Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-24-2023 Council Packet
Agenda Council Meeting Monday, July 24, 2023 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.oronomn.gov Sign up for email notifications at www.oronomn.gov Roll Call Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Consent Agenda 1.City Council Meeting Minutes of July 10, 2023 2.City Council Work Session Minutes of July 10, 2023 3.Claims/Bills 4.Approval of Rental License 5.Authorization to Hire Utility Worker – James Nelson 6.Authorization to Accept Resignation – Trent Wiebusch 7.Authorization to Hire Police Officer – Nicholas Schwarz 8.Shoreline Estates (LA21-000055) – Stormwater Maintenance Agreement Amendment 9.LA21-000070 – Terrie DeBaker o/b/o Metropolitan Council, 3447 Crystal Bay Road, Conditional Use Permit, Extension, Resolution No. 7386 Finance Report Community Development Report 10.LA22-000068 – Valdes Lawn Care o/b/o Mark & Lisa Thostenson, 2815 Casco Point Rd, After-the- Fact Variances – Resolution No. 7387 City Attorney Report City Administrator/Engineer Report 11.Old Public Works Facility Remodel (23-044)-Design Proposal 12.Public Works Facility (21-039)- Change Order 1 13.Approval of Next Work Session Draft 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. The council will first open the podium to City of Orono residents before opening the podium to any member of the public wishing to address the council. Mayor/Council Report Closed Session 14.Closed Meeting – Client Privileged Discussion The meeting will be closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege (section 13D.05, subdivision 3 Agenda Council Meeting Monday, July 24, 2023 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.oronomn.gov Sign up for email notifications at www.oronomn.gov (b)) to discuss the threat of litigation by the City of Long Lake regarding the Contract for Fire Protection and will include an update related to the following lawsuits: • Theodore Bonnett and Allision Bonnett v. City of Orono • Barbara Schmidt v. City of Orono, MnDNR, MCWD, Orono Schools • Jay Nygard, et Al v. Orono • Kendall Nygard, et al v. Orono • Jay Nygard vs. Orono, Dennis Walsh, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Attorney Soren Mattick, Attorney Jared Shepard • Lake Minnetonka Real Estate II, LLC v Feldshons and Orono • Brad Erickson v. Walsh, Crosby and Orono Adjournment Upcoming Events 2023 08/07 Park Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 08/14 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 08/14 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 08/21 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Richard F. Crosby II) 08/28 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 08/28 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 09/04 City Offices Closed 09/05 Park Commission Work Session, 6:00 p.m. 09/11 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 09/11 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 09/18 Planning Commission Meeting, 6:00 p.m. (Alisa Benson) 09/25 Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m. 09/25 Council Meeting, 6:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 1 of 8 ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Councilmembers Matt Johnson, Alisa Benson, Richard Crosby III, and Maria Veach. Representing Staff were City Attorney Soren Mattick, Finance Director Ron Olson, City Planner Melanie Curtis and City Planner Natalie Nye. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The agenda was approved by consensus CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2023 2. COUNCIL WORK SESSION MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2023 3. CLAIMS/BILLS 4. AUTHORIZATION TO HIRE ANNE HENTGES – ACCOUNTANT 5. APPROVAL OF RENTAL LICENSE 6. APPROVAL TO ACCEPT DONATION – CENTERPOINT ENERGY COMMUNITY SAFETY GRANT – RESOLUTION NO. 7379 7.` APPROVAL OF TONKAWA-PARTENWOOD FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT AWARD (22-021) 8. LA23-000022 – MICHAEL CLARK, 565 LEAF STREET, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7380 9. LA23-000023 – BOB RENAUD WITH MINNESOTA GREEN O/B/O BRENT LONGVAL, 1856 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7381 This item was removed from the consent agenda 10. LA23-000024 – SARAH & KEVIN REVERING, 1960 FOX RIDGE ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7382 11. LA23-000028 – LOREN AND JULIA PARKS, 350 CRESTVIEW AVENUE, VARIANCES – RESOLUTION NO. 7383 Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda with Item 9 removed. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 9. LA23-000023 – BOB RENAUD WITH MINNESOTA GREEN O/B/O BRENT LONGVAL, 1856 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 7381 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 2 of 8 Johnson said he pulled this off the consent agenda to bring some visibility to the item. The applicant was looking to put in a boulder wall in lieu of a timber wall and that requires a variance, he said. The City is working on a change in the ordinance so in the future such applications could be approved by staff instead of having to get a variance. He said he supports this change that is in process and wanted to call attention to it. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt Resolution Number 7381. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PRESENTATION 12. TOUR DE TONKA Tim Litfin Provided a presentation on the Tour De Tonka, giving an historic overview, sponsors, and groups supported by the Tour. He said Orono has been involved for 18 years. Litfin showed this year’s map and shirt. New this year is a medallion hunt with six hidden around the community. More volunteers are still needed. It takes more than 100 volunteers to put on the event, which is set for Aug. 5 this year. 13. REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW MEYERS ANNUAL UPDATE Rep. Andrew Meyers reported on this legislative session that ended in May. He said Orono would receive $370,000 in public safety money and in 2024, some transportation aid although that amount has not been determined. A bonding bill was finally passed this year, Meyers said. Other things that will affect cities will be paid family leave, legal cannabis, and a new requirement for a Climate Action Plan. He said he would be appearing at community events this summer. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 14. LA22-000064 LEBRISIA IVERSEN, 4448 NORTH SHORE DRIVE, VARIANCES City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the variance request explaining the applicant is seeking variances for a house addition on the north side of the home. The property is a substandard lot. There is an existing one-story home that's non-conforming and does not meet the required setbacks and is over on hardcover. The 75-foot setback and average Lakeshore setback line currently run through the existing home and the proposed addition would be completely in front of that those lines but would not encroach any further toward the lake than the existing 35 feet. The proposed addition is two stories with a rooftop terrace above the second story or approximately 12 feet taller than the existing home. They are proposing a new deck that will be closer to the lake and will also be new hardcover within the 75-foot setback. The proposed project would reduce the hardcover but it will not achieve compliance with the 25 percent maximum. Nye said City Staff does agrees that there are practical difficulties present and can possibly support the construction of an addition, but she said the proposed plan creates a new vertical encroachment in the average Lakeshore setback and 75-foot setback and greatly increases the existing nonconformity. The Planning Commission reviewed this proposal at the June 20 meeting and was split, recommending approval by a vote of three to two. The Planning Commission was concerned with overall height and the expansion of the nonconformity, Nye said, but also noted that neighbors were in support of the project and that the addition did not impact the lake views of the neighboring properties. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 3 of 8 Andrew Iverson, 4448 North Shore Drive, said they bought the house in 2019 but it needed a lot of work so they have taken four years to remodel the house into their home. When they purchased the house it had no siding and all the windows were deteriorating, he said. Their family is growing and they want to add on to the house to create a classroom and additional space as well as the rooftop terrace as a safe play space for their children. He pointed to another nearby residence that was approved to have a rooftop terrace. Mayor Walsh stated the problem with Orono’s smaller lots is that people buy properties with existing conditions that couldn't be put there today, and then want to expand that. He said the applicants were just barely able to squeeze just a little bit of living space out of basically a non-buildable lot. He said he was familiar with the property and that the new owners had done a great job with the remodel to this point. Johnson noted due to the size of the lot they would never be able to meet the 75-foot setback but asked if there was a way they could improve the situation by building up. He said the applicant is way below the height limit. Iverson said the house does not have a basement but rather a crawl space and that impacts the ability to have livable space. Walsh said he can definitely see the problem but not having enough space is not a practical difficulty but rather a personal issue. For the City, the problem is being consistent and not allowing residents to expand non-conformities. He said sometimes people need to know what they are buying. When the City says yes to things, it can’t say no later on to people with the same kind of issue, Walsh said. Crosby said the biggest issue is creating another non-confirming use where the property is already non- conforming. He suggested tabling it for now and working with the staff to find a compromise. Benson said in reviewing the Planning Commission notes, the added height and the 75-foot lake setback were called out and that the City has been consistent on that. With small, substandard lakeshore lots there's only so much room, she said, and that's why the Council has been consistent in terms of enforcing that. She suggested it might be worth the applicant’s while to see if they could think of a plan that may give them a little bit more space living space but not be so far into this encroachment on a number of different areas such as height and side setbacks, Iverson pointed out the house was approved at one time. Now there's new rules and laws and regulations, he said, noting again that they are not trying to encroach any farther towards the lake. He said he feels that they should be “grandfathered” in. Nye said currently residents are not allowed to build anything within the 75-foot setback. There is a house there but expanding that footprint either out or up increases the non-conformity. The Council appears to be willing to let the applicants fill in within the bubble that they have. She suggested talking to their builder to see if they could possibly get a second story within the same ridge line. Johnson said he would not be in favor of any expansion of the existing footprint. If this was someone that was going to build a new house, he said he would be in favor of letting them use the footprint that exists. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 4 of 8 But the minute they expand, particularly over this 75-foot setback, then it is walking into an area where there isn't a lot of support from this Council or past Councils on that issue. He said if the Council denied the application the applicant would have to start over, but if the Council tabled the item it would allow them to work with staff and their builder on another proposal. Nye said staff would grant an extension of the application if it is needed. Crosby moved, Johnson seconded, to table LA22-000064, 4448 North Shore Drive, Variances VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson gave a presentation on the previous month’s building revenue, noting the City is almost even with this point last year for building permit revenue although June was down from the previous year. He said the City’s golf course is doing incredibly well this year with revenues of more than $100,000 in June. Although the season started a little later, the golf course is $40,000 ahead of the same period last year and already has surpassed annual revenues from 2019. He said the Parks Director and Club House Manager have been doing an excellent job innovating with special programs such as youth activities and food trucks. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT 15. AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 7374 VIA RESOLUTION NO. 7384 Attorney Mattick reported that Paul Reuvers, the City’s defense counsel in the breach of contract suit brought by the City of Long Lake, drafted a resolution clarifying the City’s position and asked that it be brought before the City Council at this meeting. City staff has reviewed it and finds it to be reflective of their intention when preparing the report regarding fire service, he said. The Council has had a closed session on litigation strategy, but resolutions cannot be adopted in closed session, according to the attorney. The purpose of the resolution is to clarify the resolution and the generalized intent of the plan that was prepared by staff and adopted by City Council. Benson said she does not see the resolution as a clarification. It's a change in course, she said, because the first resolution, which she did not support, was talking about resuming responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the Navarre station no later than July 1, 2024. In another sentence after that in the new resolution it talks about staff from Orono working with City staff from Long Lake and ensuring a smooth transition. In her reading, she said, they are different things and the first resolution was quite clear. Mattick said neither the City Administrator nor the Fire Chief, when preparing the report and resolution, planned on doing anything without Long Lake’s consent. To the extent that wasn't clear, he said, it should have been tighter the first time around and that's the purpose of the amendment. Benson said the new resolution does not include the date of July 1 while the first resolution did. MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 5 of 8 Mattick said while it still assumes the July 1, 2024 date for the service area, it is still a direction to try and negotiate terms regarding the fire station by then, understanding that there will have to be a Plan B if there isn't a negotiated agreement. Benson said she was not in favor of the amendment because it is still attached to the original resolution which she did not support. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to adopt Resolution Number 7384 Amending Resolution Number 7374. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 1 (Benson). CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT 16. NEXT WORK SESSION DRAFT AGENDA Finance Director Olson, reporting for the City Administrator, said the next work session agenda would be the general fund budget update. Benson moved, Veach seconded, to adopt the next City Council Draft Work Session Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 17. APPROVAL OF 2023 ANNUAL APPOINTMENTS – RESOLUTION 7385 Finance Director Olson said this came up at a previous meeting and involves removing the Mayor from a couple committees and adding Alisa Benson to the Human Resources Committee and Maria Veach to the Fire Negotiating Committee as well as dropping the School Committee because it hasn’t been meeting and the Parks liaison position because any Councilmember can attend the Parks Commission meeting. Benson asked who made the new assignments, what the Human Resources Committee does, and when it had last met. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve the revised annual appointments as presented and drop the School Committee and Parks liaison. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 18. COUNCILMEMBER PROVIDED DOCUMENT LABEL Finance Director Olson said this also came up at a recent Council meeting and is Council direction to allow a Councilmember to prepare documents that have not been prepared by the City and might not be in agreement with the other Councilmembers that they would put a stamp on them or indicate on the documents in some way, shape or form that this is that Council person's opinion or position and not necessarily the position of the whole Council. Benson said her suggestion is that if the City is going to utilize this stamp that it should also apply to the advisory Commissions. She said she had reviewed the tape of the previous meeting and she had indicated she was introducing the documents she presented into the public record and there would be hard copies available at the end. which is why she placed them out in the gallery. She added she had clarified with the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 6 of 8 City Attorney that doing so was not violation of anything. She said she was in favor of the wording and thinks it was good to have a discussion around it. Veach said her name was on a comment card and she was disappointed to find that her name had been used and assigned to a support category based on what Benson thought she was saying. She said she thought her comments were matter-of-fact, and they were the same questions she had asked Long Lake previously as a citizen. She said she put those comments together not knowing that they would ever be used in that way or that she would be assigned to a category without her actual comments being used. She wondered why she wasn’t included in the third column which was headed just asking questions. Walsh moved, Johnson seconded, to approve the label in paragraph three to be used by Councilmembers when providing documents to the public at City Council meetings. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Kendall Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, and 5658 Judith Road, Bokeelia, Florida, welcomed Councilmember Crosby back saying she had probably made more meetings than he has though she lives in Florida. She said Crosby was characterizing the Fire Department issue as a business decision, so she was going to cover the City’s legal affairs. She said she and her husband, Jay Nygard, have lawsuits with the City that tax dollars through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust are covering in the amounts of $32,000 and $199,000. Other open suits, she said, include $50,000 from the League Trust for Mayor Walsh’s private legal fees. In regard to Bederwood Park she said her data request found nothing, but she alleged the attorneys are being paid for that case out of the City budget. Her malicious prosecution suit, she said, is costing the League Insurance Trust $85,000 for maximizing hard cover on their property with a one and five-eighths inch driveway lip, noting the Council had just spent 30 minutes with an applicant attempting to go up two stories on their house. Another suit involving residents seeking some sort of lane access is costing taxpayers $110,000, she said, and the City does not yet know the cost of the Long Lake suit. James Elder, 195 South Brown Road, said he would like to comment on the 2024 preliminary Orono budget. He said it was his understanding that one of the major arguments being made by Orono to start its own Fire Department was that it was paying too much for fire services under the Long Lake Fire Department arrangement. In the 2024 budget, he said, expenses related to fire will account for 24 percent of the City’s total budget. The current cost to Orono to lease fire coverage from Long Lake is $544,000 a year, he said, but Orono is preparing to spend $2,251,000 in 2024, which seems to be over four times what the City is currently spending. He said that was startling and a lot of tax dollars for a City likely facing legal action from the City of Long Lake regarding Orono’s plans to start a new Fire Department. He asked the City Council to go to mediation before making irreversible financial decisions. David Pierson, 2160 Webber Hills Road, said Councilmember Benson had asked about the lack of a date on the fire resolution and it was interesting that the attorney had replied that the date was still July 1, 2024 but if no agreement had been reached the City would have to go to Plan B. Plan B, he said, is very dangerous because it will then be an issue of public safety including where the equipment is coming from, MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 7 of 8 what firehouse, and what fire fighters. He said he was also very disappointed in the Mayor’s use of the term propaganda at the last meeting. He called it a very incendiary word especially when used toward another Councilmember and by association, the staff. He said the information that had been called propaganda had come from City Council minutes and while he does not expect it, he would ask the Mayor to apologize to both Councilmember Benson and the staff for the use of the word propaganda. Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, said he wanted to finish what his wife was talking about with two more lawsuits. Residents have no idea how much it's going to cost, he said, adding it just keeps going with this litigious Council. He pointed out no other community in the area is even close to having seven open lawsuits as does Orono. He accused the Council of violating the open meeting law by coming back and taking additional action after closed meetings. The Minnesota Open Meeting Law prohibits actions being taken in a secret meeting, he said, because it is impossible for the interested public to become fully- informed and present their views. He questioned the City Attorney allowing the Council to have illegal meetings and get itself into multiple lawsuits. He wondered how much that legal representation is costing the City. He said the City is spending so much on lawsuits that there won’t be money left for a Fire Department. He added taxpayers are going to be paying for what the City Council is doing. Fees increase every month and taxes are going up, he said. He urged speakers at the Council table to speak up and use their microphones properly. Chelsea Wetrick, Independence, said the Council is nervous when the public speaks because everything that comes out of their mouths is a lie. She read a definition of transparency stating it is the government's obligation to share information that is needed to make informed decisions and hold officials accountable for the conduct of all of the people's business. She asked what the Council is trying to hide. She said in the continued meeting after the closed meeting, the rest of the Council kept Councilmember Veach from making a motion to clear everything up in front of the public and repeatedly cut off Councilmember Benson. She said she was wondering if it’s all women they hate or if it's just intelligent women or those that are not subservient. Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Road, Independence, said if the Council wants to be trusted it has to be honest. He said the Council has had every opportunity to sit down and talk about his allegations face to face. He claimed Councilmember Crosby had begged him to forgive the Mayor but Walsh had brought up his faith and religion. Erickson stated the Bible says one has to seek repentance before forgiveness can be afforded. The Mayor has called him a liar and other names, he said, but the courts are good at getting to the truth. He said the label stamp adopted at this meeting should have been on the video that Walsh sent out before the last election. He said he will prove the Mayor sent the video and will prove that Councilmember Crosby was in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. He wondered what his lawsuit would cost the City, saying he was just getting started spending money. MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT Benson reminded everyone that earlier in the year the Council had been given a presentation by the City Administrator on proper City procedures. It was explained, she said, that the agenda is approved at the beginning of each meeting and that new items may be introduced at the beginning of a meeting but should not be introduced once the agenda is set. Several times this year, new items have been added after the MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING July 10, 2023 6:00 o’clock p.m. _____________________________________________________________________________________ Page 8 of 8 agenda has been set by vote, she said, including at the last meeting on June 26, 2023 both in the Mayor Council Report and again after the closed session was reopened. Going forward, she asked the Council to abide by the process recommended by staff by adhering to the agenda as adopted and by refraining from the practice of adding new items during the course of meetings. She said she also wanted to discuss decorum at the dais. Robert's Rules of Order are clear that discussion at the dais should under no circumstances involve attacking and questioning the motives of another Councilmember, she said. She noted Councilmember Crosby reiterated the importance of decorum at the last meeting and it's a point well taken. She asked the Council going forward to commit to engaging in discussion while refraining from the use of pejorative language and inferences to the motives of others. In response to the concerns expressed by Councilmember Veach, she said the comment cards were one of just a few opportunities for the public to weigh in on fire service in this City and her intent in presenting the information publicly was that asking for input from citizens and not utilizing it, especially in the issue of fire service, is not helpful. She invited Veach to offer clarifications on the document she presented at the last meeting. She also said she will attend this week's Future Fire Service group meeting. Veach noted Benson said the Council should not question one another’s motives but she felt that inferring her motives is what Benson had done in print. Benson could have asked her what she meant, she said, instead of making this her first introduction to many people and especially coming from someone who is well-respected in the community. She added she would like to have been able to discuss this with Benson privately. Johnson said there has been a fire negotiations meeting but the Committee didn’t get to the data from the comment cards. They plan to look at that at the next meeting. He mentioned an open house that week at the EOC for anyone interested in becoming a fire fighter. Crosby said he was tired after a wonderful family weekend celebrating the marriage of his daughter. His other daughter will be having a baby soon so he will be a grandfather. He told the assembly life moves fast and they should enjoy the ride. Walsh said the Fourth of July was mostly a safe and fun celebration in town except for the unfortunate incident at the boat club resulting in several boats being burned due to a fireworks accident. He said the rain dampened the fun a bit, probably reducing the size of the crowd in Excelsior for the fireworks. He invited everyone to Coffee with the Mayor the next Wednesday morning. He concluded with quotes from Frederick Douglass and Martin Luther King Jr. adding that the recent Supreme Court decision that took race out of admissions to colleges is a return to Dr. King’s dream that his children will be judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ADJOURNMENT Walsh moved, Crosby seconded, to adjourn the meeting at 7:42 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _____________________________________ _______________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Orono City Council Work Session Minutes Monday, July 10, 2023 Council Chambers 5:00 p.m. Page 1 of 1 PRESENT: Mayor Dennis Walsh, Council Members Alisa Benson, Richard F. Crosby II, Matt Johnson, and Maria Veach. Staff members present were Police Chief Correy Farniok, Finance Director Ron Olson, Fire Chief James Van Eyll, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Natalie Nye, and City Clerk Anna Carlson. 1. Cannabis Legislation Update City Attorney Soren Mattick presented the Cannabis Legislation update to the City Council. The current moratorium will expire at the end of July. He noted the city can initiate a new moratorium on the cannabinoids, however the city will need to develop licensing standards for hemp derivative products. Police Chief Correy Farniok noted procedures will need to be established to make sure retailers are staying compliant. Mattick mentioned the ramifications allowed for Cities to use is limited but there will be a process for reporting. Council Member Richard F. Crosby II asked how can officer’s test for sobriety. Farniok noted that field sobriety tests would be used to test levels of impairment. Walsh noted that the next steps will be to start thinking about getting prepared for zoning wisely and added that staff also look at what the legislature has in place and distinguish a plan for Orono. Council Member Veach asked if there is something the city could put together for reporting non-compliance issues. Meeting ended at 5:49 p.m. CITY OF ORONO: ATTEST: ________________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor _________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: RJO 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 121511 to 121606 and ACH transaction 20130363 to 20130365 totaling $803,701.51. 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: July 24th, 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: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 2949642450 101-41900-201 NOTEBOOKS, PENS Central Services 57.83- OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 3003228340 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Police Department 114.87- OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 3024265230 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 19.99- OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 3024271380 101-41900-221 ADDRESS STAMP Central Services 58.28- OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 3028085600 101-41900-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES Central Services 62.08- OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/20/2023 120830 3028293340 101-41900-201 INK FOR PLOTTER Central Services 321.00- Total 120830:634.05- BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN 07/11/2023 121380 29659 101-42110-437 DMT-G ONLINE RECERT, VARGAS Police Department 75.00- Total 121380:75.00- FOX HOMES 07/11/2023 121463 062823 1040 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS21-000080 1040 LOMA LI 1,000.00- BRET ABBOTT 07/11/2023 121463 063023 1735 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS22-11 1735 FAGERNESS 10,000.00- Total 121463:11,000.00- BRET ABBOTT 07/11/2023 121511 063023 1735 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS22-11 1735 FAGERNESS 10,000.00 Total 121511:10,000.00 FOX HOMES 07/11/2023 121512 062823 1040 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND RPS21-000080 1040 LOMA LI 1,000.00 Total 121512:1,000.00 ALLSTREAM 07/13/2023 121513 19622614 101-42110-321 PHONE SERVICE 11/23/21-12/22/21 Police Department 221.02 ALLSTREAM 07/13/2023 121513 19622614 101-41900-321 PHONE SERVICE 11/23/21-12/22/21 Central Services 309.41 ALLSTREAM 07/13/2023 121513 19622614 601-49400-321 PHONE SERVICE 11/23/21-12/22/21 51.57 ALLSTREAM 07/13/2023 121513 19622614 602-49450-321 PHONE SERVICE 11/23/21-12/22/21 Sewer 117.88 ALLSTREAM 07/13/2023 121513 19622614 101-45210-321 PHONE SERVICE 11/23/21-12/22/21 Golf Course 36.84 Total 121513:736.72 MINUTEMAN PRESS 07/13/2023 121514 34273 101-41900-352 NEWSLETTER POSTAGE Central Services 3,521.20 Total 121514:3,521.20 A 1 RENT IT 07/24/2023 121515 187388-1 101-45200-404 STUMP GRINDER Parks 252.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121515:252.00 Alex & Harley Baron 07/24/2023 121516 07.2023 RPS 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS22-000098 70 FERNDAL 1,000.00 Total 121516:1,000.00 All Flags LLC 07/24/2023 121517 661839 101-43000-224 FLAGS AND POLES Public Works Department 906.60 Total 121517:906.60 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-240 COMPUTER ACCESSORIES Public Works Department 37.88 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-224 FILE FOLDERS Public Works Department 33.74 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-240 SHOP SUPPLIES Public Works Department 507.19 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-221 GLASS 430 Public Works Department 51.25 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 601-49400-223 SQUEEGEE WATER PLANTS 55.26 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-240 FIRE RADIOS BATTERY Public Works Department 244.95 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-489 SHIPPING Public Works Department 5.98 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 07/24/2023 121518 1W3R-WQV 101-43000-489 DISCOUNTS Public Works Department 6.76- Total 121518:929.49 BCA TRAINING & DEVELOPMEN 07/24/2023 121519 29659-MCC 101-42110-437 TRAINING / MCCOY DMT Police Department 75.00 Total 121519:75.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 w9+22336 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 91.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 W922333 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 303.50 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 W922334 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 166.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 W922335 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 182.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 W922337 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 91.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 w922338 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 166.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 w922339 101-45200-415 BIFF RENTAL Parks 91.00 BIFFS INC 07/24/2023 121520 w922340 101-43100-415 BRUSH SITE Brush Site 91.00 Total 121520:1,181.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0305559 440-48975-304 21-039 PW FACILITY DESIGN 2,263.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0313810 101-43280-304 LA21-000037 ORCHARD CREEK Special Services 118.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0313810 101-43280-304 LA20-000048 SHORELINE ESTATES Special Services 177.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0313810 101-43280-304 LA21-000036 ORONO CROSSINGS Special Services 257.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0313810 101-43280-304 LA22-000003 LONG BRIDGE Special Services 253.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315807 435-48975-304 22-001 2022 STREETS PROJECT 2,398.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315808 602-16500 23-014 SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION 1,150.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315809 101-43280-304 LA21-000037 ORCHARD CREEK Special Services 330.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315809 101-43280-304 LA20-000048 SHORELINE ESTATES Special Services 406.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315809 101-43280-304 LA21-000036 ORONO CROSSINGS Special Services 406.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315809 101-43280-304 LA22-000003 LONG BRIDGE Special Services 330.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 602-49450-305 GIS MAINTENANCE SEWER Sewer 2,242.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 601-49400-305 GIS MAINTENANCE WATER 1,965.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 651-49910-305 GIS MAINTENANCE STORM SEWER Storm Water 2,578.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 101-43170-305 GIS MAINTENANCE GENERAL Engineering 2,318.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 101-43000-305 GIS FOR STREETS Public Works Department 621.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315810 101-42400-305 GIS FOR CDD Building & Zoning 1,045.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315812 101-45200-304 23-030 HACKBERRY MASTER PLAN Parks 6,603.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315930 101-45200-304 22-033 LAKE ACCESS MARKING Parks 7,937.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315932 101-19999 24-001 2024 STREETS IMPROVEMENTS PROJE 9,812.50 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315933 435-48976-304 23-001 STREETS PROJECT 1,820.00 BOLTON & MENK INC.07/24/2023 121521 0315934 101-43170-303 21-040 NAVARRE PARKING LOT Engineering 1,635.50 Total 121521:46,669.50 BOND TRUST SERVICES CORP 07/24/2023 121522 79994 322-47000-611 DEBT SERVICE SERIES 2014A 27,462.50 Total 121522:27,462.50 BRAD BARINSKY 07/24/2023 121523 2023.07 BAR 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS21-000055 1825 LAKESI 9,000.00 Total 121523:9,000.00 BRIDGESTONE GOLF INC 07/24/2023 121524 inv-10031796 101-45210-095 GOLF BALLS Golf Course 436.32 Total 121524:436.32 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0000G 101-41600-307 ADMINISTRATION/GENERAL MATTERS Law/Legal Services 7,902.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0004G 101-42110-307 POLICE MATTERS 06/23 Police Department 187.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0201G 101-41600-307 MISC RECORDINGS 06/2023 Law/Legal Services 792.52 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0740G 703-49960-379 LITIGATION - MERA CLAIM 6,912.77 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0800G 101-42400-307 B&Z STAFF MTGS 06/23 Building & Zoning 425.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0801G 101-41600-307 COUNCIL MEETINGS 06/23 Law/Legal Services 1,547.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0802G 101-42400-307 B&Z STAFF MTGS 06/23 Building & Zoning 323.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0803G 101-41600-307 ORDINANCES 6/23 Law/Legal Services 3,301.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0805G 101-41600-307 FIRE MATTERS Law/Legal Services 388.20 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0844G 101-41600-307 LMCD/DRAGONFLY HILL Law/Legal Services 418.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0854G 101-43280-307 RAS 23000026 3375 GRAHAM HILL Special Services 265.00 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0855G 101-43280-307 LA23-000017 746 TONKAWA Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0856G 101-43280-307 LA23-000020 3020 CASCO PT Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0857G 101-43280-307 LA23-000021 2691 ETHEL Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0858G 101-43280-307 LA23-000011 1015 WILDHURST TR Special Services 82.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0859G 101-43280-307 RAS23-000036 4455 BAYSIDE Special Services 222.50 CAMPBELL KNUTSON 07/24/2023 121525 2717-0860G 101-43280-304 RPS23-000061 - 1850 LAKESIDE Special Services 81.00 Total 121525:23,094.99 CECE S SIGNS INC 07/24/2023 121526 9374 602-49450-489 GS#12 PLACARD Sewer 60.00 Total 121526:60.00 CENTRAL PENSION FUND SOU 07/24/2023 121527 071023 CEN 101-21705 LOCAL UNION #49 6/26/23-7/09/23 880.00 Total 121527:880.00 Century Link 07/24/2023 121528 2023.07 601-49400-489 INTERNET 279.50 Total 121528:279.50 CenturyLink 07/24/2023 121529 644613549 614-49840-329 INTERNET 5/08/23-6/07/2023 LUMEN Cable Franchise 1,057.04 Total 121529:1,057.04 CHUNKS LAKESHORE AUTO 07/24/2023 121530 0020152 101-42110-402 SQUAD 265 / EMISSION CANISTER Police Department 578.92 Total 121530:578.92 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON 07/24/2023 121531 22334 601-49400-489 LAB FEES 36.00 Total 121531:36.00 CITY OF LONG LAKE 07/24/2023 121532 2023.06 601-49400-387 2ND QTR 2023 WATER SERVICE 5,070.13 CITY OF LONG LAKE 07/24/2023 121532 2023.06 602-49450-387 2ND QTR 2023 SEWER SERVICE Sewer 8,516.04 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CITY OF LONG LAKE 07/24/2023 121532 20230018 101-42260-318 3RD QTR 2023 FIRE SERVICE WITH LL Fire Protection Services 135,990.75 Total 121532:149,576.92 CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 07/24/2023 121533 04/01/23-06/602-49450-387 SEWER SERVICE - 2ND QTR 2023 Sewer 199.50 Total 121533:199.50 CIVIC SYSTEMS LLC 07/24/2023 121534 CVC23582 710-49970-416 SOFTWARE SUPPORT - 7/1/23-12/33/23 7,864.00 Total 121534:7,864.00 CORTLAND CUSTOM HOMES 07/24/2023 121535 2023.07 COR 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS22-000144 2601 CASCO 1,000.00 Total 121535:1,000.00 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE MON 07/24/2023 121536 1955592 101-45210-093 CONCESSIONS Golf Course 398.90 DAHLHEIMER BEVERAGE MON 07/24/2023 121536 1955592 101-45210-091 ALCOHOL Golf Course 537.70 Total 121536:936.60 DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY, LLC 07/24/2023 121537 115005 REV.101-42110-437 UOF/LESS LETHAL ICP INSTRUCTOR COURSE Police Department 995.00 Total 121537:995.00 DENALI CUSTOM HOMES INC 07/24/2023 121538 2023.07 DEN 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS21-000055 1,000.00 Total 121538:1,000.00 Derek Nikko Excavating Inc 07/24/2023 121539 7524 225-45200-511 HOUSE REMOVAL - HACKBERRY 11,036.00 Total 121539:11,036.00 DIAMOND MOWERS INC.07/24/2023 121540 0245531-IN 651-49910-221 CUTTER KNIVES - UNIT #450 Storm Water 223.25 Total 121540:223.25 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/24/2023 121541 954899 101-41900-352 22-021 TONKAWA FORCEMAIN REPLACEMENT Central Services 174.72 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/24/2023 121541 954900 101-42400-340 PH FOR B&Z Building & Zoning 77.48 ECM PUBLISHERS INC 07/24/2023 121541 955003 101-42260-340 AD FOR RECRUITMENT OPEN HOUSE Fire Protection Services 363.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121541:615.20 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 07/24/2023 121542 0512971 601-49400-240 GATE VALVE ROD KEY 421.69 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #25 07/24/2023 121542 0513673 601-49400-227 1" METERS FOR RESALE 3,445.43 Total 121542:3,867.12 FLAGSHIP RECREATION 07/24/2023 121543 F21374 101-45200-223 SWING PARTS Parks 851.00 Total 121543:851.00 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 07/24/2023 121544 3270-575656 701-49800-215 OIL FILTERS PD SQUADS 61.71 Total 121544:61.71 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016480/1 701-49800-215 POONTON MOTOR REPAIR UNIT 619 28.70 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016663/1 101-43000-240 STAPLE GUN Public Works Department 45.98 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016679/1 101-45200-223 BOLTS Parks 2.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016697/1 101-45200-216 WASP SPRAY Parks 67.08 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016710-1 101-45200-404 CHAINSAW REPAIR Parks 63.98 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016728/1 101-43000-224 WEED KILLER Public Works Department 18.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016730/1 101-43000-226 GLOVES PPE Public Works Department 16.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 016800/1 101-45200-223 GRAFFITI REMOVER Parks 19.98 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16609 701-49800-403 CHAINSAW REPAIR 69.86 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16609/1 701-49800-403 REPAIR CHAINSAW 69.86 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16610 701-49800-215 QUART OF 5-20 OIL FOR SQUARD CAR 8.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16718/1 101-45200-225 LEAF RAKE Parks 14.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16728 101-43000-224 WEED KILLER Public Works Department 18.99 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16729 101-43000-226 HARD HAT FOR TREES Public Works Department 98.86 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16729/1 101-43000-226 PPE TREE HARD HAT BRIAN Public Works Department 98.98 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16768/1 101-45200-223 SPRAY PAINT Parks 17.18 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16772/1 101-41900-223 CLEANING SUPPLIES Central Services 19.16 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 16788/1 701-49800-215 HOSE FOR EQUIPMENT REPAIR 6.78 GOPHER ACE 07/24/2023 121545 D63368/1 101-43000-404 ANT POISON Public Works Department 4.99 Total 121545:693.33 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 07/24/2023 121546 3060658 601-49400-489 SPLIT DISTRIBUTION 562.95 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121546:562.95 GRAINGER INC 07/24/2023 121547 806510418 101-43050-227 TEE SCH. 40 1/4"Public Works - Spring Park 11.20 Total 121547:11.20 GUARDIAN FLEET SAFETY 07/24/2023 121548 230725 101-42110-402 SQUAD 269 / WATCHGUARD CAMERA CABLES Police Department 285.00 Total 121548:285.00 HARRISON CUSOTM BUILDERS 07/24/2023 121549 2023.07 265 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS22-000119 2659 CASCO 10,000.00 Total 121549:10,000.00 HAWKINS INC 07/24/2023 121550 6519289 601-49400-216 WATER PLANT CHEMICALS 8,264.51 HAWKINS INC 07/24/2023 121550 6525087 601-49400-216 CHLORINE TANKS 60.00 Total 121550:8,324.51 HENNEPIN COUNTY INFOR TE 07/24/2023 121551 1000208839 101-43000-415 PW RADIOS Public Works Department 296.89 Total 121551:296.89 HENNEPIN COUNTY SHERIFF 07/24/2023 121552 1000208816 101-42110-414 HENN CO RADIO FLEET FEE Police Department 2,831.96 Total 121552:2,831.96 HOLIDAY COMPANIES 07/24/2023 121553 0796010723 101-42110-402 SQUAD WASHES Police Department 434.50 Total 121553:434.50 IN CONTROL INC.07/24/2023 121554 S-inv00721 601-49400-405 SOUTH PLANT CHLORINE FEED 1,575.00 Total 121554:1,575.00 KAREN FILLOON 07/24/2023 121555 2023.07 KAR 101-32510 REFUND RAS23-000030 1,787.87 Total 121555:1,787.87 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount KARL CHEVROLET INC 07/24/2023 121556 2023.07 CHE 101-42110-550 SQUAD #273 - 2023 CHEY TAHOE Police Department 41,407.00 KARL CHEVROLET INC 07/24/2023 121556 2023.07 TAH 410-42110-550 SQUAD #272 - 2023 CHEY TAHOE 41,407.00 Total 121556:82,814.00 KEVIN & SARAH REVERING 07/24/2023 121557 2023.07 LA2 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA23-000024 1960 FOX RID 700.00 Total 121557:700.00 KEVIN LAWSON 07/24/2023 121558 2023.07 LAW 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - Z22-000032 3580 N SHORE 1,000.00 Total 121558:1,000.00 LAKESCAPE LLC 07/24/2023 121559 1090 101-45200-404 BEACH CLEAN-UPS Parks 948.75 Total 121559:948.75 LANO EQUIPMENT INC 07/24/2023 121560 03-1006603 701-49800-215 POLE CHAINSAW REPAIR UNIT 867 280.63 Total 121560:280.63 LECY BROS HOME & REMODEL 07/24/2023 121561 2023.07 LEC 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - RPS22-000023 1540 LONG L 1,000.00 Total 121561:1,000.00 LEOWEBPROTECT.com 07/24/2023 121562 4685 101-42110-416 WEBISTE SCRUBBING Police Department 143.06 Total 121562:143.06 LOREN PARKS 07/24/2023 121563 2023.07 LA2 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA23-000028 350 CRESTVIE 700.00 Total 121563:700.00 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC 07/24/2023 121564 P09391 601-49400-227 FIRE HYDRANT FLUSHING ADAPTOR 461.98 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC 07/24/2023 121564 p16721 415-42260-550 FIRE HOSE FOR LADDER TRUCK 252.54 MACQUEEN EQUIPMENT LLC 07/24/2023 121564 p17168 415-42260-550 FOAM FOR LADDER TRUCK 640.00 Total 121564:1,354.52 MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/24/2023 121565 24447146 101-42110-212 UNLEADED FUEL Police Department 5,001.53 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 07/24/2023 121565 24447150 701-49800-212 DIESEL FUEL 1,560.22 Total 121565:6,561.75 Mark Swenson 07/24/2023 121566 07.2023 Z22-101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - Z22-000030 2523 KELLY AVE 1,000.00 Total 121566:1,000.00 MATT JOHNSON 07/24/2023 121567 2023.07 LA2 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA23-000011 1015 WILDHUR 5,000.00 Total 121567:5,000.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL ENVI 07/24/2023 121568 0001160294 602-49450-383 WASTWATER SERVICE 08/2023 Sewer 63,916.11 Total 121568:63,916.11 MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMPA 07/24/2023 121569 00111723 101-42110-221 MEDICAL OXYGEN Police Department 19.77 Total 121569:19.77 MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 07/24/2023 121570 P05780 701-49800-403 ALTENATOR BRACKET UNIT 623 76.82 Total 121570:76.82 MINUTEMAN PRESS 07/24/2023 121571 34691 101-41900-352 NEWSLETTER Central Services 2,731.51 Total 121571:2,731.51 MISSION COMMUNICATIONS LL 07/24/2023 121572 1077979 602-49450-489 MISSION ANNUAL SERVICE Sewer 9,189.00 Total 121572:9,189.00 MN DEPT OF PUBLIC SAFETY 07/24/2023 121573 2717000062 601-49400-404 HAZARDOUS CHEMICAL INVENTORY FEE 2020 25.00 Total 121573:25.00 MNSPECT LLC 07/24/2023 121574 0101344-IN 101-42400-310 STATE PLAN REVIEW Building & Zoning 30.00 MNSPECT LLC 07/24/2023 121574 0101374-IN 101-42400-310 STATE PLAN REVIEW Building & Zoning 437.50 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121574:467.50 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 1387862-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 1,837.70 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 1389091-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 1,204.49- MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 1389092-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 506.70- MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 139182600 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 24.12- MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 1394395-00 101-45210-404 IRRIGATION REPAIR Golf Course 959.10 MTI DISTRIBUTING INC 07/24/2023 121575 1395807-00 101-45210-221 MOWER PARTS Golf Course 172.92 Total 121575:1,234.41 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/24/2023 121576 342894 101-43000-224 MAIL BOX REPAIRS Public Works Department 11.37 NAVARRE HARDWARE 07/24/2023 121576 343051 101-41900-223 CLEANING SUPPLIES Central Services 22.48 Total 121576:33.85 Newegg Business Inc 07/24/2023 121577 1304539793 710-49970-221 KEYBOAD - MOUSE REPLACEMENTS 127.96 Newegg Business Inc 07/24/2023 121577 1304540263 710-49970-221 MONITORS - PUBLIC WORKS 439.96 Newegg Business Inc 07/24/2023 121577 1304543835 710-49970-221 LAPTOP - EOC 1,217.98 Total 121577:1,785.90 NICOLE HARTUNG 07/24/2023 121578 2023.07 HAR 999-10015 UB REFUND - 1981 FAGERNESS POINT RD 160.04 Total 121578:160.04 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/24/2023 121579 3028293340 101-41900-201 Central Services 321.00 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/24/2023 121579 3174973190 101-45210-201 INK CARTRIDGE Golf Course 81.33 OPD BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LL 07/24/2023 121579 3177842800 101-42110-201 OFFICE SUPPLIES/PRINTER PAPER Police Department 86.30 Total 121579:488.63 PETER ANTONENKO 07/24/2023 121580 2023.07 LA2 101-22205 ESCROW REFUND - LA23-000025 165 CRISTIFO 700.00 Total 121580:700.00 PLAISTED COMPANIES INC 07/24/2023 121581 61774 101-45210-404 TOPDRESSING SAND Golf Course 890.21 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121581:890.21 QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 07/24/2023 121582 45246 602-49450-403 GS #30 REPAIR Sewer 128.00 Total 121582:128.00 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 07/24/2023 121583 P7287214 701-49800-215 WINDOW FOR UNIT 430 395.43 RDO EQUIPMENT CO 07/24/2023 121583 W6485301 701-49800-403 UNIT #430 BACKHOE REPAIR 5,075.17 Total 121583:5,470.60 REPUBLIC SERVICES #894 07/24/2023 121584 0894-006288 101-45210-404 TRASH SERVICE Golf Course 2,023.50 Total 121584:2,023.50 ROB HOWELLS 07/24/2023 121585 2023 2nd QT 614-49840-319 2ND QTR 2023 VIDEO STREAMING Cable Franchise 930.00 Total 121585:930.00 SANDCREEK EAP 07/24/2023 121586 SDC3814-IN 101-41900-319 EAP SERVICE 7/1/23 - 6/30/24 Central Services 2,200.00 Total 121586:2,200.00 SECURITY & SOUND CO 07/24/2023 121587 26902 614-16500 COUNCIL ROOM AV UPGRADES 29,233.00 Total 121587:29,233.00 SHORT ELLIOTT HENDRICKSO 07/24/2023 121588 449691 601-49400-304 SPRINT ANTENNA REMOVAL 1,667.21 Total 121588:1,667.21 SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 07/24/2023 121589 132141764-0 101-45210-223 SPILL KIT Golf Course 82.29 SiteOne Landscape Supply LLC 07/24/2023 121589 132265991-0 101-45210-216 ANTI-FOAM AND FOAM Golf Course 286.40 Total 121589:368.69 SNAP-ON TOOLS INC 07/24/2023 121590 0710231560 701-49800-240 SHOP TOOLS- SOCKETS 38.25 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 12 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121590:38.25 SOJOURNER PROJECT INC 07/24/2023 121591 2023.03 101-42110-319 2023-DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ADVOCACY SVCS Police Department 6,700.00 Total 121591:6,700.