LA22-000070, Stacey Kromenhoek, 4085 Watertown Road Variance: After-the-fact Public Hearing Background On April 12, 2021 variances were approved for the subject property, 4085 Watertown Road, for the construction of a new single-family home. Variances for lot size, lot width, front yard and side yard setbacks were granted by the City Council. The lot is a substandard in size and width with overlapping side yard setbacks. The lot is 0.64 acres in size and 73 feet in width where 5 acres and 300 feet in width is required for the RR-1A zoning district. There is no conforming building envelope. The practical difficulties of the substandard lot and lack of building envelope led to the approval of a 19-foot side yard setback per the approved plans in Resolution 7186 A building permit for the erection of the new home on the subject property was issued on August 5, 2021 through building permit RPS21-000072. A final as-built survey was submitted on April 13, 2022. City staff reviewed the submitted as-built survey and identified that the deck stairs were 17.3 feet from the northern property line where a 19-foot setback is permitted. This created a 1.7 foot (1 foot 8 inches) new encroachment closer to the side lot line. The applicant was notified of the issue and a final certificate of occupancy was not issued. Staff directed the applicant to correct the error by modifying the deck and/or deck stairs to conform to the 19-foot side yard setback. The applicant has chosen to go through the variance process to request a modified north side yard setback to allow the constructed deck and deck stairs to be maintained. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an after-the-fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot size and lot width as practical difficulties. The applicant has also noted that if the deck stairs are moved to the rear (east) of the deck, the sunlight coming into the home will be impacted. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: The property was granted variances in 2021 to construct a new single-family home. The construction error that resulted in the deck stairs being constructed 1.7 feet beyond the side yard setback line does not constitute a practical difficult. The deck and deck stairs can be modified to conform to the required setbacks. Staff does not find practical difficulty supporting the after-the-fact side yard setback variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 – Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required 2021 Approved Constructed Front 100’ 35.4’ 35.4’ Rear 100’ Roughly 300’ Roughly 300’ Side (north) 50’ 22’ (House) 19’ (Deck Stairs) 21.9’ (House) 17.3’ (Deck Stairs) Side (south) 50’ 23’ 22.8’ Applicable Regulations: Front and Side Yard Setback (78-395) The required interior side yard setback for the RR-1A zoning district is 50 feet. The variance approved in 2021 allowed for a 19-foot side yard setback for the north and a 23-foot side yard setback for the south due to the substandard lot area and width of the existing lot. The deck stairs were constructed beyond the approved setback at 17.3 feet from the northern property line. An after-the-fact variance is now being requested to allow a modified setback of 17.3 feet from the northern property line. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 3 of 5 According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The lot is substandard in size and in width with overlapping side yard setbacks when abiding by the regulations of the RR-1A zoning district. However, variances were already granted based on these practical difficulties. Staff does not believe there are new practical difficulties to allow for a reduced side yard setback. The construction error can be remedied through the modification of the deck and/or deck stairs. The requested variance to further reduce the northern side yard setback is not in harmony with the Ordinance. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance to further reduce the northern side yard setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has not identified necessary practical difficulties inherent to the land supporting their requests. This criterion is not met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; Reasonable use of the Property is established with the newly constructed single-family home. The deck constructed in error can be modified in order to comply with the approved resolution. This criterion is not met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The new home on the property was built in 2021-2022 by the applicant. The unique circumstances on the property granted variances in 2021 to allow for the construction of the new home. The current homeowner was not involved with the previous variances, however must adhere to the approved setbacks and conditions placed on the property. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The constructed deck does not meet the required setbacks for the property. The requested reduced setback in order to maintain the existing deck is not supported by practical difficulty. The neighboring properties are rural in nature and allowing a further encroachment into a setback is inconsistent character of the area. This criterion is not met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 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 FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 4 of 5 located. This condition is not applicable, as a single-family residence is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions and uniqueness of the lot resulted in variances approved for lot area, width, front yard and side yard setbacks in 2021. A new home was built and through an error the constructed deck was built beyond the required setback. The request for a reduced side yard setback to accommodate the larger deck is not an identified special condition justifying a variance. This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The Applicant has not identified conditions. This criteria is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the newly constructed single-family home. Expansion of an existing improvement or structure is not a right. This criterion is not met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance to reduce the side yard setback for a deck constructed larger than in the approved plans is a convenience not supported by demonstratable practical difficult. 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. Engineer Comments The City Engineer reviewed the as-built survey and did not have any comments. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance (s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 5 of 5 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial. The deck and/or deck stairs should be removed or modified in order to conform to the 19-foot side yard setback. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. As-Built Survey 3/28/22 → New Home Construction Exhibit D. Plans Exhibit E. 2021 Resolution Exhibit F. Property Photos Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1. Purpose. This application is regarding after-the-fact variances relating to retaining walls installed within a lakeside bluff. 2. MN§15.99 Application Deadline. The application was received on December 13, 2022 and considered to be complete on February 3, 2023. The 60-Day review period has been extended and expires on June 3, 2023. 3. Background/ Summary. In July of 2022, the timber lake slope walls, deck, and stair to the lake were destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the walls, staff observed that the construction expanded beyond the in-kind limitations in the wall lengths and some of the wall locations. As a result, a Stop Work order was issued. Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 28th the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope (Resolution No. 7315). Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure was imminent and needed an emergency correction. The final wall has not been installed, rather the applicant is now requesting approval to increase the height of the top (6th) wall to reach the correct grade height rather than installing an additional wall. 4. Variance Description. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact setback variances to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. The lake stairs are an allowed improvement within the 75-foot setback and can be constructed with an administrative building permit. The change to the configuration of the retaining walls, if approved, will likely impact the ability to fully recapture the previous structural footprints and dimensions of the deck and shed. 5. Planning Commission Vote and Comment. On February 21, 2023, the Planning Commission held a public hearing. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 (Libby dissent) on a motion for approval of the requested after-the-fact variances subject to the following recommended conditions: a. Prior to Council review, the applicant shall provide an engineer’s opinion regarding the necessity additional width of the installed walls as installed (attached as Exhibit D); b. Submittal of a vegetative planting plan which will screen the walls from the lake (attached as Exhibit E); and c. Submittal of an as-built survey following completion of the walls and restoration of the grades. 6. Public Comment. Comments from the public were received and are attached as Exhibit G. 7. Staff Recommendation. Prior to the fire, there were existing retaining walls and improvements in the lake yard. Replacement of the walls is essential due to the bluff and steep nature of the slope on the subject property as well as the immediately adjacent neighboring properties. Further, removal of the pre- existing burned wall materials and replacement of soil was required in order to assure the new walls would be structurally stable to support the slope. The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the bluff and 75-foot lake setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. Item No.: 17 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000068 – Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal o/b/o Mark & Lisa Thostenson, 2815 Casco Point Road, After-the-fact Variances Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Community Development AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the improvements as proposed. Staff further recommends vegetative screening of the walls be implemented to screen the new walls from the lake as much as feasible. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Direct staff to draft an approval resolution including the following recommended conditions: a. Submittal of a vegetative planting plan which will screen the walls from the lake; and b. Submittal of an as-built survey following completion of the walls and restoration of the grades. Exhibits A. Plans B. Survey – Revised C. Hardcover Calculations - Revised D. Engineer Letter E. Screening Plan F. Project Timeline G. Draft PC Minutes 02/21/2023 H. Public Comment I. PC Staff Report 02/21/2023 References PC Exhibits 02/21/2023 A. Application & Narrative B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form C. Previous “Existing Conditions” Survey D. As-Built Survey E. Hardcover Calculations F. Plan Comparison – Staff Annotated G. Photos H. Engineer Opinion I. City Council Minutes 11/28/2022 J. Council Memo 11/28/2022 K. Resolution No. 7315 L. Public Comment M. Property Owners List N. Plat Map 963.56FND 3/8 REBART.W.= 957.0B.W.=953.4T.W.= 953.2B.W.=948.8T.W.= 948.8B.W.=942.7T.W.= 942.6 B.W.=939.6T.W.= 939.5 B.W.=936.7T.W.= 936.7B.W.=933.5T. W . = 9 6 0 . 2 B. W . = 9 5 8 . 2928930932932934936938940942 94494695095696096 2 960958962TOP OF ROCKSO.H.W. LINE=929.4EDGE OF ICE 11JAN23ORDINARY HIGH WATER ELEV.(O.H.W.) = 929.4HIGHEST RECORDED = 931.1TOP OF ICE (11JAN23) = 928.0ORIGINALWALLDESIGN952954948I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared byme or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly LicensedLand Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota.By: Minnesota License No. Dated day of 2023.NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BYSCALE: 1" = 'BEARING DATUM: JOB NO. 123REVISIONS*BUILDER TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, SEWER DEPTH AND FOUNDATION DEPTH.*DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGNAND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR.*FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO HOME SHALL BE 0.5 FEET BELOW TOP OF BLOCKEXCEPT AT DRIVEWAY AND PATIO.DRAWN BY: CREW: 221329ASCBSCBS&BCK10AssumedJanuary31stCERTIFICATE OF SURVEY - WALL DETAIL ORIGINAL DESIGN NORTHDATE: E. G. RUD & SONS, INC.Professional Land SurveyorsEST. 