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1639336 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS/KKBECK NEW EMPLOYEE Police Department 650.91 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1639345 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS/IZZY NEW EMPLOYEE Police Department 298.95 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1639889 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS/KLUKAS/VEST+Police Department 1,729.99 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1640399 101-42110-228 AMMO/PRACTICE Police Department 3,893.75 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1641312 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS/STURM Police Department 169.98 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1641946 101-42110-403 UOF EQUIPMENT/40M LAUNCHERS Police Department 1,913.00 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1642001 101-42110-226 UNIFORM/SCHOENHERR 2022 ORDER Police Department 243.95 STREICHERS POLICE EQUIP 07/24/2023 121592 1642570 101-42110-226 UNIFORMS/STURM Police Department 126.97 Total 121592:9,027.50 T W TUPY INC 07/24/2023 121593 080596 101-43000-224 RIVER ROCK TO YARD Public Works Department 1,595.74 Total 121593:1,595.74 TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial Inc 07/24/2023 121594 M28394 101-41110-439 CC MEETING MINUTES Mayor & Council 490.25 Total 121594:490.25 Town & Country Fence 07/24/2023 121595 142122 101-43000-408 FRENCE REPAIR TASK 74773 Public Works Department 1,285.00 Total 121595:1,285.00 U.S. AutoForce 07/24/2023 121596 INV00011888 701-49800-215 TIRES FOR PD CHARGERS 544.00 U.S. AutoForce 07/24/2023 121596 INV0001234 701-49800-215 SQUAD TIRES 660.44 Total 121596:1,204.44 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 36.47 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 36.47 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT 36.48 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 36.48 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 13 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777242 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 36.48 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0777271 101-41900-223 LAUNDRY SERVICE Central Services 32.08 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 101-45200-226 UNIFORMS-PARKS Parks 36.47 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 101-45210-226 UNIFORMS-GOLF COURSE Golf Course 36.47 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 601-49400-226 UNIFORMS PW-WATER DEPT 36.48 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 101-43000-226 UNIFORMS - PW Public Works Department 36.48 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 701-49800-221 SHOP TOWELS - PW 6.96 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 101-43000-404 RUGS - PW Public Works Department 22.93 UNIFIRST CORPORATION 07/24/2023 121597 090 0778628 602-49450-226 UNIFORMS PW-SEWER DEPT Sewer 36.48 Total 121597:456.62 UPNORTH GOLF 07/24/2023 121598 76222 101-45210-095 MERCHANDISE Golf Course 263.10 Total 121598:263.10 US Bank Equipment Finance 07/24/2023 121599 505488221 710-49970-413 COPIERS - LEASE 1,191.16 US Bank Equipment Finance 07/24/2023 121599 506313691 710-49970-413 COPIERS - LEASE 1,321.51 Total 121599:2,512.67 VALLEY RICH CO 07/24/2023 121600 32174 601-49400-405 WATERMAIN BREAK UNDER COFFEE BRIDGE.25,912.04 VALLEY RICH CO 07/24/2023 121600 32209 601-49400-405 WATERMAIN BREAK UNDER COFFEE BRIDGE.119,650.00 Total 121600:145,562.04 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 07/24/2023 121601 0104454-280 603-49500-316 RECYCLING 7/2023 17,957.94 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 07/24/2023 121601 0104454-280 603-49500-301 RECYCLING JULY 23 ORGANICS 86.81 WASTE MANAGEMENT RECYC 07/24/2023 121601 0104454-280 603-49500-301 ADMINSTRATIVE FEES 8.50 Total 121601:18,053.25 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 07/24/2023 121602 928465 701-49800-215 TIRES FOR PD, PW TRUCKS 1,136.28 WESTSIDE WHOLESALE TIRE 07/24/2023 121602 928465 602-49450-222 TIRES FOR PORTABLE GENERATORS 856,857 Sewer 268.16 Total 121602:1,404.44 WILLIAMS TOWING INC 07/24/2023 121603 23-15957 701-49800-402 SQUAD REPAIR-TOW #259 213.00 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 14 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 121603:213.00 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 07/24/2023 121604 3503061321 101-43100-381 BRUSH SITE 6/01/23-7/01/23 Brush Site 32.38 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 07/24/2023 121604 3503061321 101-45210-381 GC SECURITY 8/30/2023 Golf Course 41.82 Wright-Hennepin Coop Electric 07/24/2023 121604 3503061321 101-43000-381 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 6/01-07/01/23 Public Works Department 178.27 Total 121604:252.47 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-45210-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Golf Course 1,516.76 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 601-49400-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 9,462.59 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-45200-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Parks 75.61 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-43000-386 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Public Works Department 2,444.36 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-43000-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Public Works Department 165.61 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Police Department 43.54 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-42110-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Police Department 756.57 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 602-49450-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 5/24-6/25 Sewer 2,757.75 XCEL ENERGY 07/24/2023 121605 834852560 101-41900-381 ELECTRIC SERVICE 02/26/23-3/27/23 Central Services 2,919.30 Total 121605:20,142.09 Yamaha Golf & Utility 07/24/2023 121606 01-291381 101-45210-415 CART LEASE Golf Course 3,251.75 Yamaha Golf & Utility 07/24/2023 121606 01-291382 101-45210-415 CART LEASE Golf Course 3,251.75 Total 121606:6,503.50 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 05/20/2023-0 101-41500-437 HR TRAINING Finance Department 1,260.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 05/20/2023-0 601-49400-322 2ND NATURE - INDICA 128.17 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 05/20/2023-0 602-49450-322 2ND NATURE - INDICA Sewer 128.17 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 05/20/2023-0 651-49910-322 2ND NATURE - INDICA Storm Water 128.16 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 05/20/23-06/101-41300-489 INTEREST & LATE FEES Administration 256.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41110-439 CC MEETING FOOD Mayor & Council 57.45 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41900-416 DATA STORAGE Central Services 119.88 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41300-433 MCFOA RENEWAL Administration 50.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41110-439 CC MEETING FOOD Mayor & Council 5.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41110-439 CC MEETING FOOD Mayor & Council 160.18 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-41110-439 COFFE W MAYOR Mayor & Council 27.96 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-43000-212 GAS Public Works Department 62.22 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-43000-240 M18 CORDLESS INFLATOR Public Works Department 198.99 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-437 4 MEALS WHILE ATTENDING EVOC Police Department 42.09 City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 15 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-580 BICK RACK - BIKE PATROL Police Department 532.38 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-440 UPGRADE FOR SPEEDTRAILER Police Department 93.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-433 AMEM MEMBERSHIP 2023 Police Department 200.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-402 CARWASH #261 Police Department 16.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-433 PELOTON MONTHLY FEE Police Department 47.32 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42110-439 CAKE FOR SWAERING IN CEREMONY Police Department 200.00 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 701-49800-441 TABS FOR TRUCKS 14.35 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 701-49800-240 MECHANIC SHOP TOOLS 365.35 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 601-49400-405 FOOD FOR CREW WORKING WATERMAIN BREA 147.51 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 AMZN MKTP US*R56539QB3 AMZN.COM/BILL W 30.07 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 FS *FREEMAKE.COM877-3278914 CA 42.96 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 AMZN MKTP US*XC7DW3SN3 AMZN.COM/BILL W 252.68 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 CBI*LAPLINK800-799-9570 IL 64.46 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 ZAGG - ECOM800-700-9244 UT 161.28 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 AMZN MKTP US*ZQ8UW7GJ3 AMZN.COM/BILL W 167.72 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 710-49970-221 AMZN MKTP US*P16HR00A3 AMZN.COM/BILL W 17.42 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-45210-312 SQUARE GIFT CARDS Golf Course 147.51 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-45200-212 NON-OXY GAS Parks 27.63 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-45210-223 ICE Golf Course 11.98 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-45210-093 CONCESSIONS Golf Course 576.33 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 101-42260-489 FLOOR MATS, EM CONFERENCE, FUEL AND PA Fire Protection Services 898.45 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 052023-0621 602-49450-322 SHIPPING WATER SAMPLES Sewer 22.83 CARDMEMBER SERVICE 07/13/2023 201303 062023-0621 101-42400-437 SEPTIC TRAINING- MAKATO HOTEL Building & Zoning 217.32 Total 20130363:6,880.80 Internal Revnue Service 07/24/2023 201303 FORM 720 - 101-41900-319 HRA PCORI FEES - 2022 Central Services 43.50 Total 20130364:43.50 MEDSURETY LLC 07/24/2023 201303 24341 101-41900-319 VEBA/FSA/COBRA HSA FEES 7/23 Central Services 206.50 Total 20130365:206.50 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL- SAC 07/24/2023 201303 2023.05 101-20809 SAC 05/2023 9,940.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL- SAC 07/24/2023 201303 2023.05 SAC 101-20809 SAC 05/2023 9,940.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL- SAC 07/24/2023 201303 2023.06 JUN 101-20809 SAC 06/2023 12,425.00 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL- SAC 07/24/2023 201303 2023.06 JUN 101-39610 SAC 06/2023 124.25- City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 16 Check Issue Dates: 7/11/2023 - 7/24/2023 Jul 20, 2023 03:01PM Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount Total 20130366:32,180.75 PSN: PAYMENT SERVICE INVOI 07/24/2023 201303 278284 601-49400-312 WATER FUND PSN FEES 477.20 PSN: PAYMENT SERVICE INVOI 07/24/2023 201303 278284 602-49450-312 SEWER FUND PSN FEES Sewer 477.20 PSN: PAYMENT SERVICE INVOI 07/24/2023 201303 278411 101-41900-312 MISC PSN FEES Central Services 1.65 PSN: PAYMENT SERVICE INVOI 07/24/2023 201303 278563 101-41900-312 BUILDING PERMIT PSN FEES Central Services 9.35 Total 20130367:965.40 Grand Totals: 803,701.51 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A. Carlson Reviewed By: A.Carlson Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to approve rental licenses. 2. License Applicant(s) Name Address License # Period Real Property Management - Viking 1020 Brown Rd N RL23-000008 01/01/2023-12/31/2024 3. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the Rental license listed above. The License Applicant has submitted all of the requested documents and has met all requirements. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the rental license listed above. Item No.: 4 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Approval of Rental License Presenter: Anna Carlson City Clerk Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Item No.: 5 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Authorization to Hire Utility Worker – James Nelson Presenter: D.J. Goman Public Works Superintendent Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to appoint James Nelson to the position of Utility Worker. 2. Background. On January 20th the Council accepted the resignation of Barry Rathbun from the position of public works maintenance worker, effective April 23rd, 2023. Staff met with the HR committee on April 5th and the Council authorized a reorganization of the public works department at its April 24th council meeting; authorizing a utility division within the public works department with two designated utility workers under the existing supervisor. Previously the work was done by the maintenance workers. This council action would appoint James Nelson to one of the open positions of utility worker. 3. Recruitment. An internal selection process was used to recruit for these positions. James is 1 of 2 employees that applied. The City PW Superintendent and Utility Supervisor interviewed the candidate and concluded that based on demonstrated abilities and knowledge, that James is an excellent fit for one of the positions. 4. Recommended Candidate. James has been with the city for eight months. During his time with the city, he has worked as a maintenance worker. James has also proven to be a valuable member of the Public Works Department with responsibilities including: Water and Sewer operations, including Water Plant testing and maintenance, on call rotations, and emergency callouts. James has been able to master responsibilities and improve existing processes. Based on his qualifications and performance for the department, I recommend promoting him to the position of Utility Worker. 5. Recommended Compensation. I recommend promoting James Nelson to the position of Utility Worker. Based on his experience and qualifications, I recommend that he be placed at Grade 8 Start Step ($31.15) of the Local 49 pay scale with a date of July 25th, for calculating step increases, and eligibility for a step increase after Water and Sewer certification are obtained, with combined satisfactory performance. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of James Nelson as Utility Worker at Grade 8 Start Step of the Local 49 wage scale and to initiate the hiring process to fill the open Public Works Maintenance Worker this action creates. Prepared By DJG Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: CF Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of the action item is to gain approval accepting Officer Trent Wiebusch letter of resignation. 2. Background / Summary. Trent Wiebusch was hired as a police officer by the City of Orono on January 24, 2022. Trent Wiebusch has submitted a letter of resignation. Trent Wiebusch last day is July 24, 2023. Trent Wiebusch has accepted a police officer position with the city of Chaska. The police department wishes Trent Wiebusch the best of luck in all of his future endeavors and for his service to the citizens of Orono, Mound, Spring Park and Minnetonka Beach. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend accepting the resignation of Trent Wiebusch effective July 24, 2023. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the resignation of Trent Wiebusch effective July 24, 2023. Item No.: 6 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Authorization to Accept Resignation – Trent Wiebusch Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: CF Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain approval to hire a full-time Police Officer. 2. Background. The Police Department is currently recruiting to fill 2 vacancies. 3. Recruitment. The selection process for the position involved advertising the position, application screening, and interviews. First round interviews are completed by a panel of currently serving officers and second round interviews by the Chief of Police. Police Officer applicant must also successfully complete a Psychological Exam, a Physical (Pre-employment medical) exam and has pass the MN Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST) licensing exam. 4. Recommended Candidate. Nicholas Schwarz is currently employed as a Care Taker for Mankato Rehabilitation Center Inc. Schwarz has a AAS in Law Enforcement from Alexandria Technical College. He has taken the required examination and passed the POST licensing exam. Schwarz is excited about the opportunity to work for the Orono Police Department. 5. Recommended Compensation. I recommend to hire Nicholas Schwarz as a full-time police officer with an effective start date of July 31, 2023. a. Salary. Starting rate of $35.02/hour start (LELS Local 40 Agreement pay scale). b. Benefits. As a full-time employee the position is eligible for benefits as outlined in the LELS Local 40 Agreement and personnel handbook. This includes enrollment in the Police and Fire Plan of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA). COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve the hiring of Nicholas Schwarz as a full-time police officer at the rate of $35.02 per hour with a start date of July 31, 2023. Item No.: 7 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Authorization to Hire Police Officer – Nicholas Schwarz Presenter: Correy Farniok Police Chief Agenda Section: Consent Agenda AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: LO Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to gain council approval to amend the Stormwater Maintenance Agreement for Shoreline Estates 2. Background. The applicant has proposed to amend the current Stormwater plan for the Shoreline Estates development to convert part of the Stormwater Pond to an underground storage facility. This requires an amendment to the current Stormwater maintenance plan which includes inspection, maintenance and design standards. The proposed plans have been submitted and approved by the City Engineer. 3. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the Amended Stormwater Maintenance Agreement. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Adopt to attach the Amended Stormwater Maintenance Agreement. Exhibits A. Amended Stormwater Maintenance Agreement. Item No.: 8 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Shoreline Estates (LA21-000055) - Stormwater Maintenance Agreement Amendment Presenter: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda Prepared By: LO Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. To grant an extension to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval lift station at 3447 Crystal Bay Road. 2. Background. In December of 2021 the City Council approved a CUP for the public service lift station building in the LR-1C District at 3447 Crystal Bay Road. Public service structures that are not city owned are a conditional use in the LR-1C district. The Met Council currently owns a vacant parcel located in the LR-1C zoning district. There is existing above ground utility infrastructure located in the abutting city right-of-way to the property. The Resolution of approval notes that a building permit must be issued for the building by December 6, 2023 or the CUP will expire. The applicant is actively working on designed final plans to construct the building 3. Request. The applicant requests an extension for one year. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends the Council approve a 12-month extension to December 6, 2024. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED City Council should adopt the approval resolution 7386 Exhibits A. Draft Resolution 7869 B. Conditional Use Permit Approval Resolution 7235 Item No.: 9 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: LA21-000070 – Terrie DeBaker o/b/o Metropolitan Council, 3447 Crystal Bay Road, Conditional Use Permit, Extension – Resolution No. 7386 Presenter: Laura Oakden Community Development Director Agenda Section: Consent Agenda CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7386 1 A RESOLUTION GRANTING AN EXTENSION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE STRUCTRE FILE NO. LA23-000035 WHEREAS, the City of Orono (hereinafter the "City") is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Minnesota; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Orono (hereinafter "City Council") adopted land development regulations for the orderly, economic and safe development of land within the City; and WHEREAS, Metropolitan Council is the owner (hereinafter the "Owner") of the property at 3447 Crystal Bay Road, legally described as: That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 3, distant 35 feet Northerly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, through a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 73 feet northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; and that part of Lot 4, said Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 83 feet Northerly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 4, through a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 4 distant 113.5 feet Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 4, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter collectively the “Property”); and WHEREAS, the City Council granted a Conditional Use Permit, LA21-000070, for lift station via Resolution 7235, which had an expiration date of December 6,2023; and WHEREAS, City Staff granted an administrative extension included in Resolution 7235; and WHEREAS, on July 24, 2023, the Owners request an extension to December 6, 2024; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Orono does hereby grant a 2nd extension CUP, to expire December 6, 2024 unless a building permit has been obtained. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 24st day of July, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7386 2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILAND TYPE Abstract (A) DOC NUM 11067320 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Jan 12, 2022 1:53 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Amber Bougie, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 138 Pkg ID 2385776E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. p CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL tie NO. 7235l" IkESHO A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-348 & 78-916 FILE NO. LA21-000070 WHEREAS, on August 16, 2021, Terrie DeBaker, Metropolitan Council hereinafter the"Applicant"), on behalf of the owner, applied for a conditional use permit hereinafter the"CUP") pursuant to Orono City Code for the properties addressed 3447 Crystal Bay Road legally described as: That part of Lot 3, Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 3, distant 35 feet Northerly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 3, through a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 3 distant 73 feet northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 3; and that part of Lot 4, said Block 1, Wiley's Park, Lake Minnetonka, lying Southerly of a line drawn from a point on the Easterly line of said Lot 4 distant 83 feet Northerly of the Southeast corner of said Lot 4, through a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 4 distant 113.5 feet Northerly of the Southwest corner of said Lot 4, Hennepin County, Minnesota. (hereinafter collectively the "Property"); WHEREAS, property is located in the LR-1 C zoning district which permits public service structures as a conditional use. WHEREAS, the Applicant has made application to the City of Orono for a CUP pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-348 and 78-916 to allow the construction of a building for a lift station WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the CUP; and WHEREAS, on December 6, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ti NO. 723 5t`lkESHO NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested CUP as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File#LA21-000070. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Residential Zoning District. 3. The Property contains approximately 0.22 acres in area; 4. Applicant has applied for a CUP in order to conduct the proposed improvements. 5. In considering this application for CUP, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed CUP upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ANALYSIS: The Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) on the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city finds that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; Utility improvements such as lift stations are consistent with the community management plan. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; The proposed improvements are consistent with the City Code; this criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. The applicant proposes removing the existing list station located in the right-of way and place it in a conforming location within the property boundaries. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; This is a utility improvement intended to service the existing sewer infrastructure. This criteria is met. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 2 c,L_OATp CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y NO. 7235 4. F G kfSHov- 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; The proposed building is designed to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood including using a brick exterior and a gabled roof similar to the neighboring homes. This criteria is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; Currently there is a small utility infrastructure located within the abutting right of way. Due to the required improvements for the existing sewer infrastructure a new lift station is required and being proposed to be moved within the property boundaries. This improvement is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The site is currently vacate with the existing improvement located in the abutting right- of-way. The site improvements are compatible with the surrounding area. This criteria is met. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed facilities are designed to improve or lessen impact to adjacent properties by enclosing the utilities in a building and moving them out of the right-of-way to mitigating any negative impacts. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; The proposed facilities are designed to improve or lessen impact to adjacent properties by mitigating any negative impacts. The lot is currently vacate and heavily wooded. 11)Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The applicant has stated this to be true with the design of the project to include safety entry gate and unobtrusive external features. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; The proposed project will remove existing parking and truck access from the right- of- way and allow service trucks to access the building on site. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; This condition is met. 14)All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; All exterior lighting is shown mounted on the building and under the rood eaves to limit glare to the neighbors. and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This condition is met. 3 BOAT CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL y NO. 7235F t'l'QsHO CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a conditional use permit pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-348 and 78-916 to allow the construction of a building to house a lift station and infrastructure to service the utilities, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the site plan and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. The Applicant shall comply with the permitting requirements of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. 4. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project. A building permit must be obtained within one year of the date of Council approval. Staff has granted an additional 1 year extension, the approvals will expire on that date (December 6, 2023). 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 6th day of December, 2021. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: 1 1 fee i Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 4 M O OO N O D U U) H W W 2 U) U) H Z LU w 0 ry d CD J 06 J U) W U 75 M Q 00 rn N LF? O co 0 o N 0.) N C O r V 4 o H Lw W O J a N c0 0 v N OCN 0 w LL 0 O 73 MCES L46 & L49 Improvements Lift Stations Orono, Minnesota Schematic Design Phase 2021.02.05 C--R-BPS Copyright © 2021 CR -BPS k West Site Elevation Longitudinal Section MCES L46 & L49 Improvements I Schematic Design 1 2021.02.05 Copyright © 2021 CR -BPS C--R-BPS N O ww IL MCES L46 & L49 Improvements I Schematic Design 1 2021.02.05 Copyright © 2021 CR -BPS Aerial Perspective C -'R -BPS FLOOR Ai W/ FA PREVE GENERAL NOTES: 1. GENERAL NOTES TO BE FILLED IN PER SHEET. CCESS DOOR THROUGH 2. ION GATE 3 KEYNOTES: 1. KEYNOTES TO BE FILLED IN PER SHEET 2. INISHED METAL DO ONC SPLASH BLOCH 7 MAIN LEVEL PLAN 2 HORIZONTAL SECTION CUT 1/2" = 1'-0" A1.2 A1.1 3/8" = 1'-0" 48" SHELF ABOVE 6 A1.2 NG HOOK ABOVE GRAB BARS (3) ISHED METAL DOWP IC SPLASH BLOCK I DESIGNED Designer 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. g p LTO N M E N K PROJECT 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: FILE NAME A1.1 TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE L49 MAIN LEVEL PLAN NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 952) 448-8838 OF N PREFIN MET RAIN GUTTER W/ DOWNSPOUT EXT ELEV NORTH 3/16" = 1'-0" EXT WALL PACK LIGHT SEE ELEC 21 - 011 PREFINISHED MET VENTED SOFFIT PANELS PREFINISHED ALUM LOUVER W/ REMOVABLE SCREEN GAIT-r"rjrl%l If-" r3f-A 17 - 6 EXT ELEV EAST A1.2 3/16" = 1'-0" PREFINISHED N RAIN GUTTER V DOWNSPOUT PREFIN MET VE SOFFIT PANEL VENT THROUGH ROOF nREFIN MET INTED SOFFIT- ANELS EXT ELEV SOUTH 3/16" = 1'-0" ROOM FINISH SCHEDULE NO NAME FLOORS MATL FINISH BASE MATL WALLS CEILINGS FINISH HEIGHT NORTH MATL NORTH FINISH EAST MATL EAST FINISH SOUTH MATL SOUTH FINISH WEST MATL WEST FINISH 001 DRY VAULT CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONIC 10' - 10" 002 WET VAULT CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC CONC 19' - 2" 101 CONTROL ROOM CONC SEALED CMU CMU PAINT CMU PAINT CMU PAINT CMU PAINT PAINT 10'- 0" 102 TOILET CONC SEALED CMU CMU PAINT CMU PAINT CMU PAINT CMU PAINT PAINT 10'- 0" DOOR AND FRAME SCHEDULE GROUT SOLID NO DOOR FRAME FIRE RATING HARDWARE GROUP NOTES SIZE MATL TYPE GLAZ MATL TYPE DETAIL WIDTH HEIGHT THICKNESS HEAD JAMB SILL 101 T-0" 7'-0" 1 3/4" HM A HM 1 LOUVER IN TRANSOM; INISULATED DOOR 102 3'- 0" 7'- 0" 1 3/4" HM B HM 2 O INT ELEV NORTH A1.2 % 3/8" = 1'-0" PAINTEDPAINTED CMU REFIN MET AIN GUTTER V/ DOWNSPOU- VENT THROUGH ROOF EXT WALL PACK LIGHT SEE ELEC PREFIN MET RAIN GUTTER W/ DOWNSPOUT 8 EXT ELEV WEST A1.2 3/16" = 1'-0" 211 31-0111-011 211 PREFIN MET VENTED SOFFITT PANELS 1 2 DOOR FRAME TYPES 2 INT ELEV EAST A1.2 3/8" = 1'-011 1/2" = 1'-0" 30" x 48" SHELF INT ELEV SOUTH 3/8" = 1'-0" PAINTED CMU KEYNOTE LEGEND 00001 GROUT SOLID 00002 INSULATED HM FLUSH PANEL WELDED 00003 HM FLUSH PANEL WELDED 00004 PRIMED READY TO PAINT 3'-0" 3'-0" 18" x 30" MIRROR SOAP DISPENSER 6"- 4 A1.2 A B DOOR TYPES 1/2" 1'-0" CLOTHES HOOK INT ELEV WEST 3/8" = 1'-0" DESIGNED Designer 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. g p LTO N M E N K PROJECT 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: 2638 SHADOWOOLANE, SUITE FILE NAME INTERIOR & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A1.2 O o 1 NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: CLOTHES HOOK INT ELEV WEST 3/8" = 1'-0" DESIGNED Designer 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. g p LTO N M E N K PROJECT 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: 2638 SHADOWOOLANE, SUITE FILE NAME INTERIOR & EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A1.2 NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: HA KA, MINNESOTA 55318 REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 952) 448-8838 OF Roof - - 953'- 0" T O.WALL48' - 0" LO.S. - 8' - 0" T.O. F. 926' - 0" 918' - - - 918'-0" 0 NO I DATE BY I REMARKS NO DATE BY I REMARKS CHECKED REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO T.O.S. 938'- 0" T.O.S 918'-0" PROJECT B O LTO N 802831 M ENK FILE NAME 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 952) 448-8838 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING SECTIONS A1.3 d r DESIGNED Designer 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. SIGNATURE: TYPED OR PRINTED NAME DRAWN Author NO I DATE BY I REMARKS NO DATE BY I REMARKS CHECKED REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO T.O.S. 938'- 0" T.O.S 918'-0" PROJECT B O LTO N 802831 M ENK FILE NAME 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 952) 448-8838 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING SECTIONS A1.3 ti ROOf 953' - 0" T.O.WAL_L 948' - 0" T.O.S. _ 938'- 0" T.O.F. _ 926'- 0" 1 SECTION 1 A1.4 1/2" = 1'-0" ALLT.O - 0-11948' 0" 0: T.O.S. _ 938' - 0" N T.O.F. _ 926' - 0" 0 0 2 I 2 SECTION 3 A1.4 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNED 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. g p LTO N PROJECT Designer M E N K 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE FILE NAME BUILDING SECTIONS A1.4 NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 952) 448-8838 OF u LAP 20'-0" 1'-4" LAP 1 PRECA A1.5 1/2" = 1'-0" 7 41.2 ST FRAMING P LAN PRE -FABRICATE ROOF TRUSSE @ 24" OC MA; TY LINTEL SCHEDULE MARK LINTEL SPAN L1 8" BOND BEAM W/ (1) - #5 31-411 L2 8" BOND BEAM W/ (2) - #5F 31-411 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 1/2" = 1'-0" 1.) DESIGNED Designer I g p LTO NDMENK PROJECT 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS I I I I J 1 I 4< A1.2 2 DRAWN Author I I 3 FILE NAME Al .5 I I IleIz Q I I 2638 SHADOWOOLANE, SUITE U z- O I I L— I NO Q w DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 00 REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker I 952) 448-8838 OF 1 PRECA A1.5 1/2" = 1'-0" 7 41.2 ST FRAMING P LAN PRE -FABRICATE ROOF TRUSSE @ 24" OC MA; TY LINTEL SCHEDULE MARK LINTEL SPAN L1 8" BOND BEAM W/ (1) - #5 31-411 L2 8" BOND BEAM W/ (2) - #5F 31-411 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 1/2" = 1'-0" 1.) DESIGNED Designer 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. g p LTO NDMENK PROJECT 802831 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: FILE NAME Al .5 2638 SHADOWOOLANE, SUITE FRAMING P LAN NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 952) 448-8838 OF CD c CD N CD c 114" DIA CONC SLAB 5 @ 6" OC, EW, T&B 2) DIAG #5 BAR EA CORNER 1) SUPPL #5 BAR EA SIDE OF OPENING ACCESS HATCH OPENING 1 TOP SLAB REINFORCEMENT 1/2" = 1'-0" O o M OPENING OR SLEEVE (1) - #5 EA FACE TYP 4 CORNERS 2 - #5 EA FACE TYP 4 SIDES UNO NOTE: REINFORCING AT RECTANGULAR OPENING IS SIMILAR 5 PENETRATION REINFORCMENT CONCRETE WALL WIRE WATERSTOP SECURELY IN PLACE REINFORCEMENT SEE SECTIONS J WIRE WATERSTOP DROP BARS SHALL ~ Q SECURELY IN PLACE BE ADDL REINF DROP BARS SHALL z ? w • • BARSUPPORTSBEADDLREINFLUw U O ROUGHEN CONC Q cr_ z • • 1/4" AMPLITUDE J 4" PVC WATERSTOP 4" PVC WATERSTOP DOWELS TO MATCH WALL REINF W/ 90 DEG CONCRETE SLAB STD HOOK, TYP V PRECAST CONCRETE BLOCK GRANULAR BASE REINFORCING SUPPORT 1 1/2" = 1'-0" HORIZ WALL REINFORCEMENT SEE PLAN 90 DEG STD HOOK INSIDE HORIZ, TYP VERTICAL WALL REINFORCEMENT SEE PLAN 6 , REINFORCING WALL CORNER 1" = 1'-0" SB2.7 1 1/2" = 1'-0" DESIGNED 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 Designer PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DRAWN SIGNATURE: Author NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 2 BOTTOM SLAB JOINT SB2.7 % 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 4 @ 12" CONC PAD VERIFY SIZE LU ROUGHEN CONCRETE L DRILL & ANCHOR #4 DWLS @ 12" OC ALL SIDES CONC SLAB 7` EQUIPMENT PAD SB2.7 1 1/2" = 1'-0" PROJECT B O LTO N 802831 M ENK FILE NAME 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 952) 448-8838 90 DEG STD HOOK, TYP SLAB REINFORCEMENT SEE PLAN PLACE CONTINOUS BOND BREAKER EACH SIDE OF WATERSTOP WALL REINFORCEMENT SEE SECTION 3` TOP SLAB JOINT SB2.7 1 1/2" = 1'-0" 1) - #5 MIN OUTSIDE ANCHOR BOLTS. VERIFY SIZE #5 @ 12" OC EW TOP - ANCHOR BOLTS TYP AND LOCATION WITH W/ STD HOOKS EQUIPMENT SUPPLIER n 3/4" CHAMFERTYPHh co CD III III 1 NOTES: #5 @ 12" OC EW TOP 1. GENERATOR PAD SIZE INCLUDE 3'-0" WIDECOMPACTED STRUCTURAL FILL (CLASS 5) CLEARANCE ON ALL SIDES OF GENERATOR GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 0 GENERATOR PAD 1 " = 11-011 MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS CONCRETE DETAILS SB2.7 OF CD N CD N 1'-4" NOTE: PROVIDE REINFORCING AS SHOWN AROUND MASONRY OPENINGS UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE 0 5 IN 8" BOND BEAM OR 5 IN 12" BOND BEAM JLESS SHOWN FHERWISE ON DRAWINGS ENING IN MASONRY WALL 5 VERTICAL GROUT RE 1) - #5 IN 8" BOND BEAM OR 2) - #5 IN 12" BOND BEAM PLACE BOND BEAM BELOW SILL BLOCK REINFORCING AT OPENING 1/2" = 1'-0" 5/8" PLYWOOD SHEATHING PRE-ENGINEERED WOOD TRUSSES @ 24" OC MAX SPIMPSON STRONGTIE H2.5A TRUSS HOLD DOWN AT EA TRUSS 2) 2x8 PLATES - ATTACHED W. 5/8" DIA SCREW ANCHORS @ 24" OC W/ 4 1/2" EMBED 4SEE SECTION I jr 8" BOND BEAM W/ (1) - #5 CONT 8" CMU W/ #5 @ 32" VERT REINF AND HORIZ JT REINF EVERY OTHER COURSE m 12 4F I 1 GROUT ALL CORES 8" PRECAST CONIC PLANK DRILL AND GROUT #5 DWLS @ 24" OC PRECAST PLANK BEARING 1 1/2" = l' -O" CAULK & BACKER ROD BOTH SIDES 1) - #5 VERTICAL GROUT I CORE GROUT CORE OPEN CORE BLOCK EA SIDE OF JOINT NOTE: 1/2" STOP JOINT REINF JOINT AT CONTROL JOINT 1) - #5 VERTICAL GROUT CORE FLASHING MATERIAL CONTROL JOINT DETAIL 1 1/2" = V-0" In 8" BOND BEAM W/ (1) - #5 CONT 8" CMU W/ #5 @ 32" VERT REINF AND HORIZ JT REINF EVERY OTHER COURSE 8" PRECAST CONC PLANK DRILL AND GROUT #5 DWLS @ 24" OC SEE SECTION 5 PRECAST PLANK CONNECTION 1 1/2" = 1'-0" CAULK & BACKER ROD BOTH SIDES 1) - #5 VERTICAL GROUT I CORE CMU KEEP JOINT CLEAN NOTE: 1/2" STOP JOINT REINF JOINT AT CONTROL JOINT 1) - #5 VERTICAL GROUT CORE EXPANSION JOINT DETAIL 1 1/2" = 1 '-0" 8" CMU W/ #5 @ 32" VERT REINF AND HORIZ JT REINF EVERY OTHER COURSE 8" HIGH OR 16" HIGH BOND BEAM W/ (1) - #5 FOR 8" BEAM - EXTEND 16" BEYOND OPENING 3 LINTEL DETAIL S B 2.8 1 1/2" = V-0" DESIGNED 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. BOLTONDesigner MENK PROJECT O ^ ^ ^ 1SV! 15V. "J MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTSDRAWN Author SIGNATURE: FILE NAME SB2.8 2638 SHADOWOOLANE, SUITE MASONRY/ROOF FRAMING DETAILS NO DATE BY REMARKS NO DATE BY REMARKS CHECKED TYPED OR PRINTEDNAME: CHASK REVISIONS REVISIONS Checker DATE REG NO 952) 55318 448-8838 OF DESIGN CRITERIA & LOADING 1. CODE: 2018 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC), AS AMENDED BY THE 2020 MINNESOTA STATE BUILDING CODE (MSBC). 2. DESIGN LOADING DEAD LOADS (D) MATERIALS CALCULATED LIVE LOADS (L) OFFICE AREA AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. 100 PSF MECHANICAL AREA PRECAST MANUFACTURER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN OF ALL EMBEDMENTS 300 PSF STAIRS & LANDINGS 3 100 PSF GRATING & GRATING PLATFORMS DESIGNED 100 PSF I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AMA DULY LICENSED EQUIPMENT LIFTING HOOKS PROJECT 2000 LBS ROOF LIVE LOADS (L/r) PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. g O LTO N MEN K UNIFORM DRAWN 20 PSF EQUIPMENT LIFTING HOOKS SIGNATURE: 2000 LBS SNOW LOADS (S) Author 481N. Pg GROUND SNOW LOAD 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 50 PSF Pf FLAT -ROOF SNOW LOAD CHECKED 42.4 @ ROOF TRUSSES TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: 200 38.5 @ ALL OTHER LOCATIONS Ce SNOW EXPOSURE FACTOR 621N. 1.0 IS SNOW LOAD IMPORTANCE FACTOR 1.1 Ct THERMAL FACTOR 9 1.1 @ ROOF TRUSSES 952)448-8838 104 IN. 1.0 @ ALL OTHER LOCATIONS CS SLOPE FACTOR 10 1.0 Pd DRIFT SURCHARGE LOAD(S) 118 IN. XX PSF w WIDTH OF SNOW DRIFTS 11 871N. 113 IN. WIND LOAD (W) V BASIC WIND SPEED 90 MPH (3 SECOND GUST) Vasd ASD WIND SPEED (V*x(0.6)) XX MPH RISK (OCCUPANCY) CATEGORY III EXPOSURE CATEGORY C GCpi INTERNAL PRESSURE COEFFICIENT 0.18 C&C WIND PRESSURE XX PSF EARTHQUAKE (E) RISK (OCCUPANCY) CATEGORY III le SEISMIC IMPORTANCE FACTOR X.XX SS = X.XXg S, = X.XXg SITE CLASS A SDs = X.XXg SD, = X.XXg SEISMIC DESIGN CATEGORY C SEISMIC FORCE RESISTING SYSTEM V DESIGN BASE SHEAR XX KIPS CS SEISMIC RESPONSE COEFFICIENT X.XX R RESPONSE MOD. COEFFICIENT X (OR N/A) ANALYSIS PROCEDURE EQUIVALENT LATERAL FORCE FLUID (F) WATER 62.4 PCF SLUDGE 70 PCF LATERAL EARTH PRESSURE LOADS (H) DESIGN WATER TABLE 905.0 FEET 100 -YR. FLOOD ELEVATION NA BACKFILL FRICTION ANGLE 30 DEGREES Ko 0.5 Ka 0.33 Kp 3.0 SOIL UNIT WEIGHT, DRY 120 PCF SURFACE SURCHARGE 300 PSF SOIL - AT REST (ABOVE WATER TABLE) 60 PSF/FT. SOIL - AT REST (BELOW WATER TABLE) NA RAIN (R) i RAIN INTENSITY SPECIAL LOADS (IF APPLICABLE) FLOOD DESIGN DATA (IF APPLICABLE) NO I DATE I BY REVISIONS REMARKS XX.X IN/HR NO I DATE I BY REVISIONS REMARKS GENERAL NOTES 1. TYPICAL STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND NOTES SHALL APPLY UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. 2. EXAMINE SITE AND DRAWINGS TO DETERMINE LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF UTILITIES, AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 3. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION FABRICATION AND ERECTION OF ANY MATERIALS, CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING ELEVATIONS, DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND REPORT DISCREPANCIES TO THE ENGINEER AT ONCE FOR RESOLUTION. 4. ALL DIMENSIONS, LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF EXISTING STRUCTURES SHOWN ON THE CONTRACT DRAWINGS SHALL BE FIELD VERIFIED BY THE CONTRACTOR. 5. THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN IS BASED ONLY ON THE STRUCTURE IN ITS COMPLETED STATE. CONTRACTORS AND THEIR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL TAKE WHATEVER PRECAUTIONS ARE NECESSARY TO WITHSTAND ALL HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOADING THAT MAY BE ENCOUNTERED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE. 6. ALL MNDOT REFERENCES IN DRAWINGS & SPECIFICATIONS REFER TO THE "STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION", 2018 EDITION. 7. WRITTEN DISTANCES & ELEVATIONS SHALL GOVERN OVER SCALED DISTANCES & ELEVATIONS. 8. ELEVATIONS ARE BASED ON THE BENCH MARKS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. EXCAVATION NOTES: 1. TEMPORARY GROUND CONTROL IS BY CONTRACTOR DESIGN. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN ALL TEMPORARY SHEETING AND BRACING NECESSARY TO PROTECT PERSONNEL AND ADJACENT PROPERTY FROM INJURY OR DAMAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION OPERATION. 3. EXCAVATIONS OR TRENCHING WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO UNDERGROUND STRUCTURES, UTILITIES, OR UTILITY POLES WILL REQUIRE PROTECTION AND SUPPORT TO PREVENT DAMAGE OR INTERRUPTION TO SERVICE. THE COST TO PROVIDE THIS PROTECTION SHALL BE INCLUDED IN THE CONTRACTOR'S TOTAL BASE BID PRICE. MASONRY NOTES: 1. CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS (CMU) AND FACE BRICK SHALL BE LAID IN RUNNING BOND UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. PROVIDE OPEN -CORE STYLE CMU FOR ALL MASONRY WALLS. 3. PROVIDE BULL NOSED CMU FOR ALL INTERIOR EXPOSED MASONRY WALL CORNERS, DOOR JAMBS AND MASONRY OPENINGS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 4. PROVIDE VERTICAL #5 @ 48" REINFORCEMENT FOR ALL WALLS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 5. GROUT FULL ALL CMU CORES CONTAINING VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT. 6. INSTALL HORIZONTAL JOINT REINFORCEMENT BETWEEN EVERY OTHER COURSE OF CMU. 7. PROVIDE MASONRY CONTROL JOINTS WHERE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR AT A SPACING OF NOT GREATER THAN 20 FEET. 8. TOOL ALL MASONRY JOINTS CONCAVE. 9. PROVIDE 16" DEEP LINTEL AT MASONRY OPENINGS 4'-0" AND LESS. PROVIDE 24" DEEP LINTEL AT ALL OPENINGS GREATER THAN 4'-0". PROVIDE (2) #5 IN ALL LINTELS. 10. GROUT SOLID ALL BOND BEAMS AND VERTICAL CORES CONTAINING REINFORCEMENT, EMBEDMENTS AND ANCHORS. 11. ALL REINFORCING BARS SHALL BE SPLICED WITH A MINIMUM LAP SPLICE EQUAL TO 48 BAR DIAMETERS. PRECAST CONCRETE PLANK NOTES: 1. PRECAST CONCRETE PLANK SHALL HAVE A 1 -HOUR FIRE RATING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 2. VERIFY ALL PLANK PENETRATION SIZES AND LOCATIONS WITH ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL 802831 CONCRETE NOTES: 1. LAP SPLICES AND 90 DEGREE END HOOKS SHALL BE AS SHOWN BELOW UNLESS NOTED. WHEN BARS OF TWO DIFFERENT SIZES ARE SPLICED, THE LONGER LAP LENGTH SHALL APPLY. 2 3 El 5 on F'C=4000 PSI AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. BEAM 90 DEGREE 3. PRECAST MANUFACTURER SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN OF ALL EMBEDMENTS BAR LAP BAR REQUIRED FOR THE ATTACHMENT OF ARCHITECTURAL, MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL 3 COMPONENTS. 241N. DESIGNED 361N. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT AMA DULY LICENSED 4 PROJECT Designer 371N. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. g O LTO N MEN K 5 DRAWN 401N. 461N. SIGNATURE: 10 IN. 6 Author 481N. 561N. 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE FILE NAME 7 CHECKED 70 IN. TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: 200 14 IN. 8 621N. 80 IN. CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 120 IN. Checker 9 DATE REG NO 952)448-8838 104 IN. 802831 CONCRETE NOTES: 1. LAP SPLICES AND 90 DEGREE END HOOKS SHALL BE AS SHOWN BELOW UNLESS NOTED. WHEN BARS OF TWO DIFFERENT SIZES ARE SPLICED, THE LONGER LAP LENGTH SHALL APPLY. 2 3 El 5 on F'C=4000 PSI SLAB, WALL, COLUMN BEAM 90 DEGREE BAR SIZE BAR LAP TOP BAR BAR LAP BAR HOOK TOP 3 19 IN. 241N. 281N. 361N. 6 IN. 4 251N. 321N. 371N. 48 IN. 8 IN. 5 31 IN. 401N. 461N. 601N. 10 IN. 6 371N. 481N. 561N. 721N. 12 IN. 7 541N. 70 IN. 81 IN. 105 IN. 14 IN. 8 621N. 80 IN. 931N. 120 IN. 16 IN. 9 70 IN. 90 IN. 104 IN. 135 IN. 19 IN. 10 781N. 102 IN. 118 IN. 153 IN. 221N. 11 871N. 113 IN. 131 IN. 170 IN. 24 IN. TOP BAR LAP SPLICES ARE HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT PLACED SUCH THAT MORE THAN 12 IN. OF CONCRETE IS CAST IN THE MEMBER BELOW THE SPLICE REINFORCING BARS SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING CONC. COVER UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. FOOTINGS AND OTHER UNFORMED SURFACES 3" CONCRETE EXPOSED TO EARTH, WEATHER OR FLUIDS 6 BARS OR LARGER 2" 5 BARS OR SMALLER 1-1/2" CONCRETE NOT EXPOSED TO WEATHER OR IN CONTACT WITH GROUND BEAMS, COLUMNS, TIES, SPIRALS AND STIRRUPS 1-1/2" SLABS, WALLS & JOISTS 3/4" CONCRETE SHALL BE PLACED WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION JOINTS EXCEPT WHERE SPECIFICALLY SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL CONSTRUCTION JOINTS IN WALLS AND SLABS OF LIQUID CONTAINING STRUCTURES SHALL CONTAIN WATERSTOPS. CAST -IN-PLACE CONCRETE SHALL NOT BE PLACED IN STANDING WATER, ON FROZEN SOIL OR ON FROZEN CONCRETE. FOR LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF SLEEVES, CURB, OPENINGS AND DEPRESSIONS NOT SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS, SEE ARCHITECTURAL, CIVIL/MECHANICAL, YARDWORK, PLUMBING, HVAC AND ELECTRICAL DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY AND COORDINATE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND LOCATION OF ABOVE ITEMS WHETHER SHOWN ON THE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS OR NOT. BEVEL ALL EXPOSED CORNERS OF CONCRETE 3/4" x 3/4". PROVIDE WELDED WIRE FABRIC IN FLAT SHEETS. FOUNDATION AND SOIL NOTES: 1. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL REVIEW AND APPROVE FOUNDATION BEARING SURFACES PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OF FOOTINGS OR FOUNDATION. 2. DESIGN ALLOWABLE SOIL BEARING PRESSURE = 3,000 PSF 3. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 3'-6" OF SOIL COVER AT ALL HEATED STRUCTURE EXTERIOR WALL FOOTINGS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 5-0" OF SOIL COVER AT ALL UNHEATED STRUCTURE FOOTINGS. 4. PROTECT FOUNDATION SOILS FROM FREEZING DURING CONSTRUCTION. 5. PLACE FILL AND BACKFILL AND COMPACT TO FOLLOWING MAXIMUM STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITIES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE IN THE SPECIFICATIONS: LOCATION DENSITY FILL BELOW FOOTINGS 100% FILL BELOW SLABS ON GRADE 98% PIPE AND STRUCTURE EXCAVATIONS 95% GREEN SPACES 90% MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS STRUCTURAL NOTES SK0.1 OF Q Q L I O N C-0 N 0 0 0 0 i N NO coco N N I O O o 0w_ O 0o 6" 0 SCHEDULE 40 GALVANIZED PIPE x o 7'-0" (TYP - 4 AT METER STRUCTURE) I 1:,: Al Ike, I 5 CD 4h 5 FILL WITH CONCRETE V -0"O CONCRETE 5 h 5 z NOTE: USE 4" 0 SCHEDULE 40 GALVANIZED PIPE W/8" DIA CONCRETE FOR MH BOLLARDS TYP - 1 EACH NON -ROADWAY LOCATION) xBOLLARD XX NO SCALE 3" R SLOPE 0.75" PER FOOT 0.5" R 0 0.5" R 11.5" d a< d O Q d d O CONCRETE CURB & GUTTER B412 NO SCALE IINCRETE DRIVEWAY PAVEMENT (2531) GREGATE BASE CL 5 (2211) (INCIDENTAL) JBGRADE PRENPARATIO2112 INCIDENTAL) CONCRETE WALK SECTION NO SCALE VARIES i 1 /4"/FT' 12" VARIES D412 CURB & GUTTER OO3 4" DRAIN TILE 1 1/2" -TYPE SPWEB240C 1 1/2" -TYPE SPNWB240C 8" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 12" SELECT GRANULAR BORROW GEOTEXTILE FABRIC, TYPE 5 WOVEN TYPICAL PARKING LOT SECTION NO SCALE MM/DD/YY I I ISSUED FOR BIDDING I I I I I NO I DATE I BY I REMARKS I NO I DATE I BY I REMARKS REVISIONS REVISIONS DESIGNED DESIGNED BY DRAWN DRAWN BY CHECKED CHECKED BY 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. SIGNATURE: TYPED OR PRINTED NAME: - DATE MM/DD/YY SIGNED BY REG NO VARIES 3'-0" O 4" CONCRETE WALK 4" AGGREGATE BASE CLASS 5 NOTE: OSEE DRAWING L1 FOR RESTORATION OF AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION. OCONCRETE WALK AT GENERATOR PAD. OSEE DRAWING C4 FOR LOCATION OF DRAIN TILE. OSEE DRAWING C7 FOR SOIL CORRECTION M N DETAIL A GATE LOCKING TABS Ji DETAIL B A 7 \ 1'-6" 24 FT GATE REFLECTIVE TAPE F_ --q— B NNIZED PIPE MANUAL DUAL SWING BARRIER GATE NO SCALE NOTE: 1. FURNISH & INSTALL GATE LOCKING TABS TO ACCOMMODATE 3/8" PADLOCK SHACKLE. MCES WILL FURNISH PADLOCK. 2. CONTRACTOR WILL PROVIDE TWO SIGNS "MCES PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING" TO BE INSTALLED ON GATE. 3. FURNISH AND INSTALL TWO KEEPER POSTS MATCHING GATE POSTS. PROJECT BOLTON 802831 MENK MCES L46 & L49 IMPROVEMENTS it 0 FILE NAME 2638 SHADOW LANE, SUITE 200 TYPICAL DETAILSG10005CHASKA, MINNESOTA 55318 952) 448-8838 G 15 50F XX AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 1.Purpose. This application is regarding after-the-fact variances for retaining walls, a lakeside deck, and shed 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 September 1, 2023. 3.Background/ Summary. Please refer to Exhibit D for the Minutes from the previous Planning Commission and City Council meetings on this application. The individual meeting packet dates are also referenced below. In July of 2022, the timber lake slope walls, deck, and stair to the lake were destroyed by fire. The contractor receive a building permit for in-kind replacement of the retaining walls (RAS22-000082). The work exceeded the approved in-kind plan and the project was halted prior to completion. On November 28th the owner requested and received Council approval for an Emergency Slope Repair 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). The proposed upper wall was not installed. On March 13, 2023 the Council reviewed an after-the-fact variance request for the expanded retaining walls. The application was tabled for redesign and clarification. In March, the property owner and their contractors met with the neighbors at City Hall to discuss their plans. The neighbors asked for more clarification on the stability of the walls and the grading plan. The applicant has now provided a grading plan, a revised plan with engineering for the walls reflecting a design as close to in-kind as they were able to achieve, a plan for the permitted lake access stair, a replacement deck, and a replacement shed beneath the deck. In June, the Homeowner’s engineer advised that modifications and corrections were necessary in order to improve the structural stability of the constructed walls. In June, at the direction of the engineer, and with the City’s approval, the contractor made field modifications to the dead men/tiebacks. The City’s Inspector, Gary Nelson, observed the corrections to the walls in the field. The revised construction plan Exhibit B2, prepared by the Homeowner’s contractor, shows the pre- existing shed and deck in red illustrating that while the footprints have changed slightly, the proposed replacement deck and shed will not encroach closer to the lake than the previously existing improvements and do not exceed the previous footprint/hardcover. 4.Variance Description. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact setback variances to address the replacement wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. Additionally, the pre-existing shed/boathouse and deck are proposed to be replaced in a similar footprint at a similar setback from the lake. The change to the configuration of the retaining walls, shed, and deck require after-the-fact variances for lake setback, average lake setback, and hardcover within the 75-foot lake setback. The proposed lake stairs are an allowed improvement within the 75-foot setback and can be constructed with an administrative building permit. Item No.: 10 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: LA22-000068 – Valdes Lawn Care o/b/o Mark & Lisa Thostenson, 2815 Casco Point Road, After-the-Fact Variances - Resolution No. 7387 Presenter: Melanie Curtis Planner Agenda Section: Community Development AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: mcc Reviewed By: LLO Approved By: 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 (this has been provided); b. Submittal of a vegetative planting plan which will screen the walls from the lake (provided as Exhibit B5); and c.Submittal of an as-built survey following completion of the walls and restoration of the grades (submitted). 6.Public Comment. Staff provided the updated plan information to the neighbors via email on July 13th and again on July 18th. As of this writing, no comments from the public have been received on the revised plans. 7.Staff Recommendation. Replacement of the destroyed 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. 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. Staff has prepared a draft resolution for Council’s consideration. An as-built survey will be required upon completion of the construction on site. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Council should adopt Resolution No. 7387 as drafted. Exhibits A.Draft Resolution No. 7387 B.Plans B1. Updated Survey / Grading Plan B2. Construction Plans B3. Soil Information B4. Engineered Design/Letter B5. Landscape Plan C.City Engineer Comments D.Previous Meeting minutes (CC 11/28/2022; PC 02/21/2023; and CC 03/13/2023) E.Public Comment References Council Packet 11/28/2022 – Emergency Slope Repair PC Packet 02/21/2023 Council Packet 03/13/2023 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 1 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTIONS 78-1279 & 78-1680 WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, Mark Thostenson and Lisa Thostenson (hereinafter the “Applicants”), applied for after-the-fact variances for the property addressed 2815 Casco Point Road and legally described as: 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, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the “Property”); WHEREAS, in July 2022, a grass fire occurred on the lakeside bluff of the Property which destroyed the existing lakeside improvements including a timber wall system, lake access stair, lakeside deck, and shed within the 75-foot setback and bluff; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2022, a Stop Work notice was issued in response to the project exceeding the permitted in-kind replacement under building permit (#RAS22- 000082) because the construction resulted in unpermitted expansions of the wall footprints and locations; and WHEREAS, in November 2022, the Applicants submitted documentation from a licensed professional engineer which indicated that failure of the current lake yard slope and the existing retaining walls on the Property was imminent. The City Council authorized an emergency slope repair via Resolution No. 7315; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2022, the Applicants have made an application for an after-the-fact variance from City Code Section 78-1279 and 78-1680 in order to permit the construction of the expanded retaining walls, lakeside deck, and shed within the 75-foot setback and bluff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the request at a public hearing held on February 21, 2023 and voted 4 to 1 in favor of approval; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the request at meetings held on March 13, 2023 and July 24, 2023. The Council reviewed the engineered plans, and the recommendations of Planning Commission and City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 2 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested after-the-fact variances to permit construction of the new engineered retaining walls, lakeside deck, and lakeside shed as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: A1. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above-mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. A2. The Property is located in the LR-1C One Family Lakeshore Zoning District. A3. The Property contains 0.34 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 56 feet. A4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. A5. The Property was subject to a fire on the lake slope in July 2022 which destroyed the previously existing timber retaining walls, stairs, deck, and storage shed leaving the slope vulnerable to failure. A6. The Applicants applied for an administrative building permit to rebuild the existing walls in-kind. The construction of the replacement walls expanded beyond the in-kind reconstruction and the project was stopped and stabilized. The Applicants received City Council approval of an emergency slope repair in November 2022. A7. Applicants have applied for the following after-the-fact variances: a. 75-foot Setback for Structures and Hardcover b.Bluff Setback Variance c.Average Lakeshore Setback Variance A8. Retaining walls, decks, sheds and other building improvements are not permitted within 75-feet of the OHWL. Installation of the new walls, deck, and shed require City Council approval of after-the-fact 75-foot hardcover, bluff setback, and lake setback variances. A9. In considering this application for variances, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the City Staff and the effect of the proposed emergency slope repair upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 3 conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: B1. “Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance . . . .” Preserving and protecting the lake yard slope is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. The Applicants are restoring the improvements destroyed by fire. Staff recommends the proposed retaining walls, deck, and shed be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake wherever feasible. B2. “Variances shall only be permitted . . . when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan.” The 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 reconstructed improvements will be as close to in-kind replacements as permitted by the existing slope conditions. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in this manner. B3. “Variances may be granted when the applicant for the variance establishes that there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. ‘Practical difficulties,’ as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that: a.The property owner in question proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner, however, the proposed use is not permitted by the official controls. The Applicants have installed replacement retaining walls, improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. Additionally, it is reasonable to permit the reconstruction of the destroyed deck, stair, and shed. b.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. The Applicants have designed and 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 are permitted to be reconstructed as close to in-kind as permitted by the existing slope conditions; and c.The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” There were previously existing retaining walls, lakeside deck, lake stairs, and a shed located in the bluff/lake yard. The variances to permit the expanded CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 4 wall, deck, and shed structures within the bluff and 75-foot lake setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. B4. “Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties.” Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. B5. “Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.” This condition is not applicable. B6. “The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.” This condition is not applicable as residential improvements are permitted within the residential district. B7. “The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.” This condition is not applicable. B8. “The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.” The slope of the Property and lakeshore improvements destroyed by fire are unique conditions affecting the subject Property. B9. “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. B10. “The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.” Granting bluff, average lakeshore, 75-foot lake setback variances to allow the replacement 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 condition also applies to the reconstruction of the lakeside deck and shed. The need for variances is supported by the vulnerable slope on the Property. B11. “The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.” Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls, deck and shed within the average lakeshore, setback, bluff and 75-foot lake setback will not adversely CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 5 impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. B12. “The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.” The proposed improvements and 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 walls is necessary for the protection of the slope and the lake. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants approval of after-the-fact variances pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1279 and 78-1680 to allow the reconstruction of the existing retaining walls with expansions including installation of a replacement lakeside deck and shed, according to the approved plan, subject to the following conditions: C1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. C2. The project shall conform to the survey and submitted plans (hereinafter the “Plans”) submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibits A and B. C3. Any amendments to the Plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. C4. Upon approval of the after-the-fact variances the City will release the Stop Work order for building permit RAS22-000082. C5. An As-Built survey meeting the City’s standards shall be provided by the Applicants upon completion of the lakeshore construction and the home construction projects. C6. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by satisfactorily completing the project and as-built survey. The lakeshore improvements must be completed and inspected within one year of approval or the after-the-fact variances will expire on July 24, 2024. C7. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7387 6 ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 24th day of July, 2023. ATTEST: CITY OF ORONO: _______________________________ ________________________________ Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor LOT 120 965.3965.1 967.8 4 FFE965.4964.4961.4 963.1 962.09 6 1 . 7962.3 960.8 964.1 0 FFE GA R 959.63FFE LOW966.5TREE 24IN966.2 TREE 2 0I N TREE 20IN960.72 FND 3/4 IP 966.04FND 12755645927.68H20 ELEV ICE 10JAN23972.6966.5967.0967.3 96 0 . 1 6 963.6961.5963.79FFE GAR96 3 . 9 963.33963.20 963.56 FND 3/8 R E B A R TREE 36I N TREE 24IN 23.3 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 23.630.0 24.08.6BAY WINDOWNA I L IN B L ACK TO P T.W . = 9 6 1 . 0 P R O P . 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)SU 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 EDG 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 OR 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 N66 ° 2 1 ' 4 7 " W 5 3 . 4 5 22.0320.18WIND. WELL (TO BE REMOVED) (TO BE REMOVED) WINDOW WELL (DIMS. PERMANUFACTURERSPEC SHEET.)PROP. DRAIN RIM =959.8 PROP. OUTLET =933.0 958 CONT.960REMOVE CONC PATIO 108 SQFT PROP.WINDOWWELLPROP. GROUND DECK 220 SQFT PROP. ELEV. = 964.0 8.9 PROP. STONE W A L L TOP = 964.0 BOT = 961.420.0961 PROP. 964 CONT. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY 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. 27th June 45356 6/27/2023 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.EST. 1977 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 TOTAL LOT AREA ..................... 14,650± FT 2 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 TOTAL LOT AREA ..................... 14,650± FT 2 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 (REMOVAL) ................ 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 PROP. DECK ATTACHED TO HOUSE ... 220 FT2 EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FT2 EXISTING RET WALLS ................. 165.0 FT2 * EXCLUDED RET. WALL REMOVAL ..... 23 FT2 EXCLUDED TIMBER BORDER ........ 32.5 FT2 EXCLUDED PATIO REMOVAL .......... 108 FT2 EXCL. RET. WALLS BY LAKE ........ 165.0 FT2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ... 3,636.5 FT2 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................... 24.82% 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. DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES DRAINAGE ARROW 27FEB23 REVISE PROP. IMP. TABLE CBS 21APR23 ADD PROP. DRAIN & GRADES CBS 27JUN23 ADD PROP. DECK & IMPERV. CBS Resol. No. 7387 Exhibit A Construction Plans July 12, 2023 Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Submitted by email: purrtopia@hotmail.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall Evaluation Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 23-7128 Dear Ms. Thostenson: This letter is being sent per your request regarding the recently repaired timber retaining walls at the above listed property. This evaluation is based on the following: x Repair progress photos provided by you or your representatives. x Retaining wall design repair drawings prepared by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers dated June 15, 2023 (attached). x Site visit performed by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers on June 12, 2023. x Repairs were performed at Walls 1 (lowest tier), Wall 2 and Wall 3. x No changes were required for Wall 4 (wall behind proposed shed/boathouse). x Wall 5 was partially reconstructed by the contractor due to address some alignment issues. x Wall 6 will be reconstructed due to the change in the proposed height of the wall. Refer to the attached tiered wall cross-section drawing for more information. Based on the information listed above, the repairs to the retaining walls appear to be structurally stable and in general conformance with the repair details as prepared. Typical construction details such as use of drainage elements and wall reinforcement appear to be followed correctly. As is normal for timber retaining walls of this type, some seasonal and long-term wall movement and backfill soil settlement should be expected. I recommend that concentrated areas of surface water be directed away from the walls. Scope of Service and Limitations The purpose of this inspection and report is to evaluate the condition of the recently constructed or partially constructed retaining wall. The report is not to be considered a guarantee of condition and no warranty is implied. Our observations are non-destructive, and limited to those portions of the site/wall that could be visually examined without excavation. Our scope of services did not include an exhaustive technical investigation. No material sampling, analytic tests, precise measurements or engineering calculations were performed. This includes but is not limited to: compaction testing, soil sampling, global stability calculations. We did not determine whether the wall and its operation or use conform to any city codes, or regulations, or restrictions that may be enforced within the jurisdiction. For construction phase services, it is understood that the Contractor, not ENGINEER, is responsible for the construction of the project, and that ENGINEER is not responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor or material supplier; for safety precautions, programs or enforcement; or for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures employed by the Contractor. As Professional Engineers, it is our responsibility to evaluate 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota July 12, 2023 Page | 2 available evidence relevant to the purpose of this inspection. We are not, however, responsible for conditions that could not be seen or were not within the scope of our service at the time of the inspection. If additional documentation or information is made available for review, I reserve the right to amend or add to the opinions and observations presented in this report. Opinions and recommendations in this report are limited to the scope of work. This report has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our report by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our report, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third-party action. No reproduction or re-use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this report to anyone without your permission. If additional documentation or information is made available for review, I reserve the right to amend or add to the opinions and observations presented in this report. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, PE MN PE# 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: July 12, 2023 License #: 40126 (MN) Project: Client: Boring No. Soil Type: LL: PI: 21.4 SET-R18a Opt. Water Content (%): Location: As Received W.C. (%):25.7 PL: Depth(ft): 100.2 *Assumed Job No. Date:5/8/23 14310 Specific Gravity: 9530 James Ave South Bloomington, MN 55431 Moisture Density Curve ASTM: D698, Method A 2815 Casco Point Road #23-0240 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): Haugo Geotechnical Services Lean Clay with sand (CL) Sample:4/12/2023 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Dry Density (PCF)Water Content (%) Proctor Points Zero Air Voids ASTM D3080 Project/Client: Boring No.: Sample No. Depth: Location: Sample Type: Soil Type: 0.2 φ=φ=φ=φ=32.1 deg.φ=φ=φ=φ=31.2 deg. Cohesion 0.032 TSF Cohesion TSF0.033Apparent Peak Conditions Friction Angle: Friction Angle: At Given Shear Disp. Of: Apparent "These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design." 0.95Thickness (In.) Water Content (%) 0.95 95.2 0.95 0.93 (in/min) Diameter (In.)2.50 2.502.50 Date Reported:5/8/2023 Initial Max Stress Failure Criterion: Plastic Limit: A 0.0008 X Bulk (*) = Assumed Specific Gravity Remarks: Specimens compacted to 95% of maximum standard proctor density at optimum moisture content using -#4 material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant rate of 0.0008 inches/minute. Plasticity Index: Specific Gravity (*): Liquid Limit: Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 27.6 27.5 26.9 Shear Rate 21.4 21.4 95.2 B 2.68 0.94 0.94 0.38 0.75 97.3 0.97 1.50 Thickness (In.) Water Content (%) Normal Stress Shear Stress Dry Density (pcf)96.2 96.3 0.26 0.52 Direct Shear Test Test Date: Job No.: 2815 Casco Point Road #23-0240 / Haugo Geotechnical Services 4-12-23 Dry Density (pcf) Before Shear 4/27/2023 14310 95.2 C D 21.4 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25Change in Thickness (inch)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25Shear Stress (TSF)Shear Displacement (inch) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2Shear Stress (TSF)Normal Stress (TSF) 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 0 963.56 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 6 1 . 0 P R O P . 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 94 0 942 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) WINDOW WELL 95 2 95 4 130 SQFT (IN R.O.W) 94 8 (DIMS. PERMANUFACTURERSPEC SHEET.)PROP. DRAIN RIM =959.8 PROP. OUTLET =933.0 958 CONT.960REMOVE CONC PATIO 108 SQFT PROP.WINDOWWELLPROP. GROUND DECK 220 SQFT PROP. ELEV. = 964.0 8.9 PROP. STO N E W A L L TOP = 964 . 0 BOT = 961 . 420.096 1 PROP. 964 CONT. TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ~for~Lisa Thostenson ~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. 27th June 45356 NORTH 6/27/2023 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 (REMOVAL) ................ 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 PROP. DECK ATTACHED TO HOUSE ... 220 FT2 EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FT2 EXISTING RET WALLS ................. 165.0 FT2 * EXCLUDED RET. WALL REMOVAL ..... 23 FT2 EXCLUDED TIMBER BORDER ........ 32.5 FT2 EXCLUDED PATIO REMOVAL .......... 108 FT2 EXCL. RET. WALLS BY LAKE ........ 165.0 FT2 TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ... 3,636.5 FT2 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................... 