1977990 5th Ave SE, Suite 2Hutchinson, MN 55350Tel. (320) 587-2025www.egrud.com~for~VALDES LAWN CARE~of~ 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, ORONO MN.Part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota.DENOTES EXISTING RETAINING WALLLEGENDDENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELEDDENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATIONDENOTES EXISTING CONTOURSX 952.3601010205BENCHMARKBENCHMARK: MNDOT GSID STATION #11452MNDOT NAME: JOHNSON MN053ELEVATION = 938.909 NGVD29Wall information labeled as T.W. (Top ofWall) and B.W. (Bottom of Wall) areaverages of shots taken along the topand bottom of the wall respectively.Walls were constructed of 6in by 5intimbers.NOTES2/3/2023DENOTES ORIGINAL RETAINING WALL52705PAGE 2 OF 3 LOT 120 965.3965. 1 967. 8 4 FFE965.4964. 4 961.4 963. 1 962.09 6 1 . 7962.3960.8 964. 1 0 FFE G A R 959.63FFE LOW966.5TREE 24IN966.2 TREE 2 0 I N TREE 20IN960.72 FND 3/4 IP 966.04FND 12755645 927. 6 8 H20 EL E V I C E 1 0J A N 2 3 972.6966.5967.0967. 3 9 6 0 . 1 6 963.6961.5963.79FFE GAR963.9963.33963. 2 0 963.5 6 FND 3 / 8 R E B A R TRE E 3 6I N TREE 24IN23. 3 7.910. 9 36.423. 59.911. 01.73.36.53.2 21.3EXISTINGHOUSEEXISTING HOUSE 1,343 SQFT EXISTING HOUSEEX.GARAGEEXISTING GARAGE28.024. 0 24. 0 28.0672 SQFT EXISTING FOUNDATION 710 SQFT23.630. 0 24.08.6BAY WINDOWNAIL IN BLACKTOP T. W . = 9 5 7 . 0 B. W . = 9 5 3 . 4 T. W . = 9 5 3 . 2 B. W . = 9 4 8 . 8 T. W . = 9 4 8 . 8 B. W . = 9 4 2 . 7 T. W . = 9 4 2 . 6 B . W . = 9 3 9 . 6 T. W . = 9 3 9 . 5 B . W . = 9 3 6 . 7 T. W . = 9 3 6 . 7 B. W . = 9 3 3 . 5 T. W . = 9 5 7 . 0 B. W . = 9 5 3 . 4 T.W.= 960.2B.W.=958.2TIMBER BOARDER OFGARDEN FROM ADJ.LOT (TO BE REMOVED)92 8 93 0 9 3 2 9 3 2 9 3 4 936 9 3 8 940 942 94 494 6 95 0 956 9 6 0 962960 958962964 962962964966 966964962960SU R V E Y L I N E TO P O F R O C K S 75 F T O F F S E T O. H . W . L I N E LOCATION PER PREVIOUS SURVEY, WAS NOT LOCATED DUE TO CONDITIONS O. H . W . L I N E = 9 2 9 . 4 ED G E O F I C E 1 1 J A N 2 3 ST A I R S T O BA S E M E N T O R D I N A R Y H I G H W A T E R E L E V . (O . H . W . ) = 9 2 9 . 4 HI G H E S T R E C O R D E D = 9 3 1 . 1 TO P O F I C E ( 1 1 J A N 2 3 ) = 9 2 8 . 0 14,650± SQFT CANTILEVER N6 6 ° 2 1 ' 4 7 " W 5 3 . 4 5 22.0320.18WIND. WELL PROP DRIVE 933 SQFT PROP WALK74 SQFTPROP STOOP80 SQFTEXIST. RET. WALL 23 SQFT (TO BE REMOVED) EXIST. DRIVE 834 SQFT (TO BE REMOVED) (TO BE REMOVED) REPLACE CONC PATIO 108 SQFT SEE SHEET 2&3 DETAIL OF WALLS WINDOW WELL ORIGINAL WALL DESIGN 130 SQFT (IN R.O.W)(DIMS. PERMANUFACTURERSPEC SHEET.)AS-BUILT SURVEY ~for~VALDES LAWN CARE ~of~ 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, ORONO MN. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. By: Minnesota License No. Dated day of 2023. Part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. 31st January 52705 NORTH 2/27/2023 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY SCALE: 1" = ' DATUM: JOB NO. REVISIONS DRAWN BY: CREW: 221329AS CBS CBS/BCK 30 Assumed DATE: 1 2 3 E. G. RUD & SONS, INC. Professional Land SurveyorsEST. 1977 990 5th Ave SE, Suite 2Hutchinson, MN 55350 Tel. (320) 587-2025 www.egrud.com DENOTES RETAINING WALL DENOTES FENCE DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY DENOTES SILT FENCE DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE LEGEND DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED DENOTES POWER POLE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES MAILBOX DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS PIN No. 17-119-22-14-0008 Owner: City of X Address: Unassigned DENOTES AIR CONDITIONING UNIT DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE X 952.36 DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION (PER HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) -Field survey was completed by E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on 01/10/22. -Bearings shown are on an assumed datum. -Parcel ID Number: 2011723320011. -This survey was prepared without the benefit of title work. Additional easements, restrictions and/or encumbrances may exist other than those shown hereon. Survey subject to revision upon receipt of a current title commitment or an attorney's title opinion. -Due to field work being completed during the winter season there may be improvements in addition to those shown that were not visible due to snow and ice conditions characteristic of Minnesota winters. -Boundary work was not completed as part of this as-built survey any monuments and boundaries are for reference only. NOTES Per Certificate of Title No. 1541552 All that part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, and all the unplatted land and that portion of Lake Shore Avenue Vacated, lying between Lot 120 of SPRING PARK and the side lines of said Lot projected to Lake Minnetonka, which lies northwesterly of a line running parallel with and five feet northwesterly from the southeasterly line of said Lot and the extension thereof. Legal Description of Record 030 30 6015 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT AREA .....................14,650± FT2 EXISTING HOUSE ........................ 1,343 FT2 EXISTING GARAGE ........................ 672 FT2 EXISTING DRIVEWAY (ON LOT) ...... 834 FT2 EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FT2 EXISTING WOOD STAIRS ................. 29 FT2 EXISTING RET WALLS .................... 195 FT2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ...... 3,096 FT2 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ..................... 21.1% BENCHMARK BENCHMARK: MNDOT GSID STATION #11452 MNDOT NAME: JOHNSON MN053 ELEVATION = 938.909 NGVD29 PROP. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CALCULATIONS TOTAL LOT AREA .....................14,650± FT2 EXISTING HOUSE ........................ 1,343 FT2 EX. RET WALL NEAR EX. GARAGE ..... 23 FT2 * TIMBER BORDER (REMOVAL) .......... 32.5 FT2 * PROPOSED GARAGE ....................... 710 FT2 PROPOSED WALK ............................ 74 FT2 PROPOSED STOOP ........................... 80 FT2 PROP. PATIO ................................. 108 FT2 PROP. DRIVEWAY .......................... 933 FT2 PROP. RETAINING WALLS STEPS .... 122.4 FT2 PROP. RET. WALL STEP LANDING ..... 12.3 FT2 PROP. DECK AND BOAT HOUSE ..... 118.8 FT2 EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FT2 EXISTING RET WALLS ................. 165.0 FT2 EXCLUDED RET. WALL REMOVAL ..... 23 FT2 EXCLUDED TIMBER BORDER ........ 32.5 FT2 EXCL. RET. WALLS BY LAKE ........ 165.0 FT2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ... 3,524.5 FT2 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................... 24.06% PIN No. 2011723320012 Owner: C A & C D PRICE Address: 2813 CASCO PT ROAD PIN No. 2011723320010 Owner: WESLEY & BRENDA BYRNE Address: 2817 CASCO PT ROAD -This survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22. PAGE 1 OF 3 DENOTES ORIGINAL RETAINING WALL 3FEB23 REVISE IMPER. TABLE CBS 9FEB23 REVISE WIND. WELL DIMS CBS 27FEB23 REVISE PROP. IMP. TABLE CBS         February 24, 2023 (Revised March 6, 2023) Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jprust@valdeslawn.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall – Variance Review Comments Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: At your request, this letter is being provided to address several comments and questions that came out of the recent City of Orono Planning Commission meeting regarding the recently constructed timber retaining walls at the above property. Revisions in this letter include clarifications to my conclusions and recommendations. The comments and questions relevant to my role in this project are as follows: A. Your engineer should provide an opinion regarding the overall added width of the walls. The opinion should address whether or not the additional width beyond the previously existing walls is necessary to maintain stability of the slope, or can they be reduced? B. Additionally, based on the conversation last night, I recommend that your engineer provide an opinion on the two options for the top of the slope, adding the 7th wall, or increasing the height of the 6th wall. Regarding the first question about the additional length of wall that was added to the previously existing walls, it is my professional opinion that the additional wall length added was necessary to maintain the stability of the slope. - Based on photos you provided of conditions present prior to the construction of the new tiered timber wall system, there was already significant, on-going erosion and surface water control issues on the adjacent properties. - Numerous trees had exposed roots and the slope had areas of exposed soil. - The decision by your company to increase the length of the walls have improved surface water control and soil retention when compared to the previous walls. - Once completed (i.e. walls finished and erosion control established), the new construction will also have improved the grading along the adjacent property lines. - The walls as they were designed and as they appear to have been built have a significant design components to them. They are engineered to industry design standards and incorporate the necessary tiebacks and deadmen for which extensive excavation is required. For the second question about the options of adding a 7th wall versus increasing the height of the 6th wall, it is my professional opinion that either option would be feasible and beneficial. - The addition of a 7th wall was approved through an emergency repair exception by the City of Orono on November 28, 2022. - The emergency repair work was not able to be completed due to heavy snowfall and frozen ground. 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota February 24, 2023 (Rev. March 6, 2023) Page | 2    - As an alternative, I prepared a design for the option to add height to the existing 6th wall to you on December 9, 2022. This is also a good option to reduce the steepness of the slope at the top of the wall. - Adding height to the 6th wall versus building a 7th wall would be better as it could result in less soil disturbance and excavation. Refer to my previous letters and design reports for additional information. All previous terms and conditions apply. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Paul Schimnowski, P.E.  Date: March 6, 2023 License #: 40126 (MN) RAS22-000082 Permit for in-kind wall re- placement Applied for on August 24, 2022 Issued on Sept 30, 2022 STOP WORK ORDER issued on October 28, 2022 City Council request for Emergency Slope Repair granted on November 28, 2022 LA22-000036 Variance for the home September 2022 PC (PC denial recommendation) October 2022 Council (denial) October 17 Variance withdrawn RAS22-000126 Building Permit (for conforming changes to the home) Issued October 10, 2022 LA22-000068 December 12, 2022 ATF Variance for approval of Retaining Walls beyond the in-kind footprint Fire July 22, 2022 TODAY MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 12 ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon, Commissioners Scott Kirchner, Chris Bollis, Dennis Libby, Bob Erickson. Commissioners Matt Gettman and Jon Ressler were absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Natalie Nye. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kirschner moved, Bollis seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2023 Libby moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 2023. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000068 VALDES LAWN CARE AND SNOW REMOVAL, LLC, 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS AN AFTER-THE-FACT 75-FOOT LAKE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR RETAINING WALLS. City Planner Curtis reported that in July of 2022, the timber lake slope walls, deck and stairs to the lake at this address were destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the wall, staff observed that the construction had expanded beyond the “in-kind” limitations. As a result, a stop-work order was issued. The applicant’s engineer provided documentation showing slope failure was imminent and needed an emergency correction. Because the work was halted prior to construction, on Nov. 28 the City Council granted approval to install a final wall at the top of the slope in order to protect the integrity of the slope upon spring thaw. That wall has not been installed. The applicant is requesting to add 1.7 feet to the top wall that's existing rather than constructing a new additional wall on the top of the slope, which would better accommodate the final grades and the lake access stair. All the improvements are within the 75-foot setback from the lake and within the bluff. The newly-constructed timber walls are situated generally where the previously existing walls were located. The new walls are not considered an “in-kind” replacement as the footprint of some of the walls extend closer to the neighboring properties, are in different configurations and are in different locations than the previously existing walls. The owner is requesting an after-the-fact variance to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. A lake stair is permitted within the 75-foot setback and within the bluff. The deck walkway and shed are not permitted but are able to be reconstructed in-kind. The property owners can apply for a building permit to rebuild their decks and shed and the stairs as long as the existing parameters are not exceeded. Because the new walls were installed in a slightly different placement, size and configuration variances are required. The applicant identified the slope and existing conditions as practical difficulty supporting the requested variances. They have provided the documentation with the practical difficulty worksheet in your packets. They are here tonight as well. Staff finds there are difficulties in the topography and challenges brought on by the fire which may support the MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 12 variances for the expanded retaining walls. Staff supports setback variances for the new wall footprint as long as the change does not adversely impact neighboring properties and the slope stability on those properties. The applicant provided a letter from their engineer with an opinion regarding the stability of the slope on the neighboring properties and it was included in your packet as Exhibit H along with comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the wall improvements as proposed and as they are constructed. Staff does not recommended approval of any walls which encroach into the neighboring properties, and the applicant should be asked to confirm that the work was not conducted beyond the property lines. If the applicant needs to construct improvements on the neighboring properties, they should be providing consent for that work, and we should include that in the permit. Staff further recommends the vegetative screening of the walls be implemented to screen the new walls from the lake as much as feasible. Libby asked if the destroyed walls that had to be removed had been permitted. Curtis responded there is no record of a permit, but they have existed for quite some time. McCutcheon asked to clarify if the last retaining wall is yet to be built on the very top. Curtis explained the upper wall is constructed, but the applicant has decided they don't need to construct an additional wall. They would like to make that wall 1.7 feet taller to accommodate the grade. Josh Prust who works for Valdes Lawn Care and Snow and resides at 16016 Hidden Valley Road in Minnetonka and Joe Valdes of Hastings, MN represented the applicant. Mr. Valdes explained his company was hired to replace the burned-out retaining walls and stairs. His recommendation would have been for a boulder wall because of the difficulty with constructing a timber wall but that would have exceeded the allowed hard cover. Some of the problems included reduced vegetation because of trees that were burned in the fire and the discovery of rotting timbers behind the front timber walls. He said they tried to minimize the damage to the bluff and achieve good drainage behind every single wall so there would not be any erosion going into the lake. He said all this required more excavation than typical. The slope is too big and there is no way to control the bank as there is no vegetation. The snow this year will cause the soil to wash out in the spring more than usual. There's nothing holding the bank anymore. He said they were under a time crunch because it was November. His workers were digging by hand with pics to avoid damaging existing roots. We have to do anything in our power to protect the bluff and any vegetation. We had to work from the top to the bottom. We cannot work from the lake because there is no space to have any machine there. Work was halted in November and the Planning Commission did not have a December meeting. So I apologize that we did what we did. There is no way to be able to do this in the kind of winter we are having this year. McCutcheon asked about the neighbor’s retaining walls. This is a big project, I can see that. And when I look at it, and I see all the neighbors, it's almost like you kind of work together? Because it seems like every has the same problem. Everybody has a need for this to be successful. He asked Valdes if what he has built and is proposing will hold. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 12 Mr. Valdes said he wouldn’t want to say 100% but is 90% sure the project will hold the bank. Mr. Prust added one of the requested items that came from the last meeting they were at was that they have their engineer do an analysis of the neighboring properties as much as possible and get a survey with topographical to satisfy that those banks are stable, and they're not going to go anywhere. He said the neighboring walls in addition still have vegetation on them. So they still have their trees and all their plants and stuff that didn't get burned up. All that root structure is still helping to hold their slopes up. Libby asked if the engineering plans articulated that they needed to remove portions of the bluff to remedy the erosion. Mr. Valdes said the reason they had to remove soil was to backfill it with drain rock behind the timbers. The engineering plan called for 18 inches of drain rock behind the timber walls. Libby said he has worked in a couple of projects like this. So I'm just trying to get a scope of understanding how you approach this from an engineering and then a positive outcome. If you're removing portions of the bluff, wouldn't that naturally then increase the pitch of the bluff so that there's less soil to work with and then you have more of a grade down towards the lake shore? Mr. Valdes said they were not taking away from the height of the bluff but creating space to backfill with drain rock. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Patty Yorks, 2825 Casco Point Road, said she had hoped to show photos of what was there previously, what is there now and what other neighbors have done to mitigate the bluff. I'm also on a bluff, and everybody else here, another 10 people, are also on this bluff. We all are expressing major, major concern. It wasn't necessary to do this digging. Everybody along the bluff has done work within your City ordinances and complied. They've done things by hand. They've been very careful and mindful of all the vegetation on the on the bluff. And these people just came in and bulldozed everything and removed the dirt. There was a big road down to the bottom of the bank. It was just an absolute travesty of how they approached this and little or no regard for the lake or the environment. And we have two engineers that live right in that notification area that you sent out. They're just amazed at what the City is allowing them to do, because they do not believe it's built structurally appropriately and engineered appropriately. And, to my knowledge, the engineer that they have has not signed off on this and standing behind the engineering. I just am concerned that this is not going to hold and the City is going to have some liability on this because they're approving something that is not accurate. McCutcheon said he doesn’t pretend to know the history of this project, but obviously you do as a neighbor. But normally when these things are in construction it has to get ugly before it gets better. In hearing the applicant explain the process, it sounds like when they were removing the old wall with the rotted timber that the only solution was to dig it out and fix it. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 12 Ms. Yorks responded it's a problem that they caused themselves. There were things that had to be corrected, probably, but not to this extent. She said she had photos which Curtis did not have available. McCutcheon invited her to pass her phone around the table. Curtis clarified that the applicant’s engineer has approved plans as designed. We don't approve their engineering, their civil engineer takes the responsibility by stamping the plans. Ms. Yorks said the work is too egregious. And then after-the-fact, I mean, come on, really? The whole thing is just egregious. I get that it was an emergency. McCutcheon said it's one of those things with the construction season, and I'm not trying to make excuses, but I'm just trying to be logical about it. If you start pulling back layers of the onion and you're holding that much earth back, you do have to act with a sense of urgency. Was it handled the best way? Obviously, we would like them to go to City first, which they did. They came in -- well, after-the-fact, of course, but they did try to make it right. Margaret Martin, 2821 Casco Point Road. I sent in this information earlier in an email and it is from a member of the family who is a civil engineer, a geotech. You have all that information and I won't go through all of the points, but I will just reiterate a couple of the things that he emphasized. He indicated that the wall does not appear to be replaced in-kind and therefore should fall under scrutiny of new construction. It increases impervious surfaces within the buffer, increases discharge to the lake and does not appear that anything has been done to naturalize the shoreline, and I understand timeframe with winter etc., that that can't be addressed immediately. Surface drainage pads have not been identified. Tree Removal completed prior to plan approval has been discussed. The damage caused by this disturbance may put neighboring properties at risk in the future and this has been addressed. So again, you have a printed version and this is from an engineer who is very knowledgeable. But moreover, we need to consider the fact that that allowing things to go through sets precedents that should not be given in our City so that people think they can get away with it and do things not according to how they're set up. These rules were set up by our City and should be complied with. Commissioners took some time to review the photos that Ms. Worth and Curtis had been able to access. Tyler Warnke, 2147 Valley View Place, St. Paul said he was the equipment operator on the shop. I just want to reiterate that I went off what the plans were. I've never seen a slope this steep. And in order to get to the bottom, I had to dig around that. They said it was a road. It did look like a road but I can't reach all the way down to the bottom to pull out the timbers. So we're pulling up timbers going down as we go. Some of them are eight feet back and I have to dig those out. I'm not going to leave those in the ground, because when I construct the new walls, I have to go back. I‘ve got to do the tie back. So it's different than just digging a hole. I’ve got to put a six foot to eight foot chunk on the back to nail the tie back to, to hold the wall., so all that has to be dug out. There's different aspects that made that difficult. Up on the top there's a tree and the neighbors were adamant about leaving the tree. So we worked around that and did what we could to keep it. And that's why there's a little adjustment over on that side just to keep and not destroy the roots on that tree. But it's just it's a big job, no doubt about it. A lot of the stuff had to be dug MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 12 back to get those tie backs. The engineer plans came to that step. The neighbor on the west walked me over to his yard and showed me he had his redone and he had a huge washout. I stand by what we built and I believe it will hold back that hill. Kirchner asked if as the equipment operator, did he think this could have been done as handwork instead of equipment operation? Mr. Warnke said he thinks it would have been a year-long project. A lot of that stuff was hard back in there. With the pick axe they spent 10 hours on one little section trying to get the tie backs back so we didn't take that bluff out on the on the east side up on top. Everything I've seen it's done with heavy equipment. Libby asked if he was involved in any other excavations or moving soil there other than directly affecting the washout and in the wall? Mr. Warnke said the only removal was to put the walls in and take out the existing walls, because all the existing walls were burned and had to come out. Then I had to dig the soil back to get the old original tie backs. The old original tie backs had big concrete, like a pail of concrete, and that was chained. We did nothing around the house. Everything was on the lakeshore. Commissioners asked about the extent of the damage caused by the fire. Curtis showed photos taken right after the fire. Carol Price, 2813 Casco which is the west side property adjacent to this one. I will agree with everyone that this has been a mess. The fire is not responsible. It was unfortunate that happened to the owner. They're just trying to recoup the bluff. I agree that the contractor, once he got in