24.82% 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. DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS DENOTES DRAINAGE ARROW 27FEB23 REVISE PROP. IMP. TABLE CBS 21APR23 ADD PROP. DRAIN & GRADES CBS 27JUN23 ADD PROP. DECK & IMPERV. CBS Project: Client: Boring No.: Soil Type: LL:PI: 21.4 SET-R18a 2.67 Opt. Water Content (%): Location: As Received W.C. (%):25.7 PL: Depth(ft): 100.2 *Assumed Job No. Date:5/8/23 14310 Specific Gravity: 9530 James Ave South Bloomington, MN 55431 Moisture Density Curve ASTM: D698, Method A 2815 Casco Point Road #23-0240 Maximum Dry Density (pcf): Haugo Geotechnical Services Lean Clay with sand (CL) Sample:4/12/2023 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28Dry Density (PCF)Water Content (%) Proctor Points Zero Air Voids ASTM D3080 Project/Client: Boring No.: Sample No. Depth: Location:Sample Type: Soil Type: 0.2 ====32.1 deg.====31.2 deg. Cohesion 0.032 TSF Cohesion TSF0.033Apparent Peak Conditions Friction Angle: Friction Angle: At Given Shear Disp. Of: Apparent "These tests are for informational purposes only and must be reviewed by a qualified professional engineer to verify that the test parameters shown are appropriate for any particular design." 0.95Thickness (In.) Water Content (%) 0.95 95.2 0.95 0.93 (in/min) Diameter (In.)2.50 2.502.50 Date Reported:5/8/2023 Initial Max Stress Failure Criterion: Plastic Limit: A 0.0008 X Bulk (*) = Assumed Specific Gravity Remarks: Specimens compacted to 95% of maximum standard proctor density at optimum moisture content using -#4 material; Inundated after applying normal load. Consolidated and sheared to given displacements at constant rate of 0.0008 inches/minute. Plasticity Index: Specific Gravity (*): Liquid Limit: Lean Clay with Sand (CL) 27.6 27.5 26.9 Shear Rate 21.4 21.4 95.2 B 2.68 0.94 0.94 0.38 0.75 97.3 0.97 1.50 Thickness (In.) Water Content (%) Normal Stress Shear Stress Dry Density (pcf)96.2 96.3 0.26 0.52 Direct Shear Test Test Date: Job No.: 2815 Casco Point Road #23-0240 / Haugo Geotechnical Services 4-12-23 Dry Density (pcf) Before Shear 4/27/2023 14310 95.2 C D 21.4 -0.02 -0.015 -0.01 -0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25Change in Thickness (inch)0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25Shear Stress (TSF)Shear Displacement (inch) 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2Shear Stress (TSF)Normal Stress (TSF) July 12, 2023 Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Submitted by email: purrtopia@hotmail.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall Evaluation Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 23-7128 Dear Ms. Thostenson: This letter is being sent per your request regarding the recently repaired timber retaining walls at the above listed property. This evaluation is based on the following: Repair progress photos provided by you or your representatives. Retaining wall design repair drawings prepared by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers dated June 15, 2023 (attached). Site visit performed by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers on June 12, 2023. Repairs were performed at Walls 1 (lowest tier), Wall 2 and Wall 3. No changes were required for Wall 4 (wall behind proposed shed/boathouse). Wall 5 was partially reconstructed by the contractor due to address some alignment issues. Wall 6 will be reconstructed due to the change in the proposed height of the wall. Refer to the attached tiered wall cross-section drawing for more information. Based on the information listed above, the repairs to the retaining walls appear to be structurally stable and in general conformance with the repair details as prepared. Typical construction details such as use of drainage elements and wall reinforcement appear to be followed correctly. As is normal for timber retaining walls of this type, some seasonal and long-term wall movement and backfill soil settlement should be expected. I recommend that concentrated areas of surface water be directed away from the walls. Scope of Service and Limitations The purpose of this inspection and report is to evaluate the condition of the recently constructed or partially constructed retaining wall. The report is not to be considered a guarantee of condition and no warranty is implied. Our observations are non-destructive, and limited to those portions of the site/wall that could be visually examined without excavation. Our scope of services did not include an exhaustive technical investigation. No material sampling, analytic tests, precise measurements or engineering calculations were performed. This includes but is not limited to: compaction testing, soil sampling, global stability calculations. We did not determine whether the wall and its operation or use conform to any city codes, or regulations, or restrictions that may be enforced within the jurisdiction. For construction phase services, it is understood that the Contractor, not ENGINEER, is responsible for the construction of the project, and that ENGINEER is not responsible for the acts or omissions of any contractor, subcontractor or material supplier; for safety precautions, programs or enforcement; or for construction means, methods, techniques, sequences and procedures employed by the Contractor. As Professional Engineers, it is our responsibility to evaluate 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota July 12, 2023 Page | 2 available evidence relevant to the purpose of this inspection. We are not, however, responsible for conditions that could not be seen or were not within the scope of our service at the time of the inspection. If additional documentation or information is made available for review, I reserve the right to amend or add to the opinions and observations presented in this report. Opinions and recommendations in this report are limited to the scope of work. This report has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our report by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our report, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third-party action. No reproduction or re-use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this report to anyone without your permission. If additional documentation or information is made available for review, I reserve the right to amend or add to the opinions and observations presented in this report. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, PE MN PE# 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: July 12, 2023 License #: 40126 (MN) From:Adam Edwards To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Laura Oakden; Gary Nelson; Nicole Egan Subject:RE: LA22-000068 / Plans for 2815 Casco Point Road Date:Tuesday, July 18, 2023 12:46:09 PM Melanie, Grading Plan Comments. 1. There are a number of site plans and surveys in the packet you provided which made review very confusing. In the end I focused my review on the site plan labeled 1- 230594MS Certificate 27JUN23 Update. Further I limited by review to the area lakeward of the house as I understand that to be the area of concern. 2. Comparing #1 and #7 (the Gronberg survey from 2022) it appears the general drainage pattern of the lake yard of the property above the retaining walls is similar although 962 contour is now further east. The proposed top elevation of the top retaining wall is shown at 961 where the original landscape border in the same location was shown at 960.2. This 9 inch difference seems inconsequential overall and could assist with overall draining plan. The top of all elevation on #1 is slightly differ from the wall profile in Item #3 and #8. They shows the proposed top of wall at 960.8 which would be a 7 in difference form the preconstruction existing elevation. 3. The proposed plan does depict a drainage pater for the lake yard above the retaining wall that will direct surface runoff to a catch basing and pipe. This is in keeping with the retaining wall engineers recommendations. This should provide the necessary protection of the slope and wall system as well as limit any surface runoff to neighboring properties. 4. Couple minor items- The site plan says the address is unassigned and the Owner is “City X”. It also says the field survey was completed on 1/10/22. Retaining’s wall Comments. (these are not intended to supersede the building officials review of the plans) 1. The retaining wall design engineers letter notes that the necessary wall repairs were completed. 2. The Engineers letter sates no soil analysis was completed. However some soil data was provided in separate documents. It would be good to have a comment from him on the sample test results to ensure they met the specifications of his design. Adam From: Melanie Curtis <MCurtis@oronomn.gov> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2023 1:38 PM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@oronomn.gov> Cc: Laura Oakden <loakden@oronomn.gov>; Gary Nelson <gnelson@oronomn.gov>; Nicole Egan <negan@oronomn.gov> Subject: LA22-000068 / Plans for 2815 Casco Point Road Importance: High Adam Please see this LINK to access the plan information. The applicant has requested to present the updated plan to the Council at the July 24th meeting; I hope to draft an approval resolution. Please review and provide comment before end of day on Tuesday, July 18th as I will be out of the office the remainder of that week. Sorry for the short turn around. Melanie Melanie Curtis, Planner 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Website: www.oronomn.gov New Email: mcurtis@oronomn.gov Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Department 952.249.4620 All permits and applications are handled through our online citizenserve portal - LINK! MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA22-000061—WILLIAM&KATHLEEN WANNER- 1095 FERNDALE ROAD WEST— 2ND EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO.7150—RESOLUTION NO.7314 18. HENNEPIN COUNTY FIBER CONNECTION Crosby moved,Seals seconded,to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. Mayor Walsh complimented the Staff, City Attorney,and Union Employees for getting the Union Contracts finalized.He thanked everyone for their work in finding common ground for the next three years. He also thanked everyone who donated towards the fireworks displays and holiday lighting including Orono Dental Care,Lunds and Byerlys,North Mallow, Orono Lion's,Holiday Circle K, Culvers, Orono Parks Legacy Fund, Paul Kovista,Kottemann Orthodontics, Otten Brothers,Pfeffer's Meats, Westonka Animal Hospital, Orono School District,Bob and Lisa Erickson,Denny and Amanda Walsh,and Ben and Heather Goodwin. The holiday event starts at 5:00 p.m. at the Orono Golf Course on Saturday,December 3,2022. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson noted it is a busy time for the Finance Department in preparation for adopting the final budget and tax levy. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 19. 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD,VALDES O/B/O LISA THOSTENSEN,EMERGENCY SLOPE REPAIR—RESOLUTION NO. 7315 Josh Prust, on behalf of Joe Valdes,Applicant,was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. City Planner Curtis stated in July the property's walls, deck,and stairs to the lake were destroyed by fire. The owner submitted a building permit application to repair the walls in-kind; during installation of the walls, Staff noted the construction had extended beyond the in-kind footprint and work was stopped.The contractor was directed to stop and stabilize the area. The owner is requesting additional permission to install an additional wall at the top of the slope. The Applicant's engineer has determined this to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope over winter. The Applicant will submit an after-the-fact variance application to address the wall footprint expansions in the lakeyard setback. Until that time,the engineer has provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needs an emergency correction. Curtis noted the City's Engineer reviewed the documentation and recommends the City Council authorize the emergency repair to stabilize the slope. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution to allow the contractor to proceed with the emergency slope failure repair as designed. Mayor Walsh received a call from a neighbor and he was shocked when he went to the property at the amount of digging that took place on the hill. He noted they dug out the entire hillside on both sides and he is trying to understand how that happened. Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Josh Prust, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, is present on behalf of Joe Valdes who constructed the walls and removed the soil.Mr.Prust is new to the project as of a couple weeks ago when Mr.Valdes asked him to figure out how the project got to that point. Mr. Prust's understanding is that as permitted work to the walls was being done,Mr. Valdes realized the ends of the walls were not long enough to retain the hillside.Mr.Valdes was afraid if the walls were left in that state,the bluff would erode and eventually end up in the lake.Mr.Prust noted Mr. Valdes made some choices and understands his fault in expanding the walls beyond what was permitted; he was trying to do what was best in his mind to keep the hillside in place. Mayor Walsh stated they brought in a massive digging machine and dug out way beyond what would be necessary. He noted the decision now is whether to give forgiveness which is not a good precedent, or to figure out how to put the hill back together. Johnson noted it makes sense to stabilize it for the winter,but he also has some legal questions. The idea behind emergency slope repair is that one does not create the emergency. Paul Schimnowski, Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, 161 Dunbar Way,Mahtomedi,was asked to provide a design for the replacement walls. He noted the City's concerns are valid in how much they saw being moved. When the original walls were built,that kind of dirt would have been moved at that time, as well due to the tiebacks needing to be dug out and reinstalled.He understands that the request right now is the emergency work and there is no guarantee that an after-the-fact variance may be approved.He wants to be sure what is there is stable and will get them to spring without any more erosion or slope failure. Mayor Walsh wants to be clear if this is approved,a stop-work order is on everything else on the slope. Mr.Prust agreed. Mayor Walsh noted there are legal issues needed down the road to solve this. It is a complicated problem that was not created by the City but by the Applicant. Johnson asked if the engineer's investigation includes the neighbor's properties and whether their slopes could now be impacted by the work. Mr. Schimnowski replied immediately following the emergency work a full topographic survey will be performed beyond the property line to the adjacent properties to make sure any impacts on adjacent properties are mitigated. Johnson clarified the emergency repair includes neighboring properties as it relates to the work done on the Applicant property. Mr. Schimnowski replied in the affirmative. They will be shoring up their land. Johnson wants it on the record that they are also responsible for assessing impacted areas because the project grew.He clarified the neighbors have done nothing wrong. Charles Price,2813 Casco Point Road,noted it seems that they do need the emergency slope repair to keep the slope from failing over winter.He clarified that this does not approve the Applicant to leave it as-built. Page 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mayor Walsh replied in the affirmative.It would be approved with that they cannot do any other work besides the temporary fix and will need to apply for a variance for the additional work that has been done. Seals asked if the Prices have noticed any issues on their property. Mr. Price replied it is tough because they were on the bluff trying to put the fire out but it was too massive. They were trying to keep their oak trees alive,which hold up the bluff. When he had a survey done,the top of the bluff is 42 feet elevation higher than the lake. In looking at the work that has been done,Mr.Price noted a massive amount of dirt has gone away,much more than has gone back in. He thinks it is probably 25-30 feet further away from the lake than it was before. Carol Price noted it is worrisome that the bluff has been pushed back and their property is vulnerable now. They are worried,and while they think the work done has been good construction,Ms.Price does not think they did it in the correct way to preserve what was there.It was definitely not like kind. Johnson moved,Crosby seconded,to approve Resolution 7315,2815 Casco Point Road,Emergency Slope Repair with conditions that no additional work be done and the Applicant must come back to apply for appropriate variances.VOTE: Ayes 5,Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT There was nothing to report. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT Edwards updated the City Council,noting with the freeze/thaw cycle the City had two water main breaks in the system near Casco Point and at the High School.Both should be fixed this evening. PUBLIC COMMENTS Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Road,stated these are the events tying Mayor Walsh and Mr. Crosby to right-wing extremism, seditious conspiracy,conspirators,the Proud Boys, and ultimately the Capitol riots. On November 10, 2019,Mayor Walsh sent Mr.Erickson the first vulgar campaign video on Facebook talking about Dems having"one hand in your pocket and the other in your ass."It also said Dems are"f-ing crazy."On July 14,Mayor Walsh sent a second video on Facebook comparing the extermination of six million Jews to mask mandates and then threatening it can happen here in America. On November 21,2020 Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended a protest outside Governor Walz's mansion which was also attended by the Minnesota Proud Boys. On November 28,Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended another protest outside the Governor's mansion,also attended by the Proud Boys and features Clay Nielson which is likely where they met for the first time. On December 5,2020 Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended a protest outside the Governor's mansion where violence erupts, arrests are made,Mr. Crosby is interviewed spewing election conspiracy theory. On December 14,2020 Mr. Crosby turns to crowdfunding for member Clay Nielson who was injured in Washington D.C.while assaulting a black man. On January 6,2021 Mr. Crosby and a traveling companion went to Washington D.C.to take part in the protests on the Capitol steps and were said to have been bragging about it at the Long Lake Fire Station upon their return.On January 11,2022 Mr. Page 4 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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. Page 2 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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. Page 3 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 7 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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 staffs recommendation of adding vegetation and making sure that the wall doesn't encroach on neighbor's properties. We definitely would need to verify Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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. Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 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. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh said he agreed. Johnson moved,Seals seconded,to direct staff to draft a resolution approving an after-the-fact variance for LA22-000070,4085 WATERTOWN ROAD.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. 17. LA22-000068,VALDES LAWN CARE& SNOW REMOVAL OB/O MARK&LISA THOSTENSON,2815 CASCO POINT ROAD,AFTER-THE-FACT VARIANCES Staff presented a summary packet of information. City Planner Curtis said in July the lake slope timber walls and other improvements on this property were destroyed by a fire and 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 previous footprint and as a result a stop work order was issued.Because the work was halted prior to completion in November,the owner requested and received permission from the Council to install a final wall as their engineer provided documentation showing that slope failure was imminent and needed this emergency correction. The final wall has not been installed,rather the applicant is now requesting approval to increase the height of the existing top wall to reach the correct grade rather than installing an additional wall. The applicant is requesting after-the-fact setback variances to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. The changes to the configuration of the retaining walls if approved will likely impact the applicant's ability to fully recapture the structural footprints and dimensions of the previous existing deck and shed,which were also destroyed. In February,the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4 to 1 to recommend approval of the variances including the following conditions:prior to Council review,the applicant shall provide an engineer's opinion regarding the necessity of the additional width of the installed walls and a vegetative planting plan which will screen the walls from the lake. These have been provided in your packet.And following completion of the project an as-built survey would be required. Comments from the public were received.Replacement of the destroyed walls is essential to protect the bluff and steep nature of the slope on the subject property as well as the immediately adjacent neighboring properties who also have steep slope conditions. Staff finds that the variances to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the bluff and 75-foot setback are necessary to protect the slope stability of the surrounding properties and once screened,will preserve the existing character of the area. Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the improvements and the conditions set by the Planning Commission. The contractor is present this evening. Seals asked for a refresher on what was approved at a previous meeting.Are we agreeing to other things that were not intended?And are there any of those things in here? Curtis said at the time of the emergency slope repair that was the only action the Council took. It was not in any way an approval of the expanded walls,which is why we're here tonight. Benson said she was trying to get her head around this because she wasn't on the Council in the beginning when this when this started last year. When the slope repair emergency was granted did that enable the contractor to continue working in that area in November to secure it? Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis said that was correct but they did not,they just stabilized the slope. They did not do the final wall as they requested. They determined that they would just protect the slope and then evaluated it and decided that a higher sixth wall that was already installed would be more beneficial support for the slope rather than an additional seventh wall more towards the home back into the yard. The fire happened in July.We issued the permit for the in-kind replacement of the walls,which is administrative,in September.We issued that stop-work order in October because of the expanded wall footprint that our inspector confirmed for us.They did not utilize boulders because that would have expanded the footprint of the wall and they were trying to expedite the repair. So they did not want to go through the timeline for the variance publication and approval for boulders. Joe Valdes,owner of Valdes lawn care, 6476 St. Croix Trail South,Hastings,Minnesota, appeared before the Council along with Tyler Warnke,2157 Valley View Place, St.Paul,the equipment operator on the job and Paul Schimnowski with Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, 161 Dunbar Way,Mahtomedi, Minnesota,the engineer of record. Walsh noted Valdes had said before the Planning Commission that he didn't look at the plans. He also noted that Valdes just went and started digging. Warnke said he was first on-site,and had the plans with him. We were looking at the plans as we were starting the project. Walsh asked if they had the plans,why did they think they could bring a bulldozer down there and scrape out the entire hillside? Warnke said we had to remove all existing walls. In order to get down to the bottom, I had to dig a road. Walsh said,no you didn't.You didn't have to dig a road. That was your choice. You had other options, and that's my whole issue here is that you had other options. You didn't have to do it from the top and dig an entire road down a hillside,you chose to do that.I think at the Planning Commission you said it would take way too much work to do it all by hand from down in the bottom, so you chose to build a road down the middle of the hillside and scoop it all out. So instead of a hill on the hillside,now you have a cliff I have a cliff too. The guys handed it all in my cliff when we had to re-do mine. You chose to go and dig it all when you had a specific plan for in-kind replacement.And so at some point,you dug it all out,your engineer came and designed an entirely different plan that you then pulled a permit for. So it's like going and getting a permit for a 3000 square foot house and then building an 8000 square foot house. In the discussion, Council Members asserted that the applicants had gone beyond the scope of an in-kind solution and removed a great deal of dirt from the bluff The applicants stressed the complexity of the job and noted they had to deal with burned remains of the previous structures and then found underneath the burned wall several feet of old timbers and concrete which had to be removed. They said most of the material hauled away was that and not the hillside itself The also said they had filled in behind the new walls with several feet of supports and material for proper drainage. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Walsh said you never came and asked us,you just went and did it.You're just asking for forgiveness instead of permission,because we would have never have allowed that. I think you need to go put the hill back.You need to get your engineer and you can figure out how you're going to do it. Mr. Schimnowski said he would also like to add that it always works on paper,right?I drew these plans based on existing retaining wall measurements that were out there. And there was a lot of concealed conditions on this site. There was a lot of material buried on this site that needed to come out to stabilize this hillside.And looking at some of the photos of the existing conditions at the time of the fire,there was significant slope issues and erosion at the adjacent property lines. That had nothing to do with this. If I would have the opportunity at some point to illustrate the means and methods that are necessary to demolish,excavate and build the timber wall. They had to move a lot of dirt and it's going to look like a lot is happening but it needs to happen to build a structurally-adequate wall. Johnson said from his perspective and talking with the neighbors that quality work was done. I don't think that's the question. There's a question surrounding the methodology that you used.I think a road is a good description. It was 12 feet wide?Could that have done been done with barge work from the lake without having to do that instead of coming from the top of the bluff? Mr. Schimnowski responded could it have been done?Yes. Would it have been practical to do that?No. Not with the amount of material that needed to come out temporarily,and then go back in for backfill. Johnson said what he saw was pretty alarming. I haven't seen that methodology before.And it seems like keeping as much of the bluff virgin is important. How do we handle this situation to discourage other contractors from just plowing down the hill and telling us well that's how it should be?On the other hand, I appreciate that with earthwork, oftentimes you find things when you start digging.And what I didn't like about your report was your note that the reason the emergency seventh level wasn't done was because of frost and snow. On another project on a property I owned in another city,I dug a basement around the same time and they didn't even have to put frost blankets down. So it wasn't a frost issue.And if you can move all that dirt,you can certainly move some snow to get there if that emergency required. I read that and I thought, well,that's disingenuous to me.And so then it calls into question the rest of it.And all we want is to get the straight story to make sure that other people don't do the same thing like make roads without the City approval or understanding and the right engineering ahead of time.I share the mayor's frustration that we can't just have this going on, and I think that's what this was. So I don't really know the path forward. But you've created a problem. Seals said I think my concern is the neighbors. They didn't sign up for this massive project. She noted the before and after photos are drastically different. We're pretty protective of the like kind. Just to see the change,there's a lot of earth that moved.I'm concerned for the homeowner and I'm also concerned for the neighbors.What else is going to come out of this because so much was changed?We have several emails from residents just showing us the before and after. I had to look at it several times and actually go out there. It doesn't even look like the same property. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Benson asked if it's possible if the project were rebuilt that the Bluff would look as it did before.Is there a way of restoring this bluff? She also asked if it is correct that the contractor had to dig so far back to accommodate the support timbers. Valdes said when we started digging,we don't know what was on the back of the wall. We built this wall as a complete structure from the bottom all the way to the top.Every single wall is like a structure all the way from the top so that will be there forever. He said he would have preferred to do boulders but it would have been a 60 to 90 day approval process. In January it is impossible for us to build a wall with boulders.When we got stopped working,this happened on Friday at three o'clock,we completely stopped work.He said they were allowed to go back and take emergency precautions to prevent erosion over the winter. They later came to the conclusion with engineering that they don't need to have a seventh wall because it would get more into the homeowner's property when we can go six timbers higher here. Benson asked is it true that that trees are unable to be planted in or around this new retaining wall. Valdes said no trees but they have a design plan to completely cover the walls with tall grasses and arborvitaes that don't have root systems that will affect the wall or the drainage. Benson asked what would be the effect if the work were to be taken out or redone?At this point,there's no putting the bluff back. Is that correct?It would be tearing out what's there and putting in boulders or something else. Warnke said he could only say we haven't talked about that, if we were to tear it out what would be the next step? Council Members said they believe the new wall system has to go back to the original grade and line up with the top of the bluff and the properties on either side. Curtis said she would suggest that in future applications for similar projects that we require them to provide us with their method of construction, rather than just the plan for construction.At least that would provide a more realistic expectation for the applicant and the neighbors as well as the City for what we're going to see start to finish how the project will progress. Walsh opened the discussion up to public comments. Carol Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, said she is the property owner on the west side of this property. I do have some grave concerns. The biggest one is that adding 1.7 feet to the existing sixth wall,the top of that wall that exists now, it's not sufficient to prevent soil erosion from my property on the west side, due to the differences in the elevation levels, as the retaining walls are currently built.And you saw by the picture earlier,the fence at the top that that level was basically the same along the properties.And this wall actually curves in. Part of that was building these walls further back. So I'm going to show my findings. I've been going through a lot of this data,even back from the original drawings. So there's a letter from Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers dated February 24,2023 regarding the sixth wall versus a seventh wall and it does not mention any change in property gradients to the adjacent properties. The Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. letter states the design option to add height to the existing sixth wall was done on December 9,2022.But there are no details in this information packet to support the design analysis.Also,this letter states that adding height to the existing sixth wall is I quote,a good option to reduce the steepness of the slope. However,this conclusion to me seems rather vague,and it does not indicate the total gradient and how to mitigate the effects of a steep slope. The letter also states that adding height to the sixth wall versus building a seventh wall,could,I quote,result in less soil disturbance and excavation. However,the bluff has already been disturbed and excavated with a backhoe,basically digging out the entire bluff throughout this retaining wall rebuild project.It is my concern that the Criterium-Schimnowski engineer does not provide any details of how to mitigate the slope from the neighboring properties with respect to adding 1.7 feet of height to the sixth wall,and how that is comparable to building the seventh wall that was in the original plans.But all is explained if you review the original plans of the retaining wall by this engineer, dated August 24,2022.In the design limitations section,there is a statement, quote, site layout and grading design are not included in wall design services. Those services are the responsibility of the site civil engineer end quote. So that begs the question,who is the civil engineer on this project that can assure that the grading is done properly,to mitigate the bluff grading to adjacent properties?Based on the property surveys,the elevation level of my adjacent property near the very top of the bluff is at 963 feet. The survey in Council Exhibit A depicts the current top of the sixth wall at 957 feet foot elevation,a difference of six feet. By adding 1.7 feet to the sixth wall,the resulting elevation gradient would be 4.3 feet. There is a photo on page 26 of this information packet that does show the existing slope of the property to my property that currently exists. The plans provided in this information packet Council Exhibit E show plants and flowers that will be planted in this area.This depiction also shows a wall on both the west and east side of the property.I am not certain if these walls are the existing wood timber walls that run along the side property lines or some other wall that will be built to replace the wooden timbers.However,my concern is will this depiction in Exhibit E be sufficient to mitigate the 4.3 foot slope differential that currently would exist?As a comparison reference,there are photos included in the letter from Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers dated November 18,2022 regarding the timber retaining wall upper tier,and that closely resembles the current condition of the bluff with the exception of the snow on the ground. The photo had an outline superimposed for the placement of the seventh timber wall. The outline on the seventh wall did extend along the adjacent property lines to hold back the dirt. The engineer stated in this letter that the final seventh wall height will increase to about four feet tall near each end where the existing slope increases.And a follow-up letter dated November 22,2022,the engineer states that quote,the slopes of the top of the timber retaining walls constructed to date are much steeper than originally designed. Thus again,my concerns of the steep slopes.The City Council has a very difficult task to decide on the next course of action or reaction for this after-the-fact variance request. The request to increase the height of the top sixth wall to reach the correct grade height rather than installing an additional wall has my concerns.As the property owner on the west side,the elevation gradient to the top of the bluff seems quite steep with regard to adding only 1.7 feet to the top of the sixth retaining wall. Should the City Council authorize construction of the added heights to the sixth wall,I would request that the City Council approval would require an as-built survey following completion of the walls and restoration of the grades. This could be ambiguous considering the top of the bluff and the side elevation grading to the adjacent properties have been altered from the original grades. That is before the fire occurred on the bluff and burned the original retaining walls. I would also ask the City Council to require that containment measures must be implemented to compensate for the change in elevation from the applicant's property to the adjacent east and west properties such that erosion is mitigated and controlled. Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Since the licensed engineer who designed the retaining walls is not responsible for the site layout in gradient services,I would request that the site civil engineer provide the written assurances that the work was completed based on known industry specifications and building codes for mitigating soil erosion and collapse of the bluffs. So my final comments,this was a massive,massive project.There were many, many dump truck, loads of dirt. I don't question the bluff work itself. I think Joe Valdes and his men did a good job building the wall.It was the method of just tearing away the whole bluff that had everyone concerned and has everyone concerned now.And my concern is that top wall doesn't meet the original top of the bluff. There are the indications that plantings are going to be made. I will say that the wall was built with a combination of dirt and stone behind those walls for good drainage. That is as it should be. I'm concerned, how will those plantings take effect in that type of soil?Certainly,you could add something to make it work.I think everybody tries to do a good job. The method of this one was beyond what we've seen for any lake owner.But that doesn't mean we can't go forward and just make it a bluff and retaining walls such that the neighbors on each side don't have to worry about that bluff falling apart. So you have my condolences on how you want to make your decision. It's tough.I agree. It's very,very, very tough. Johnson noted that this is a lot for a neighbor. You're a particularly educated on the matter and I'm sorry, you've had to learn this much about it. Thanks for your comments.We'll definitely want to integrate some of your recommendations there to our opinion.But,the other part of this is how we deal with this.How do we deal with contractors that go outside the scope?How as a City do we do this better next time to prevent it for neighbors like you when all you do is live there? Charles Price, Carol's husband,2813 Casco Point Road, stated Melanie,you made a great point,that next time an application comes in some questions need to be asked.How is this going to be done?And I think that might have been lacking on this one,because everybody from the City who saw it was very shocked. And just to add another data point on the dump trucks,when we talk dump trucks,these are the kinds used on the interstate highways. They're massive.And the worst day I think it was,you know,we're there pretty much every day,we saw at least seven and maybe eight of these giant dump trucks of dirt getting hauled off.It looked to me like they were bringing in gravel and backfill so the dirt went out and hopefully proper backfill came in,the contractors might be able to clarify that point. He asked to have a photo put back up. This is showing the top of the bluff where it originally was. That really shows where the top of the bluff was from the top of the original bluff where that line is.That goes from one fence post to the other. And that is actually 22 feet from the new top of the bluff,so that gives you a rough idea that they've dished the shoreline back 22 feet from where it used to be. Drainage,we still haven't seen too much about drainage at the Planning Commission. I did ask about it.And Joe did clarify that he has that taken care of,but I'm not sure what that means.And I did talk to Wes today. He's still concerned. He doesn't know,has the drainage been taken care of or has it not?. Wes, on the east side,he did ask about the wall between the two properties,a border wall,if you want to call it that, does that catch water? So the water can't just freely fall from this property to the 2817 property. So he wants that wall to remain of some kind.It doesn't have to be exactly what it is right now. Margaret Martin provided a letter. And she has statements from a professional geotechnical engineer and some of his points are really,really important, I think.He's saying,where's the soil test?The engineer says, here's the wall design and I base my wall design upon internal compound stability,but my design is dependent upon a geotechnical engineer doing soils tests and soil samples, and making sure that the assumptions that I made to design Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. this wall are accurate based on the actual soil as it exists.And I've never heard one thing about that being provided.I don't know if there's been soil tests or not.I noticed that in the engineer's letter,the engineer has a lot of outs that you can't hold him responsible if soils tests were not done. This has been a long and difficult challenge for all of us. It's gone on for a very long time, and we're still going at it. So my summary statement is as follows.If the City does decide to approve the walls to remain as they are,then I recommend that the City at least require a soils test per the engineer's statements that he has in his letters to the City.And also,require that a wall completion report is submitted by the engineer, Mr. Schimnowski, and he has spelled out what that requires. They're actually in his letter.I am referring to the one from August 24. It's in his letter. So that's all I have to say. It's been a tough deal. Walsh said I can see that they wanted to get the bluffs down there taken care of but now they've created an entire new bluff landscape that was not part of the like in-kind. They have to figure out how to reengineer to get that grade back there,and figure that out to the best of their ability. Otherwise,what's stopping anybody from just sculpting out their bluff?Just digging all the dirt?I either deny it,or we table it and let the engineer go back to with the neighbors and get this figured out knowing the direction that we need to see. So then you guys could decide do you want an answer today?Or do you want to go back to the drawing board with the neighbors and try and get this figured out? Mr. Schimnowski asked so one of the bigger issues of contention with earth questions for you is the top grade of the yard,that you want that to be original? Seals said we understand burn down. So there's some challenges. But I think trying to get as close as you can back to what it was is probably ideal. Johnson asked if the homeowners intend to replace any of the other structures that burned. Curtis said they would like to reconstruct the deck and the shed that was beneath the deck.But as I mentioned earlier, it might not be possible to capture the footprint of the previously existing deck. Benson pointed out the situation was the result of a fire,not anything the homeowners wanted to do. So this bluff,regardless of what happens at this point,will never be returned to its original state. Is that correct?So we are where we are with it. And I think my thoughts are communication,communication, communication. And I think it's always a tricky thing when expectations are set in one direction,and then things happen in another.And this is something I was talking about earlier with Adam is that these variances come about or these after-the-fact issues come about from poor communication,lack of communication and expectations being set here and then delivering here. And regardless,we are where we are right now. I do want to acknowledge how incredibly difficult it's likely for the neighbors in this area.And that's important to say because I think whether it's the homeowners or the neighbors,nobody was wanting this to turn out the way it has. Where I'm coming from is that going forward communication has to be spot on. She said she was also very interested in monitoring the plan for vegetation. That's an area that I think I'd like to focus on going forward. But I agree that for now,maybe tabling is the right way to go. Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 13,2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Curtis said it might have been helpful if staff would have more discretion in a situation like this of approving something that is not necessarily in-kind,for example,the boulder wall. Edwards said maybe that'd be a good work session topic. There may be better methods to do that than just simply replacing exactly what's there. I will say for City engineering projects where we're doing the exact same work,we often employ the exact same method--we will dig down to get everything that's bad out and we will start rebuilding those walls. We just did a ravine stabilization project this fall, different materials and a little bit different situation, but generally the same method.We built a road in and built our way back out. Johnson moved,Benson seconded,to table LA22-000068,Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, 2815 Casco Point Road, after-the-fact variances.VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 0. RECESS AND RECONVENE Mayor Walsh recessed the meeting at 7:58 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:05 p.m. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson gave a presentation on the previous month's building revenue, noting the City is about 35%ahead of last year and typically the first two months of the year are the lowest activity.We'll have to wait until you see the May through October/November period where all of the revenue comes in. So we're off to a good start.Hopefully it continues.We're at 16%of revenue at roughly 16%of the year. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT Attorney Mattick said he had a couple of updates. I did receive a request from Councilmember Benson regarding the Data Practice Act, and I thought it'd be useful to share it with the entire Council. The question was when you as individual Council Members get emails from residents or other citizens,what is the status of those emails?And what the law says is that if there's an email from a resident to a Council Member or the Mayor,that email is private data,meaning that if we got a data practice request,you would not need to disclose it because it is private data. You as the holder of that data could choose to share it if you wanted to.And you as the holder or receiver or sender of that email can choose to share it even though it's private,but you can choose to withhold that as private data.Also,something to keep in mind with that is if you get an email from a resident, and then you forward it to say,Adam,at that point that email has become public;the sharing it with staff has made it public. If you get an email from a resident, and they copy a staff member,that email then becomes public also. So strictly speaking, correspondence to and from residents is private data. There are other types of classification. If you receive property complaint data that's technically confidential,there is a legal distinction between confidential and private. Otherwise,you know,when we've done our trainings,generally what we've said is look, all emails are presumed public,but I think this is one of those exceptions that has come up. The thing to keep in mind is that if and when we have emails,if there's litigation,the discovery process may,in fact,require them to be disclosed.But candidly,you start with the fact that they're private. So they're not always disclosed. Page 13 of 21 From:Peter Demshar To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Margaret Martin Subject:Resolution No. 7315 - Comment Submittal Date:Tuesday, April 11, 2023 4:02:04 PM Attachments:image.png image.png image.png Hello Melanie, I am submitting these comments as a licensed Professional Engineer in the state of Minnesota and not as a representative of my employer. Barr Engineering Co. Has no involvement in this project or these comments. The following comments are in response to the resolution titled, 2815 Casco Point Road, Valdes o/b/o Lisa Thostensen, Emergency Slope Repair – Resolution No. 7315 Wall documentation submittal comments include: Drainage weep holes do not appear to be constructed 30’ OC as described. There is no documentation provided 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 9 of Exhibit K, 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 provided prior to approval. Also on Page 9 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, if approved this will set 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 or overturned until further information is provided in the packet for public review. Peter M. Demshar, PE From:Carol Price To:Melanie Curtis Cc:CHARLES PRICE Subject:2815 Casco Variance Requests: Comments for Council Mtg on 24July2023 Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 7:19:13 AM Hello Melanie, My review of the eight attachments to your email July 18, 2023 leads to the following comments: I don’t believe it is acceptable for this property to be granted a lakeside bluff variance to add a deck and a shed/boathouse on the bluff when this is not in any way an “in- kind” replacement of the previous retaining walls. Since little or no attention was paid to replacing the damaged walls as they existed before the start of construction, these new additions should be treated as new construction on the bluff, not as “in-kind” replacement. Attachment # 1: Shown on this survey: Drain rim: 959.8. Also shown is an elevation of 958 between the drain and the wall system and lake, which of course means no water will enter the drain. Proper grading will be required in this area to ensure the surface water pickup will catch all the surface water in this area. Attachment #3: Sheet 2. Gates Designs has indicated that the west end of the wall (left in this drawing) is 957.4, which is far too low to support the earth in this area which is 963 feet. It makes no sense that the highest elevation above this wall is being left unsupported by over 5 feet. This Gates Design drawing is not signed by a licensed engineer in the state of Minnesota. Attachment #3. Gates Designs proposal to add a concrete slab and poured footings with a boathouse and deck above does not contain a licensed engineer’s sign-off. The original engineered design of the wall system did not include this boathouse and deck, and therefore the loads created by this new structure have not been considered in the engineer’s plan. Attachment #4: A drain is shown on the east side of the wall structure, but there is no drain shown for the west side. Both sides have outlets for drainage from the bottoms of the retaining walls which MUST BE CONNECTED to pipes that will lower this water to the lake. Without lowering this water in a pipe, the soil on the back of the walls would get washed out by rainwater. Attachment #8: The words in Paragraph 8 read “every third course”, but the drawing shows header and deadmen every fourth course. Which is it? Regarding the hard cover calculations, have the latest version of the hard cover calculations been critically evaluated by city planners? Especially considering things like the deck, shed, and landings on the bluff, A/C pads, window wells, and the proposed expanded deck off the lake side of the house. The engineer designed a wall and put his seal on it. The City received the design based on the engineer’s seal without considering all of the design assumptions, additional information requested, design provisions, design limitations, and quality assurance requirements which the engineer has included in his design documents. These are conditions placed on the design which, if ignored, make reliance on the engineered design impossible. There are many such conditions included in Paul Schimnowski’s design of the subject wall system. Three of the more significant conditions are: 1.