there, did see the work involved and he did try to save the trees. But again, there was a mess of a mound of dirt that was excavated from the bluff. And all that excavated dirt had to come by our house because we gave them permission. And so it was very difficult for us. They took away multiple dump trucks of dirt and brought in the stones to backfill those walls. So I did put in written comments in the packet as I saw it as of Friday. What is different is I had no idea that the wall construction now has changed from seven walls to six walls. And now the sixth wall is going to be taller. This is the first I've heard of it. All of my comments were based on the original design of seven tiered walls. And in late October, a stop order was issued because they were building this not according to the in-kind plan. It was almost done. They were in the process of prepping for the seventh wall. So they went to the City Council to express an emergency request to put in that seventh wall and it was granted in early November. At the time of the stop order, the contractor very rightly put in erosion burlap, they secured the bluff as it was built, everything was rounded. They took away all the equipment because they didn't know if this was going to be approved. The emergency order was based on the engineering request that this wall was in imminent danger of collapse if they did not finish that seventh tier. And after the permission was given to build the seventh wall, no one came back. That is my concern now is that bluff, it has the seven tiers. And that seventh wall isn't there. The Bluff now makes a half bowl; it's not straight anymore. So that half bowl really requires that seventh wall. The contractor put in the side walls to compensate for the neighbors. Those sidewalls are needed for this place where the seventh tier is supposed to be. I agree it should be there. If they make MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 12 the claim that this is an imminent need for the bluff, it should have been built. Again, this is the first time I've heard about the sixth wall just coming up a little bit. I don't know if that's going to keep the neighbor's property from falling because they have built this round and curve tiering effect. I know there is a concern about hardcover. But that hardcover came in less than the previous old wall. So there needs to be some scrutiny here. I don't think we should tear down this wall. I am an engineer. I'm data driven. I'm detail-oriented. You guys need to see what this looked like. You need to see the photos of how this was constructed. I saw the construction. I'm there every day. The contractor did a good job. I think he really reacted to what he saw. And he's trying to do a good job. I just want to make sure that whatever is approved in the end, this bluff isn't going to fail, I'm not going to be affected. It's nobody's fault that the bluff burned, but we’ve got to deal with it. McCutcheon said seeing the pictures he would be concerned as well but he is also looking at the challenges that the contractor had. I appreciate all the feedback because it's a drastic change to what the neighborhood has had. He asked if we are seeing a lot of erosion because the disadvantages of this with the fire? So you have no root system to establish that integrity and so they're kind of in a bad spot? He noted people driving by in boats would see nice trees and then nothing but a huge retaining wall system that doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. Yet the neighbors think it should be bigger because they are really concerned about it. Ms. Price reiterated that she does not have enough information to make a decision at this point. This is too much of a surprise to me. There is a bluff line there and the neighbors are on the bluff line. The sloping does vary as you're going from west to east. The actual slope of the whole land of that Peninsula is flowing downward. The slopes on this end, they're steep. And as you as that landmass gets lower, those slopes are more gentle. But this particular build did scoop out a hole in that natural line of the bluff. And part of that scoop out is it's affecting the neighbors. The contractor was stopped before the seventh wall was almost finished, so that dirt is loose, there's nothing to hold it. I don't think making the sixth wall a foot taller compensates for what's there now. I'd like to see some plans. Bollis said he thinks on the engineering report for that additional height on that wall, it shows that the grade’s going to be improved to the top of that wall. So what we're looking at right there, that's the sixth wall. That would be 1.7 feet higher. And this bowl, I’m assuming would be cut and filled to the top of that. Ms. Price said she hasn't seen any of the new updates and would not be in favor of seeing it approved without the seventh wall. I have no data to make an evaluation. I would just like the board to look at the data. It looks massive. It's not in character for the rest of the neighbors or Casco Point or the bluffs. When you backfill those walls, it's back filled and compacted with dirt and stone. How do you get something to grow in there? You don't, you might get small plants and things, but there won't ever be a tree back there again, so you've changed it forever. Charles Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, noted all the pictures have been from the water. The engineer who designed the walls made it crystal clear, you can't let any water infiltrate these walls up on the top side. I've never heard a plan for how the water is going to get around this wall, the water that runs across the lot. That needs to be clarified somewhere. Price also said the exhibits don’t correctly represent the old MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 12 bluff line top. He said the bluff has been moved back 22 feet. That's part of the reason why we're in a variance situation now, I guess, because it wasn't built in accordance with plans. There's a mistake there. I don't know exactly what the significance of that is. And I actually want to compliment Tyler, Joe, you guys did a good job on the walls. Good job. They worked hard. Tyler was up here explaining. He worked with us, he worked with the neighbors on the other side. So I don't necessarily want to have it torn down and start over. And that's up to you guys to figure out. The Commissioners, applicants and neighbors continued to review photos and drawings. Curtis pointed out that the applicant is not asking for approval on these issues. We're going back and forth about what was there and what what's there now but we know it's not what was there before. Mr. Valdes said to go eight feet high with the wall, you have to go eight feet back. We have property lines, we have neighbors. We had tie backs going from the first wall all the way to the second wall. So all the walls basically want to structure all the way from the bottom to the top of the wall. That way we know how to approach anybody’s property, and we'd be able to save histories. We actually did more work to be able to make sure that we're stable enough. So if you have one wall, all the way to the top has got to tie and nail into each other and the whole thing is one structure all the way. This is why that is not right. He said some of the structure now in place is temporary because the wall is not finished. They addressed the drainage on the east end by putting in drain tiles in the corner that will drain the whole yard. We have the pipes ready behind the walls to hook up but the job is not complete. McCutcheon asked about drainage and the current opinion of the engineer for the project. Mr. Valdes said water would go to the corner where the fence used to be where there was an old catch basin and some tires. Those have been removed and everything is now buried. He said this winter there has been 70 inches of snow. When it melts, the water will go west to east where they have put in a berm. The water will not go to any neighbor's property. He said the retaining walls are being designed so it will not have to have a railing. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. McCutcheon opened commission discussion saying it's a pretty significant build. And he understands the challenges with burning down trees, the root system failing, and yet needing to hold all that soil back. He also said he can understand the concern from the neighbors as it’s different in character from the rest of the area. But looking at it, if you tore it down and rebuilt it, I'm thinking you'd look pretty similar because of all the earth that was removed. I'd like to hear the comments of the commission here on what can be done next steps, because we can't change the past. So let's try to keep the conversation on what can be done going forward. Do we let them finish it with the proposed changes? Or does anybody have an opinion on some kind of other plan or approach towards this? Kirchner said his initial frustration is that in-kind walls were approved and we didn't land there. Due to the dirt that was removed. today we can't go back and do X, Y and Z. And therefore, by the applicant and the homeowner circumventing the process, they removed that ability for neighbors, City staff, and this MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 12 commission as well as the City Council to have a review process of how this looks. We maybe can't go back based on the amount of dirt that was removed. I’m fairly certain that what we're looking at there from the original walls to what's new are not in-kind. They're a different footprint. They're different angles and different places on the hillside. So my initial thought is also the precedents that we set to then go back and approve and after-the-fact variance, because I worry does that say ‘go ahead and do what you want?’ And then we're going to have to say, ‘Oh, well, we're stuck with it now’. I worry about the precedents and what that sets for our City. We've got a lot of bluff and hillside to protect around the lake and that might be a slippery slope, pardon the pun. Bollis said he definitely has the same concerns as Commissioner Kirschner. Typically, when you're doing a project like this, if you can't build in-kind for whatever reason, it's great to come back here. But looking at it as a situation where it's imminent that there's going to be a problem, I question whether it could have even been built in-kind. We don't know what those existing walls were. We don't know if they even met code as far as what the new walls have to meet and are engineered by. So all the information I have, I feel like the new system is definitely engineered, signed off on. We don't even know what the old system was. I feel like the contractor did a good job dealing with the problem that they had there. It's just unfortunate it didn't come up here. Or it wasn't able to come here because I wouldn't have wanted to stop and then get halfway through the winter and not be able to do anything. And then we'd have a huge problem this spring, if that were the case. So I think it's probably fortunate that it got built to the extent that that it did. I think either way, if the engineer says it works, if there's a seventh wall or just raising that sixth wall, I'm fine with the proposed raising the sixth wall and doing the appropriate grading. I guess the question for staff would be I don't know if that would require a railing. Curtis said the City’s building official could be asked to comment on that and clarify with the applicant if a railing is required by state code before it goes to the City Council. Libby said he tends to favor several remarks that Commissioner Kirschner mentioned. One is that I think it was a poorly-conceived plan to start with; it did not get enough review. And I think that once you get a stop order, it's a flag. Not to defend the City Council, but when you have an approval, and then something different than what was approved is built or constructed with very little interaction with the City engineering, it's a formula for failure. Because for one thing, you created a slope that didn't exist before. And in the spirit of conservation and preservation, not only within the scope of our empirical bluffs ordinance, you have the protection of the lake itself. And I think that those were not centrally focused on how the engineer designed this with very little consulting or approval in that plan and design and engineering with the City. So trying to remove a little fault from the City, I defer to Mrs. Price’s very sage wisdom as a credentialed individual looking at this kind of from the outside, that there was too little analysis to really look to not have the disaster that I think this really is. I think that what they really need to do is recreate the bluff wall at the top that they previously had. First of all, you could have a straight fence. It would be helpful, but no one knows that, not even the contractors, who know how to operate the machines and move the dirt in the soil and bring the portions of the wall out that needed to be removed. There really are not enough statistical solid metrics to really determine how this really should have been done and how to fix it. I'm not really in favor of approving any of this. Even with the staff suggestion, the two suggestions that I made, I think really should go back to a planning stage with the original engineer who should have done more due diligence with the City engineer, so they know that as they move MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 9 of 12 forward, they're operating within the structure and the constructs of our Orono City bluff ordinance, which is very focused on preservation and conservation. I don't see much of that here. The operators did what they were told. They worked from a plan, but I think was a very faulty plan to start with. Erickson said he felt Commissioner Libby’s comments are well said. What stands out for me is that the staff does not recommend approval of any walls which encroach into neighboring properties. He quoted the staff recommendation. The issue here is was there encroachment? And if there was then I concur that the neighboring property owners should be involved in the process with their consent. I would add that to the concerns that Commissioner Kirschner and Commissioner Libby have raised. McCutcheon said what we have now is holding back earth. What would we give them for guidance if we did have them go back to planning stage. Do you have any thoughts on that? Libby said his only suggestion would be to put that top bluff wall back. I'm not an engineer, but I have probably eight years of working with the bluff ordinance. I also have some on-site experience on Tanager Lake, in green trees, were in almost identical circumstances existed, except for the fire. And that wall had to be replaced four times in the course of seven years because we had a number of 100-year rain events. A very reputable, well-known designer of that sort of construction, and reputable veteran construction operators, maybe like yourself, came in and thought it would work. But the engineering lacked what it needed to stabilize it. Like Mrs. Price mentioned -- numbers, metrics, calculations, design and engineering. I don't think that there was enough of it here. One solution would be to not have created a new slope, if that could be corrected. And once again, I think that top left wall needs to be there. Kirchner asked had this come before us as a blank slate, what would some of the feedback have been? The contractor stated that he initially had proposed a boulder wall. I don't know if that would have allowed for less intrusion from east to west across the front of the bluff. I believe that the issue was hardcover. Curtis clarified the issue was it wasn't in-kind, and they couldn't do it with a building permit at that time. I think it was a time issue. Retaining walls are listed as hardcover but they don't count against your property’s hardcover total. She added that the engineers spent a great deal of time on the design. Bollis said he had been concerned that there wasn't enough engineering, but looking through there (the packet information), there's quite a bit. Curtis said the City stopped the work on the project, then we asked that the engineer give us his opinion on what was constructed. And did they follow the engineering of his initial design. With the extended wall now, adding 10 more feet to a length of wall isn't going to necessarily change his metrics to use the same word. But he did confirm that and has done considerable amount of work. He's not here tonight, but I've spoken with him and he was at the council meeting. So he has thoroughly reviewed the project. McCutchen said he felt he was looking at a situation where it's structurally sound. It's engineering approved, except for the one last modification with the staff’s recommendation of adding vegetation and making sure that the wall doesn't encroach on neighbor's properties. We definitely would need to verify MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 10 of 12 that. I don't want to re-engineer it here. But I’m just still not clear on next steps. I don't know how you make it structurally sound without making it be as intrusive as it is, because you have to hold back that earth. I do see the challenges of trying to build a retaining wall with no structure and burned timbers and trying to excavate and finding more dead, rotted timbers. Did they approach it the right way? My guess, even if they did it the right way, they would have started digging into it and found they had to come back. It's a very challenging project. And so I'm trying to figure out, is this a workable solution now where we're pretty close? Could they add some vegetation? Making sure that that doesn't encroach? Is this something that we can move forwards with? Or is it something that we need to start over with? Kirchner asked if it was necessary to have gone as wide with the wall from east to west. Bollis said you had a bluff previously, and a combination of a wall system, but there was also vegetation holding that. That vegetation is gone. There has to be something that's going to hold that up, which I think is the reason why this wall expanded in the spots that it did. I know they're supposed to build in-kind, and you look at that overlay, at first, it does not look like it's in-kind, but realistically, it's actually less hardcover than it was. And it's essentially doing the same thing. It's off by a couple feet here and there, but I don't know how you would do it any differently with the constraints of working on a steep slope like that, with not touching any vegetation on the sides on the neighbor lots. To tear it down I think would be worse. That'd be a giant step backwards and you'd end up with something very similar. Essentially, the new wall is very similar to what was there. It's just you couldn't see it because you had a storage shed, walls and stairs and bushes. I doubt there was any drainage behind the old wall. I don't see any outlets for any drain tile (in the photos), like the new wall has. Kirchner said as much as I do have frustration with how this was approached and how we landed here today, I also would firmly agree that are we going to do more damage by denying this and saying start over and the impact that would have on the bluff to try this again. I don't like this one all day long. But I'm concerned that we could potentially do more harm than good by saying go back to the drawing board. McCutcheon agreed it's a no-win situation for everybody involved. This slope is ridiculous. It's one of the steeper ones I've seen. The newer construction retaining walls are pretty obvious because they're built to code. Maybe there could have been a subtle change to make it less obvious but I think at the end it would still look like it does today. I tend to say move forward with it with making sure that those items staff mentioned are addressed. Libby it's very rare that he disagrees with the staff. But I think that this is an ill-fated project that actually was constructed and built different enough from what the council approved that it deserved the stop order. And except for the couple suggestions that I made that would actually bring it back to some of the original construction, I don't think it's redeemable. The original wall burned which is unfortunate. The way it was constructed is very different than what the City approved. The Council did not approve the design that got built. Curtis said I just want to clarify, they applied for a building permit. She explained the plan review was part of the building permit process. The Council saw an emergency slope repair to finish the top. That's basically all the council saw. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 11 of 12 Bollis said I think it comes back to what was here previously was a seven-tiered timber wall that we don't know how it was engineered, and it was replaced with what is currently a six-tiered timber wall that we know how its engineered. That's essentially in-kind. It’s a tiered wall that was built to the engineering specs which are pretty detailed, which I have to believe are much better than what was existing. I agree with everybody up here. I don't think the process is right at all. But I think we're going major steps backwards if this has to be removed, I’m saying functionally this is what was there and if they wanted something different, obviously, they would have had to go through a different process. The other piece is that seventh wall. If they built that, then it would be more in-kind to what was there. But that's not in front of us right now. So that we have to vote on is what's here. Erickson asked if the commission was headed towards a tabling motion. McCutcheon said he'd take any motion at this point to get going. I think we have two of us that have spoken out in favor that we've got enough here where I think the existing this retaining system is workable. Bollis said we're no longer approving in-kind, we're approving the variance that's in front of us Curtis said yes, setback variances for the new walls. Bollis said he was ready to move to approve the variance but he thinks the seventh wall should be built that was already approved by the City Council. Ms. Curtis said she would prefer we not design the wall. The Council approved the emergency repair as an emergency repair, not as a ‘you have to build the seventh wall’. Their alternate to the seventh wall is to increase the height of that sixth wall. She clarified the design had been approved by the applicant’s engineer. We don’t approve engineering. McCutcheon said a licensed structural engineer in the state of Minnesota put forth a design that's going to work in his eyes. And that's pretty good for me. He said the commission might be splitting hairs to require the seventh wall. Bollis said his thought is that we've got a split commission right now. And maybe that seventh wall gets it more to what was in-kind previously. In my mind that gets it closer to what it was supposed to be. And it makes essentially the top of that slope what it used to be. But I'm not going to redesign the project, so we’ve got to vote with what's in front of us. So would you rather us move to deny? Because it's missing that seventh wall? Kirchner said he felt the commission didn’t have enough answers because the engineer was not present. He suggested making a motion with the recommendation that the engineer provide additional feedback on the width of the wall. MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 12 of 12 Bollis clarified his motion to approve the variance as applied with the addition of the suggestion from Kirchner that a licensed civil engineer provide additional feedback specifically to the east to west span of the walls. Erickson asked to add the staff recommendations that it be ensured the wall is not encroaching on the neighbors or is doing so with their permission. Bollis accepted that amendment to the motion. Libby said he would like to see additional scrutiny on completion. Curtis verified the City will inspect it when it's completed. Bollis moved, Kirschner seconded, to approve LA22-000068, 2815 Casco Point Road Variance including staff recommendations, additional engineering review of the width of the wall and final inspection. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 1 (Libby). From:Penny Saiki To:Jim+Sherry White Cc:Melanie Curtis Subject:Minnehaha Water District Date:Friday, December 30, 2022 3:11:18 PM Hi, Sherry and Jim- The contractor who had a permit to replace stairs and a deck that burned plowed about a 12ft wide road from the backyard directly down to the lakeshore. He and the owner then decided to put in stepped log retaining walls the full width of the lot. They removed all the plants and trees and left each of the bordering properties with cliffs to the water. The inspector put on a stop order. Then the Council gave them permission to build another tier to stabilize their hill for the winter, but it was no guarantee that they would not have to replace the terrain to what it was with landscaping to stabilize the grade. Planning was in favor of hill restoration in the past. Now they are coming back for “variances after the fact” to keep the full hill retaining walls. They took out truckloads of earth to place the tiers, and the adjacent properties have cuts to their tree roots and the earth is disturbed. I was hoping that the watershed district could weigh in at the Planning Meeting on Jan 17 at 6. When I saw the road to the lake, I wrote the LMCD right away, and they immediately escalated it to Minnehaha Watershed. It is such an arrogant approach to correct their error to the detriment of the land and water quality. To “forgive” the error and arrogance weakens our (Orono’s) ability to enforce the ordinances and more importantly the protection of the lake and other natural resources. The city offices are closed for the New Year, so I didn’t get to find out from Melanie Curtis what the city Planning position is, but earlier they had recommended restoration of the hill. Penny Saiki psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Before and after visual aides Date:Monday, January 2, 2023 3:58:45 PM Hi, Melanie! Photos for 2815 Casco Point Road for the after the deed variance application. June 2022 Today, 1/2/23 Penny Saiki psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L From:CHARLES PRICE To:Melanie CurtisSubject:2815 Casco: New retaining wall location Date:Monday, December 12, 2022 3:33:11 PM December 12, 2022 Hello Melanie Here are photos of a line that shows where the fence was located at 2815 Casco Point Road prior to the contractor removing the bluff. (The actual top edge of the bluff was of course some distance lakeside from the fence) The line that you see pulled across the property is attached to the fence post at 2813 and the fence post at 2817. The fence at 2815 ran between these two undisturbed fence posts. There is a tape measure attached to the center of this line. This tape measure indicates that the silt fence near the top of the new bluff measures 22 feet further away from the lake than the previous fence. Depending on which terrace one measures to, the new terracing on the bluff appears to be between 9 and 14 feet below the original grade at the fence line. Regards, Charles Price Date: 21 February 2023 Subject: #LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal LLC o/b/o Mark and Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road After-the-fact Setback Variances Public Hearing Other Previous Documents  Certificate of Survey for Lisa Thostenson, dated 5/18/2022  RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet, PC Exhibit J: Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 8/15/2022 Hello Melanie, After reviewing the packet of information regarding agenda item #LA22-000068, please note some significant items that caught my attention and may solicit further scrutiny by the Planning Commission Members and the City Council Members. Background (page 1) This statement highlighted in red below is in error. "Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 28th the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needed an emergency correction. That final wall has been installed."  The final wall has not been installed. As a result, the integrity of the slope is not protected.  The "As-Built" drawings, Certificate of Survey - Wall Detail Original Design, dated 2/3/2013 by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. show six timber walls have been built to date. The original engineering drawing prepared by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, dated 8/24/2022 depicts seven timber retaining walls that were supposed to be built on the bluff. Hence, when the Stop Work order was issued on October 28, 2022, the final timber wall had not been built and the owner requested the emergency permission to build the final 7th timber retaining wall.  When the Stop Work order was issued, the crew from Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal did as much as they could to protect the bluff and stage the needed materials to build the last remaining timber wall. The exposed dirt at the top of the bluff was covered in erosion burlap; the timbers for the final wall build were staged at the top of the bluff and remain untouched to this day. The crew also left a large pile of dirt near the bluff with the assumed intent to use it to backfill for the final timber wall with dirt and stones.  The photos included in the letter from Schimnowski Criterium Engineers dated November 18, 2022 (regarding the "Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier") most closely resemble the current condition of the bluff with the exception of snow on the ground. The outline for the placement of the 7th timber wall was shown the photos to depict the location of the final wall build. However, no timber wall was built in this location, and thus this final retaining wall was not included in the As-Built drawings. PC Exhibit D: As-Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care Notes Listed on Survey: "The survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22." "Boundary work was not completed as part of the as-built survey any monuments and boundaries are for reference only." The property boundary line between 2013 Casco Point and 2815 Casco Point are not in agreement based on two separate surveys conducted by Gronberg & Associates in 2004 and 2022, respectively. Charles visited Gronberg's office once we discovered the discrepancy between the two surveys after a discussion with Scott Gates when Charles, Scott and I were at the bluff and discussing the location of the side property line at the top of the bluff. To date, Mr. Gronberg has not provided a reply to our request to reconcile the two surveys as his surveyor has been out on medical leave. Since the two surveys have not been reconciled, the determination of whether the timber walls are fully located on the 2815 property is not complete. However, I do not believe this is an issue that cannot be readily solved once the surveys are reconciled. I mention this to address a concern stated in the information packet. This is referenced by Section 78-350 & 78-1279 - Setbacks, page 2 of 5: "The plans do not specifically clarify whether or not the new walls were constructed entirely within the subject property boundaries; clarification is required." PC Exhibit D: As-Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care & Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (Proposed), Exhibit E "The Prop. Impervious Surface Calculations and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 2/2/23 in this current information packet do not match the RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet containing the Gronberg Survey completed 5-18-22 and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, Exhibit J, dated 8-15-22. This Hardcover Calculation Worksheet dated 8-15-2022 (and I believe was approved by City Council on or prior to October 10, 2022) itemizes the home renovations, new attached garage, bluff retaining walls and stairs, etc that totaled to a 24.99% hardcover calculation. Interestingly, the updated Hardcover Calculations based on a new survey completed by R.G Rud & Sons total to less hardcover of 24.93% even though there are line items for the added girth and complexity of the new timber walls and the increase in stair length from the lake shore to the top of the bluff. I am concerned that the new survey was performed in January/February 2023 in which major exterior removal/changes have already been made to the house and property and with significant snow on the ground in which many items could be obscured or missing. Some of the discrepancies between the two Hardcover Calculation Worksheets include the following items (values given in square feet). Some of these are very minor changes.  The house footprint decreased from 1425 to 1343. How is it possible that the house footing is now smaller? There is no verbiage or drawings provided in the information packet that describe any changes to the house footprint. Is the house footprint discrepancy the result of the second survey that was completed in the Jan/early Feb months with at least a foot of the snow on the ground that obscured the house concrete footprint? If so, should the original survey and Hardcover Calculations dated 8/15/23 and approved by City Council take precedence?  The proposed garage is listed as 24' x 30' but the math changed from 720 to 710.  The proposed concrete walk increased from 72 to 74  The proposed stoop increased from 66 to 80  The proposed Rear Patio & Step was 124 and now changed to a Rear Patio only (no step) at 108, but mathematically the size of 11' x 10' is 110.  The proposed driveway increased from 930 to 933  The existing stairs to basement decreased from 3'x8'=23 (math error?) from 27.  The math calculation for item "I" on the new Worksheet is not correct: (65+64+60+43+51+47)/2 = 165, not 139.5. Based on the scaled drawing (Exhibit F) of the bluff timber walls, a calculated value of the linear walls totaled well over 165. Granted, these calculations came from a paper copy, but the differences should warrant a second review of this line item.  Line items J through N: proposed stairs by the lake (upper, middle and lower), proposed stair landing by lake, and proposed deck/boar house, and are not supported by any drawings in the information packet. The proposed dimensions are provided, but there is no indication on the how the steps would be built within the 75 foot lakeshore setback area.  There is no line item for the A/C pads in the new Hardcover Calculation Worksheet. Summary To reiterate, this new Hardcover Worksheet dated 2/2/23 does not include the final 7th timber wall that was supposed to be built under the emergency request and City Council authorization, or the additional stairs needed to traverse over the final wall. The emergency corrections identified by Paul Schimnowski, P.E., in his letter dated Nov. 18, 2022 regarding the stability of the bluff and the necessity for building the 7th tier have not been completed. I believe the Planning Commission members and the City Council members should reject the applicants request for approval of an after-the-fact bluff and 75-foot lake setback variances since the "As- Built" retaining walls do not comply with the engineer's specifications. It appears that the overall question is whether the bluff retaining walls should be completed per the engineer's drawing of 7 tiers, or if the bluff should be restored more in line with "in-kind" with the original bluff retaining walls and the previous line of the bluff. My impression is that the new timber walls were constructed very well and the contractor made changes during construction to improve the bluff walls better than the original wall timbers. The contractor built solid retaining walls, but it was the method of removing the huge amount of dirt from the bluff that shocked us, the neighbors, and the city planners and inspectors. Since the contractor has built solid retaining walls, it may be prudent to let him finish building the final wall rather than trying to restore the bluff more in line with the original bluff line. This dilemma is the question for the Planning Commission members and the City Council members to fully evaluate and resolve. From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Re: 2815 Casco Point Rd / LA22-000068 / PC Agenda + Staff Report Date:Saturday, February 18, 2023 1:09:49 PM Hi, Melanie, Thanks fo sending this. I read the entire record from the Agenda sent previously. There are lots of statements made by the applicant’s representatives that are meaningless. As a former architect, any engineer that would write a report from photos only- without the submittals of the actual design of the retaining walls and then back away from his own opinion as holding any truth is not certifying anything. There are other statements that are not true. an example is that the tree roots were cut ahead of the retaining wall installation. The roots were cut with the cut into the hill to install the backfill and the retaining timbers. The excavator made a huge mistake by destroying a portion of the hill without regard to the rest of the hill and water quality. What they did to fix it was not good practice by any means, and when you recommend approval of independently made poor decisions, you weaken the whole point of having and enforcing ordinances. Penny Saiki psaiki@icloud.com On Feb 17, 2023, at 8:24 AM, Melanie Curtis <mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us> wrote: Hello, You are receiving this email because you have expressed interest in the application at 2815 Casco Point Road. Please see the attached Planning Commission agenda and LINK to the staff reportfor TUESDAY’S meeting. The meeting begins at 6PM if you wish to attend. If you have any questions on the meeting information please reach out. Note, we are closed for the holiday on Monday. Have a nice weekend, Melanie <image001.jpg> Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us All permits and applications are handled through our online portal - LINK! <Agenda 02.21.2023.pdf> From:Wes Byrne To:Melanie Curtis Subject:RE: Upcoming request for variance Date:Monday, February 20, 2023 11:33:39 AM Hi Melanie, I'm sorry that I have not had much time to look at all of this until now. I am out-of-town so please allow me to basically ask one question, assuming Charles Price doesn't ask it for me: Given the removal of the old drainage tile and the planned removal of the railroad ties between my property and that of 2815 Casco Point Rd, is the storm water that collects behind the new retaining walls and from the yard surface of the southwest region going to flow over into my yard? I see no changes in the topographic drawings to indicate otherwise. Thank you. Wes Byrne 2817 Casco Point Road 612-741-2001 From: Melanie Curtis [mailto:MCurtis@ci.orono.mn.us] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 10:38 AM To: 'Wes Byrne' Subject: FW: Upcoming request for variance WesMy apologies, I sent this to the Prices yesterday and meant to send it to you as well. Please see the attached information regarding the project at 2815 Casco Point Road. At this point I have confirmed with the applicant that they will be ON the Planning Commission’s agenda on Tuesday night. As you can see below I was still waiting on some information yesterday and it was not confirmed. Please let me know if you have any questions. I plan to email a copy of the packet to you and the Prices for Tuesday’s meeting after the packet is finalized. The meeting begins at 6pm. If you have comments you wish to provide for the Planning Commission please email them to me before Friday morning. Thank you! Melanie Curtis Direct: 952.249.4627 mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us All permits and applications are handled through our online portal - LINK! From:Yorks, Patricia E To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Please Post For Slide on Tonite"s Meeting Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:48:06 PM Hi Melanie: Please post these photos on your presentation for tonite’s meeting agenda on 2813 Casco Point item for agenda tonite. It is important for everyone to see what we are all “up in arms” about regarding this wall. Photo #1 shows the original wall, photo #2 is the wall built after “stop work order” un engineered out of city compliance, photo #3 is the neighbor’s bank that totally washed away in in two large areas during a huge rain storm a couple of years ago where the neighbors have complied with all ordinances and carefully and thoughtfully restored the bank. Looking forward to seeing you tonite Melanie. Please confirm receipt. Thanks so much. Patty Patty Yorks | 952.334.3333 | PYorks@cbrealty.com | www.theyorksrealestate.com From: 9523343333@mms.att.net <9523343333@mms.att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 3:39 PM To: Yorks, Patricia E <pyorks@cbburnet.com> Subject: *Wire Fraud is Real*. Before wiring any money, call the intended recipient at a number you know is valid to confirm the instructions. Additionally, please note that the sender does not have authority to bind a party to a real estate contract via written or verbal communication. From:Margaret Martin To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Fwd: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer Date:Tuesday, February 21, 2023 2:05:16 PM Attachments:image001.png image002.png image003.png image004.png Good afternoon Melanie I own property at 2821 Casco Point road.. my son.. a civil engineer.. geo tech… forwarded below details of his review of the projects two houses from my property. Rather than trying g to summarize at mtg tonight.. forwarding his thoughts… including conclusion..recommendation to table .. as he states for further details PLEASE SHARE WITH ALL CONCERNED Best regards M Martin Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "Peter M. Demshar" <PDemshar@barr.com> Date: February 20, 2023 at 9:17:04 PM CST To: Margaret <marg2821@yahoo.com> Subject: RE: Opinion of Professional Geotechnical Engineer  Talking points: The wall does not appear to be replaced in kind and therefore should fall under the scrutiny of new construction. This wall increases impervious surfaces within the buffer and increases discharge to the lake. It does not appear that anything has been done to naturalize the shoreline. Surface drainage paths have not been identified. Tree removal completed prior to plan approval The damage caused by this disturbance may put neighboring properties at risk in the future. How has this been addressed? Wall design questions The typical wall design section does not clearly outlines spacing for the weep holes but fails to describe how this connects to the drainage system behind the wall Drainage weep holes do not appear to be constructed 30’ OC as described. The installed weep holes do not appear to be installed as specified There is no separator fabric specified between the ¾” drainage aggregate and the natural silty clayey materials. There is no documentation that the behind wall drainage system was constructed as planned. Deadman spacing is identified as every 8’ OC and every 3 courses and the plans show deadman on the 3rd course up and photos show 5 rows of timbers with no deadman (page 36 and page 30. On page 8 of Exibit J the design limitations state that the design software used does not review global stability and that this should be performed by a geotechnical engineer. This documentation has not been included in the application and should be reviewed prior to approving. On Page 7 of Exhibit K Criterium requested additional geotechnical information which was not provided. Page 2 of Exhibit J states that this is a test of the ordinance however this appears sets a precedence that after the fact variances will be accepted without providing plans to properly restore the site. I am recommending that this motion to approve the application for a variance is tabled until further information is provided for review and good faith effort is put forth by the homeowner to address the visual impacts and the water quality impacts. Date Application Received: 12/13/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/03/2023 60-Day Review Period Expires: 04/04/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 21 February 2023 Subject: #LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal LLC o/b/o Mark and Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road After-the-fact Setback Variances Public Hearing Background In July of 2022 the timber lake slope walls, deck, and stair to the lake were destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued (RAS22-000082) to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the walls, staff observed that the construction expanded beyond the in-kind limitations in the wall lengths and some of the wall locations. As a result, on October 28th, a Stop Work order was issued. The contractor was directed to fill in, compact, and secure the open areas with appropriate stabilization measures. Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 28th the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope (Resolution No. 7315, attached as Exhibit K). Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needed an emergency correction. That final wall has been installed. Currently, the owner is requesting after-the-fact variances to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. The lake stairs are an allowed improvement within the 75-foot setback and can be constructed with an admirative building permit. According to City Code Section 78-71(c)(1) regarding reconstruction of legal nonconforming structures involuntarily damaged or destroyed, the deck and shed may also be rebuilt in-kind with an admirative permit. The change to the configuration of the retaining walls, if approved, will likely impact the ability to fully recapture the previous structural footprints and dimensions of the deck and shed. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the slope and existing conditions as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are difficulties in Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of an after-the-fact bluff and 75-foot lake setback variances for new retaining walls. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends partial approval. FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 2 of 5 the topography and challenges brought on by the fire on the slope which may support the variances for the expanded retaining walls. Staff supports the setback variances for the new wall footprint as long as the change does not adversely impact neighboring properties and slope stability. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 & 78-1279 – Setbacks: All of the improvements are within the 75-foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), and are within the bluff. The newly constructed timber walls are situated generally where the previously existing walls were located within the 75-foot setback and within the bluff. However, the new walls are not considered an in-kind replacement as the footprint of some of the walls extend closer to the neighboring properties, are in different configurations, and are in different locations than the previous walls. Variances are required. The plans do not specifically clarify whether or not the new walls were constructed entirely within the subject property boundaries; clarification is required. Section 78-350 – Lot Area/Width: LR-1C DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5acres) 100’ Actual 14,926 s.f. (0.34 acre) 56’@ 75’ / 56’ @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: The applicant has provided hardcover calculations, attached as Exhibit E. The hardcover calculations include the walls as well as replacement stairs to the lake, landings, deck, and shed/boathouse. They are not requesting variances to exceed 25% hardcover. Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover* Tier 1 14,926 s.f. 3,731.5 s.f. (25 %) 3,096 s.f. (21.1%) 3,651.7 s.f. (24.9%) *Includes the improvements/changes shown as part of Building Permit RPS22-000126. Applicable Regulations: Bluff and 75-foot Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The proposed walls replaced walls destroyed by a fire along with other lakeyard improvements such as lake access stairs, a deck, and a shed beneath the deck. Due to the bluff and steep nature of the slope on the subject property as well as the immediately adjacent neighboring properties the walls are necessary. Originally the applicant’s intent was to replace the destroyed walls in-kind. According to the applicant, the process for the reconstruction involved removal of additional material from the slope. Once installed, the placement of the new walls was determined to exceed the in-kind allowance. All of the proposed improvements are within the bluff and lake setback. A lake stair is a permitted improvement within the bluff and 75-foot setback. The deck/walkway and shed are not permitted, however are able to be reconstructed in-kind. The property owners can apply for a building permit to re-build their deck(s) and shed as long as the existing parameters are not exceeded. Because the new walls were installed in a slightly different placement, size, and configuration, variances are required. FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 3 of 5 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Preserving and protecting the lake yard slope is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. Staff recommends the proposed retaining walls be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake wherever feasible. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The as-built retaining walls will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect the slope from catastrophic failure which protects the lake as well as neighboring properties. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in this manner. 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 owner has installed retaining wall improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner has constructed retaining walls to protect against failure of the slope resulting from a catastrophic fire. The existing improvements within the slope of the lake yard were not originally constructed by the owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There were previously existing retaining walls and improvements in the lake yard. The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the bluff and 75-foot lake setback will help to maintain the existing slope and 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. FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 4 of 5 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are 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 slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The steep slope, existing timber wall configuration, and the existing improvements create conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting bluff and lake setback variances to allow the retaining walls within the 75-foot lake setback to remain as constructed with an expanded footprint is reasonable, is a better solution long-term, and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the bluff and 75-foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed/as-constructed walls within the lake yard will continue to preserve the integrity of the slope and there is no conforming location to install the retaining walls which would protect the slope. Preserving the existing wall is necessary for the protection of the slope and the lake. 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. Engineer Review As part of the approval for the emergency slope repair, the City Council directed the applicant to provide an engineer’s opinion regarding the stability of the slopes on the neighboring properties, the opinion letter is attached as Exhibit H. Public Comments Comments from the public have been received and are attached as Exhibit L. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 5 of 5 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the improvements as proposed. Staff does not recommend approval of any walls which encroach into neighboring properties. The applicant should be asked to confirm that the retaining wall work was not conducted beyond the property lines. If improvements were installed into neighboring properties, the application should be modified to include that work as well as confirm property owners’ consent for the work. Staff further recommends vegetative screening of the walls be implemented to screen the new walls from the lake as much as feasible. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Previous “Existing Conditions” Survey Exhibit D. As-Built Survey Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Plan Comparison – Staff Annotated Exhibit G. Photos Exhibit H. Engineer Opinion Exhibit I. City Council Minutes 11/28/2022 Exhibit J. Council Memo 11/28/2022 Exhibit K. Resolution No. 7315 Exhibit L. Public Comment Exhibit M. Property Owners List Exhibit N. Plat Map March 9th, 2023 Unfortunately Lisa and I cannot be at the City Council meeting where our “after the fact” variance at 2815 Casco Point Rd in Orono is on the agenda. We have an extended family vacation at this time that had been delayed twice due to COVID that is scheduled at the same time as the City Council meeting. We thought it might be helpful to provide some background on the situation - although many of you probably have heard about the tragic events. Lisa and I purchased this property in April of 2022. The prior property owner pleaded for us to allow her to rent back the property very short term as she did not have a new home to move to yet.  She was getting divorced - and her kids were coming home from college for the summer.   This was not something we wanted to do, but we reluctantly agreed, provided she move out as soon as humanly possible.  We soon realized she was in no hurry; we were very frustrated and asked her repeatedly to leave.  In late July her kids had a bonfire that got out of control.  There was a full gas can in the boat house that acted as an accelerant to further fuel the fire. Thankfully, the fire department did a tremendous job in putting out the fire and containing the fire to only our property. If it had not been contained, there would be even more damage to the hill and the bluff.  Obviously, this isn't something that we wanted on our plate as new homeowners, but we continue to deal with all of this the best that we can.  As another point of background, we currently reside on Cooks Bay in Mound. We built this home and truly have an appreciation for the lake and the amenities it provides and the care that is required of us as homeowners to preserve this wonderful natural resource. In fact, we have planted well over three dozen trees on our property and have done significant landscaping to protect the environment around us and also to blend in with the neighbors on both sides. This is our 3rd lake home, and we love the life that it offers us.  We support community initiatives like Johnny and the Westonka Walleye Program benefit with jewelry for the raffle at Back Channel every year to help stock walleyes within lake Minnetonka as we truly believe in preserving this lake and everything about it. As we step back further in time as a point of reference, I - Mark Thostenson grew up in Mound and am a 1978 graduate of Westonka high school.  And, for those of you that have a sweet tooth, I actually worked at the Navarre Dairy Queen for five years in the late 70s.  In fact, a number of classmates from high school lived in the Casco Point area while growing up so I'm very familiar with the neighborhood. We’re here for approval for an “after the fact variance” for the retaining wall that was destroyed by the prior owners. Unfortunately, this has been a lose-lose proposition for us, but we're trying to remedy this situation and make it better than it was prior to the fire. Someone mentioned we should have “hand dug” the wall.  The truth is the contractor did do much of the most critical work by hand, with picks, shovels and 5 gal pails – to least disrupt and protect the most critical slopes and areas. Some of the neighbors have been suggesting that we re-do the wall. That would perpetuate the very thing that they have been complaining about – Again disturbing the soil, which would be ridiculous. I don’t believe people understand this situation was an EMERGENCY.  Obviously, it never could have been complete by the snowfall, and I can’t even imagine what a disaster we would have on our hands with all the snow and rain we have had so far this winter.  There were rotted timbers in the hill, and there was not a proper drainage system in place.  Along the way the landscapers felt it necessary to alter slightly some of the timbers to compensate for the additional support that was required. Some of the City’s staff had been out to the site and directed them to protect the bluff and trees to the full extent possible.   Had they just followed the plan exactly – we would not be in this situation.  But we are because neighbors were constantly on the job site begging the landscapers to save trees, and the City staffers had also given that guidance.  The engineer determined the changes in the walls were required to protect the bluff post fire, with no foliage/landscaping and disturbed soils. As we have watched and listened to our neighbors complain that we are not doing what they would like, it has been rather brutal – as we asked for none of this.  We are NOT here to disrupt or damage.  We have simply tried to put this back together before the hill goes into the lake.  We are not landscapers.  That is why we hired a company familiar with working on the lake.  They have a Structural Engineer that has been overseeing and signing off on the entire project. We WANTED to do boulders instead of the “in kind” solution – but the City would not give us permission without a lengthy variance application process (even for an emergency….we asked), and we feared that there was simply no time as we’d be risking the bluff.   The only reason the entire slope was not lost was the luck that we had no significant rainfall from the date of the fire thru the design, permitting and construction process. It was extremely difficult to recreate the walls as they were, not to mention expensive.  And again – we only did it this way because it was the only thing we could get permitted for without months of process and we were dealing with an emergency.  In summary, we would like to thank all of the City staff that has helped us along in this journey.  It is not one that we would have chosen.  We believe our contractor was trying to do the right thing with the slight adjustments that were made – based on the guidance to protect the bluff and trees and the site conditions experienced as work progressed.  We certainly didn’t want them to dip in to our hardcover percentage – as this definitely impacted what we had plans for as we still have to be under 25%. But they felt it was needed, and the engineer agreed.  We believe that the Planning Commission also agrees, and we got their support at the meeting last month.  We are really trying to do this the right way, and look forward to restoring the foliage and the natural beauty of the bluff. We respectfully ask that the City Council grant the variance and allow us to finish this wall.  Sincerely, Mark and Lisa Thostenson From:Patricia e Yorks To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Tonite Meeting Re 2815 Casco Point Date:Monday, March 13, 2023 5:37:39 PM Hi Melanie; I am unable to attend the meeting tonite, however I have some concerns. The main issue is consideration for conservation issues, health of the lake issues by the DNR, LMCD. The chances of planting anything in compacted gravel and having it survive is ridiculous. That ship sailed the minute the city and Valdes initiated the project. Further, with all the concerns expressed by the neighborhood all seemed to be dismissed by the city. With no penalty imposed in the owner, it seems to leave Orono residents to have a free for all. Why not do what you want and ask for forgiveness? there is no penalty. I thought the mayor and city council, the powers that be are elected to look out for our health, safety, structural integrity and to make sure people follow the ordinances for the betterment of all. We as realtors are well aware of hardcover, bluff ordinances, drainage, variances, set backs, and on and on. None of that was considered and the only emergency here is the one Valdes created themselves with tearing into the bluff and removing everything and every plant that was serving to hold the bluff in place. Creating a road down to the shore. This has been very disappointing at best and extremely eye opening when counseling lakeshore buyers what can be done as they consider buying lakeshore. There are no penalties. Sent from my iPhone AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: ND Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the Mayor Council report is for the Council to share information and updates with one another and the community. 2. Background. On March 1st Council Member Benson provided the Administrator and City Attorney an email letter intended for distribution to the Council. As the subject of the letter was likely to result in conversations between council members, staff is providing it as a read head for mayor council report where any discussion can occur in public without violating Open Meeting law. COMMISION ACTION REQUESTED Share updates in information with one another and the community. Exhibits A. Email Received from Council Member Benson for the City Council. Item No.: 18 Date: March 13, 2023 Item Description: Mayor - Council Report Presenter: Mayor and City Council Members Agenda Section: Mayor Council Report Exhibit A. Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities -- A group of elected officials and staff who cover eligible cities. The NWHLM is an organization �.. 7� that is over 55 years old of the Western Hennepin cities who meet ten times per year with the goal of education of member and networking, to achieve better results within our cities February 2rj, 2023 To whom it may concern, This letter is written in response to a discussion about our organization at the Orono City Council work session on February 13, 2023. • The name of the organization is the Northwest Hennepin League of Municipalities (NWHLM). It is not the "Northwest Hennepin Mayor's Association," as Mayor Walsh referred to it. • The NWHLM is composed of elected representatives from various cities and jurisdictions throughout the area. Members include mayors, city council members, a county commissioner, a park board commissioner, and a Metropolitan Council Member. It is not just for mayors. Some cities have paid for two memberships; however, each city has one vote. • During the work session, Mayor Walsh stated, "I am actually a member of that organization." However, Mayor Walsh and Orono's membership and participation ended in 2017 and were not renewed for 2018 at the request of Mayor Walsh. Neither he nor any other elected officials from the City of Orono have attended our meetings since 2017. However, that recently changed in January 2023 when a newly elected Orono council member was invited to and began attending the meetings. • On February 14, which is the day after the Orono City Council work session, Mayor Walsh contacted the NWHLM and stated he would be attending our meetings going forward. As our mission states, our goal is to educate members and network to achieve better results within our city. We value trusted relationships, working together, and learning and growing in our respective roles to help make our cities the best possible. Therefore, iI is essential that what is being stated publicly about the NWHLM is accurate. Respectfully submitted by the NWHLM Executive Committee: Mayor Tom McKee, Chair Mayor Julie Maas-Kusske, Immediate Past Chairperson Mayor Charlie Miner, Vice Chair Mayor Renee Hafften, Secretary Mayor Kent Koch, Treasurer