“Internal Compound Stability (ICS) has been calculated for this project by Criterium. However, ICS is not a substitute for Global Stability Analysis which should be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer.” 2.“A qualified Geotechnical Engineer shall be consulted to verify the design assumptions made by Criterium.” 3.“Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data.” It is easy to see how failure to satisfy the conditions the engineer has placed on his design may make the design unreliable, and holding the engineer responsible for failure impossible. I suggest that the City require completion of the soil testing that Paul Schimnowski requested to confirm his design assumptions. I also suggest that the City require a Retaining Wall Completion Report as described in Paul Schimnowski’s April 1, 2022 memo. Regards, Charles Price Charles Price From:Carol Price To:Melanie Curtis Cc:dwalsh2@ci.orono.mn; Richard Crosby; Matt Johnson; Alisa Benson; Maria Veach Subject:Comments for 2815 Casco Pt Rd Variance Request- LA22-000068 Date:Monday, July 24, 2023 11:59:40 AM Hello Melanie, Please see my comments regarding the after-the-fact variances requested under LA22- 000068. I forwarded my husband's comments earlier today as he cannot attend the City Council meeting tonight. Thank you for sending the earlier packet of information with the subject "Plans for 2815 Casco Point Road". However, I have focused my review on the Agenda Item #10 Packet of information just to be consistent with tonight's meeting. The most significant discussion at the March 13th City Council Meeting regarding the variance request for the incomplete As-Built retaining wall structure was that the plan to add 1.7 feet of height along the length to the 6th wall was not an acceptable solution. This March plan did not address the elevation gradients between the adjacent neighboring properties that would mitigate the erosion of the newly "bowl shaped" bluff. There were several comments by the council members that the As-Built retaining wall system was not "in-kind" and the natural bluff line from property to property was definitely altered. From the meeting minutes, "Council Members said they believe the new wall system has to go back to the original grade and line up with the tip of the bluff and the properties on either side." Towards the end of the meeting notes, Mayor Walsh stated "I can see that they wanted to get the bluffs down there taken care of but now they've created an entire new bluff landscape that was not part of the like in-kind. They have to figure out how to reengineer to get that grade back there, and figure that out to the best of their ability." So, that was basically the request of the City Council members to the homeowner: figure out a way to re-engineer the retaining walls such that the bluff was restored as closely to the natural flow of the bluff line and mitigate the elevation gradients to adjacent properties that were adversely affected by the restructuring of the bluff. Four months have passed since the March meeting. My general impression of the information packet is that there are very confusing site plans and surveys that are labeled "updated surveys / grading plans" that even the city engineer had difficulty reviewing. Next, Exhibit B2 is 7 pages of construction plans for an "in-kind" boathouse, deck, and stairs provided by a contractor that will not be supervising the work, doing the work, and he absolves himself of any changes that may be required once construction begins. Exhibit B3 is the Soil Information which contains graphs, but no engineering summary report. Apparently, this soil test data was completed on May 8th, but it was not given to the licensed engineer as he does not list this soil test data in Exhibit B4. The bluff landscape plan is Exhibit B5 which shows a drain tile system to lower the water to the lake on the east side of the property, but there is no similar drainage system on the west side. The following is further details and comments regarding the information packet. As stated in the current Background/Summary section, my husband and I met with Melanie C., the property owners and a representative from Valdes Lawn Care. My husband and I were primarily concerned with the stability and height of the 6th wall that contours along the side of our property as the differences in property elevations is significant. Currently, the 6th wall is only 4 feet tall. Based on the property survey completed by Gronberg on May 18, 2022 (prior to the bluff fire), the elevation level of my adjacent west side property near the top of the bluff is 963.1 feet. In Exhibit B, Sheet 2 of "Gates Designs", the portion of the 6th wall nearest my property is listed at an elevation of 957.4 feet. Thus, the resulting elevation gradient at that corner of the 6th wall would be 5.7 feet, i.e., 963.1 - 957.4 = 5.7 feet. This concern of mine was detailed in my written comments at both the February and March City Council meetings, and does not appear to be addressed in these new proposed plans. Also, the lack of retaining wall height to be added near my adjacent property is also identified in the Criterium-Schimnowski drawing in Exhibit B4. The proposal is to add 3.4 feet of height to the 6th retaining wall, but only near the center placement of the stairs as defined in Note #2. The remaining added timbers are gradually tiered lower as they traverse toward the adjacent side properties. This is the opposite of shoring up the walls along the adjacent properties. The Original Plans of the bluff retaining wall designed by Criterium-Schimnowski, dated August 24, 2022, state the following in the Design Limitations section: "Site Layout and grading design are not included in wall design services. Those services are the responsibility of the site civil engineer." The proposed plans to add 3.4 feet in height to the center of the 6th wall near the stairs, and then add subsequent timbers along the sides downward toward the adjacent properties, do not mitigate the gradient differences to the top of the bluff. So, if Exhibit B1 (Updated Survey / Grading Plan) was submitted to address the elevation gradients of the bluff retaining walls to the adjacent properties, these plans are not sufficient to mitigate the risk of bluff collapse along the adjacent properties. There is a slightly visible comment in the drawing that states, "T.W. = 961.0 PROP." This comment correlates to the Sheet 2 drawing in Gates Designs that denotes the proposed maximum height of the wall to be 960.8 feet in elevation. Since the licensed engineer Criterium-Schimnowski who designed the retaining walls is not responsible for the site layout and gradient services, I once again request that the site civil engineer provide the written assurances that the work was completed based on known industry specifications and building codes for mitigating soil erosion and collapse of slopes. I do not feel this has been adequately addressed in this packet of information, especially on my adjacent side of the property. The Topographic Survey dated 6/27/2023 (Exhibit B1) was provided to show an updated survey and proposed grading plans. The survey does contain discrepancies as to what existed on 6/27/2023 and the grading plans seem to be focused on the grading plans directly near the rear of the house. The drawing shows that the 108 sq. ft concrete patio is to be removed. This concrete patio was removed at the same time when the footings for the new 3-car attached garage were put in place and that was many months ago. The survey lists a "Prop Ground deck 220 sqft". Interestingly, this added portion of the proposed deck lies within the average lakeshore setback area and the footings were dug last Friday, July 21st. A previous variance request to build a deck in this same area was rejected by City Council in August 2022 as this portion of the proposed deck extends into the average lakeshore setback. The City Council only approved the replacement of the original 108 sq. foot concrete patio in the corner of the house in August of 2022. So, if this after-the-fact variance is approved, does that automatically grant approval to build the larger proposed deck within the average lakeshore area? The survey denotes that the "timber boarder(sp) of garden from adj. lot to be removed". As I have mentioned numerous times, the garden border is actually a retaining wall that steps down the elevation gradient of my property to the applicant's property. The elevation ranges from approximately 6 inches to 12 inches. So, if this is a grading plan, where is the note to explain what will be done once the timbers are removed such that my yard and gardens don't fall into the neighbor's yard? Conversely, the Landscape Plan, Exhibit B5, shows the border timbers still in place with the new bluff plantings. So, which document correctly depicts the homeowner's plans? Exhibit B1, Updated Survey This newly titled "Topographic Survey" is merely an update of the "As-Built Survey" presented to the City Council on February 21, 2023. Both surveys contain the same Notes verbiage, i.e., the "Field survey was completed by E.G.Rud and Sons, Inc. on 01/10/22", and "This survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22". The date of 01/10/22 in the Notes section is a typo mistake for the year 2022 because the Gronberg Survey did not exist until May of 2022, and the licensed engineer signed the As- Built survey on January 31, 2023. I mention this because hardcover calculations on a small lot are important to manage water run-off between properties. The existing house footprint decreased from 1425 sq.ft in the Gronberg survey completed in May 2022 to 1343 sq.ft in the E.G.Rud Survey completed in January 2023. So, how does the footprint of an existing home change by 82 sq.ft between surveyor's? Please note that 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. As of 7/21/2023, Mr. Gronberg has indicated he will send out a surveyor to reconcile the discrepancy within the next few weeks. However, I do not believe this is an issue regarding the placement of the bluff retaining walls between our adjacent properties, but this was an item of concern in previous Council meetings. Exhibit B2 - Construction Plans Hold Harmless Agreement (stated on Sheets 1 &2): 1st Paragraph: "The designer is not supervising the work on this project. Therefore, the use of these drawings by the owner or any contractor, subcontractor, builder, tradesman, consultant, or workman shall constitute a hold harmless agreement between the drawing user and the designer. The user shall in fact agree to hold the designer harmless for any responsibility in regards to the construction means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures and for any safety precautions or programs in connection with the work." 2nd Paragraph: "The designer is not under contract to oversee the construction of this project or the means, methods, techniques, sequences or procedures in connection with this work. The use of these drawings and any specifications constrained therein, hereby agrees to hold the designer harmless from liability for damages and problems arising from acts or omissions of owner, tenants, contractors, subcontractors, tradesmen or workmen. The use of these drawings also implies that the designer takes no responsibility for the plan user's failure to carry out the work in accordance with the drawings or contract documents." Limit of Warranty of Designers Work Product "The designer and his consultants do not warranty or guarantee the accuracy and completeness of the work product therein beyond a reasonable diligence." The reason I highlight the "hold harmless" verbiage listed in the Gates Design drawings is that Mr. Gates is only providing drawings to be used by a contractor to build the stairs, wooden boathouse, and deck. He is not responsible for correctly building any of the proposed construction. I believe Mr. Gates is a contractor with building experience. However, Mr. Gates is not a licensed engineer, nor is he an engineer formally trained in the art of structural or civil engineering. Furthermore, the original bluff retaining wall design by Criterium Schimnowski did not take into account a wooden boathouse and deck to be built on top of the retaining walls. As we know now, the "As-Built" retaining walls were modified on-the-fly by the contractor who built 6 retaining walls based on the conditions he encountered last October 2022. The contractor was subsequently issued a stop work order in late October 2022 prior to completion of the 7th retaining wall because it was abundantly clear that the retaining wall construction was not "in-kind" to the original bluff retaining walls, nor was it built to the Professional Engineer's licensed design submitted by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers. I understand the construction of the stairs up the bluff and over the retaining walls is necessary and acceptable. The stairs are "airy" to let water flow between steps, and the structural loading on the stair construction process is fairly evenly distributed up the bluff. But I have a significant concern with the proposal to build an impervious wooden boat house and deck on top of the tiered wall landings and adjacent to the retaining wall itself. The drawings indicate the wooden boathouse is to be constructed on a concrete slab with a deck on top of the boathouse. An additional large landing is proposed to enter the deck on top of the wooden boathouse. My concern is the added weight and hardcover that will be added between the 3rd and 4th retaining wall tiers that were newly built within the bluff. The earth of the bluff was removed to construct the retaining walls. Many photos have been provided in previous Council meetings to show the earth moving excavation process to remove the old retaining walls and construct the new retaining walls - including the road that was created from the top of the bluff down to the lake to accommodate the excavating equipment! The boathouse and deck should be considered new construction because the As-Built retaining walls were not built "in kind' to the previous retaining walls. Moreover, no licensed engineering information is provided on how the construction and hardcover of the boathouse and deck may affect the proper drainage and structural integrity of the retaining walls. The drawings, especially the lake view depicted on Sheet 2, do not show any safety railings that may be required based on the height and access points of the retaining walls. Is this an action item for someone within the Orono building department to investigate? Exhibit B3 - Soil Information This exhibit contains several graphs of a Direct Shear Test, and a single graph of a Moisture Density test based on samples gathered in April 2023. The test results were reported on 5/8/2023. However, no engineering summary was provided and it appears that no site licensed engineer has provided an evaluation of this test data and how it may affect the integrity of the As-Built bluff retaining walls. Exhibit B4 - Engineered Design/Letter The letter states that "No material sampling, analytic tests, precise measurement or engineering calculations were performed. This includes but is not limited to: compaction testing, soil sampling, global stability calculations." Additionally, the Original Plans of the bluff retaining wall designed by Criterium-Schimnowski, dated August 24, 2022, state the following in the Design Limitations section: "Internal compound stability (ICS) has been calculated for the project by Criterium. However, ICS is not a substitute for a global stability analysis which should be performed by a qualified geotechnical engineer. Additional subsurface exploration may be required." This packet of information does not contain the internal compound stability test that was requested previously by Criterium-Schimnowski. Summary Typically, I can access the information packet on the Friday afternoon after Melanie sends out the meeting notification prior to the following Monday meeting. So, at the March meeting with the homeowners, I asked if the information could be sent out earlier to the adjacent neighbors so that we could have more time to review the material than just the weekend. So, I want to thank the 2815 homeowners and their contractors for providing the plan information early such that Melanie Curtis could gather it together and send out the information on July 13th, and again on July 18th in order to give the adjacent neighbors more time to review the documents and provide feedback. As is common for lakeside homeowners, the month of July is a prime time for out-of-town guests from southern climates to visit, and unfortunately the timing was just right such that my husband and I were inundated with back-to-back house guests just as Melanie sent out the July 13th information packet. Thus, my husband and I did not start reviewing the documents until July 20th. Out of sheer anger and frustration based on our first pass glance of the new plans that do not seem to address our bluff concerns, we called Dennis Walsh to ask if he would hear our concerns since my husband was flying out-of-town early Sunday morning. Fortunately, Mr. Walsh graciously agreed to hear our concerns right away. Mayor Walsh listened to our concerns and seemed sympathetic to our plight that the neighbor's bluff had been irreversibly gouged out, and the As-Built retaining walls were basically rebuilt anew and not "in-kind". This thinking is verified by the comments recorded in previous meeting minutes by the Mayor and various council members. The Mayor did reinforce the need to get our comments to Melanie ASAP so that the Council Members had time to read them. As a result, I sent a text to my neighbors that it was very important to attend the meeting tonight and/or provide written comments to Melanie ASAP if they wanted to have any effect on the Councils understanding of the unprecedented bluff deconstruction project to build the As-Built Retaining Walls, and thus affect the decisions made by the Council members tonight for the After-the-Fact variance request. Fortunately, a few neighbors are here tonight that have similar concerns about these proposed plans. As the property owner on the west side, the elevation gradient to the top of the bluff is very steep with regard to the height of the 6th retaining wall. These plans will not support the bluff as it was carved out on my side of the property, nor tangentially, to the east side neighbor. Everyone who sees the bluff in person cannot believe what was done to the original natural bluff and the amount of earth excavated and hauled away in order to build the new retaining walls. I invite the Mayor, Council members, City Planners, City Engineer, etc. to come anytime and look at the lakeside bluff to get a better perspective of this entire project. This plan does not adequately support the bluff that was dug out on each adjacent property. The steep gradient from the top of the 6th wall to the top of the remaining bluff on each side has not been addressed in this variance request. This plan adds 3.4 feet to the height of the 6th retaining wall, but only in the center section of the bluff at the stairwell. Is there an inherent reason why the entire 6th wall cannot be heightened to 8 feet to support the bluff for the adjacent properties? Are there other bluff containment measures that could be implemented in combination with a heightened 6th wall to support and maintain the integrity of the bluff for the homeowner and the affected adjacent neighbors? My husband and I would like to work the homeowner, the Valdes Lawn Care contractor, Paul Schimnowski to discuss options that have been evaluated by licensed engineers such that the final version of the bluff retaining wall structure has been adequately vetted to maintain the long term integrity of the bluff and the risk of collapse is minimized. I ask the City Council to require that containment measures must be implemented to compensate for the change in elevation from the applicant's property to the adjacent east and west properties such that erosion is mitigated and controlled. Since the licensed engineer who designed the retaining walls is not responsible for the site layout and gradient services, I would request that a site civil engineer provide the written assurances that the work was completed based on known industry specifications and building codes for mitigating soil erosion and collapse of lake side slopes. I believe this proposed plan is patently inadequate and ask the City Council members to reject this application regarding the after-the-fact variances for the retaining walls, a new boathouse, and a new lakeside deck to be installed within the lakeside bluff. Regards, Carol Price 2813 Casco Point Rd From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Cc:Carol Price Subject:2815 Casco Point Road Date:Sunday, July 23, 2023 10:31:23 AM Melanie- I’m writing in concern for what the owners at 2815 are doing to the lake bank jeopardizing the neighboring properties’ banks. They removed much of the original bank and have left the neighboring properties with damaged grading. They were asked to return the hillside to blend the neighboring natural grading. Instead they have plans for more structure and the retaining walls do not indicate water management. This is from Carol Price, the neighbor to the north: Chuck and I are very angry that the proposed plans for the 2815 Casco bluff retaining walls did not address modifications to return the bluff closer to the original bluff line and mitigate the risks of the significant elevation gradients to the adjacent neighbors. This was their action item from the March 13th mtg. Instead, the homeowner basically spent the last 4 months creating plans for an "in-kind" boathouse and deck. These retaining walls plans are even less effective at mitigating the dirt loads on the adjacent properties than what they presented in March! Chuck and I spoke with Dennis Walsh to convey our concerns since Chuck will not be able to attend the Council mtg tomorrow. The Mayor indicated that he is Not supportive to grant an approval for an "in-kind" boathouse and deck since there is nothing left of the bluff that is "in- kind". However, the Mayor and Council members need our objections if they are to reject this proposal that essentially gives the homeowner the right to carve out the bluff to build "As- Built" retaining walls, and build a "new" boathouse and deck on the bluff. We need to object to these plans so that the homeowner is not rewarded for destroying the bluff and building structures without any regard to city codes. Please, please attend the Council mtg Monday or send your written comments to Melanie by tomorrow morning so that the Council members have time to read them. The bluff is currently a risky mess, but our collective comments could definitely make a difference to halt these proposed plans. I want to see better plans for the bluff. Please pass this along to any other concerned neighbor. Thank you. Penny Saiki LifeWave.com/litE psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L From:Penny Saiki To:Melanie Curtis Subject:2815 Casco Pt Rd hill restoration Date:Sunday, July 23, 2023 9:03:42 PM Melanie a few pictures- please add to my first letter which I forgot to add my address. This is not a hill restoration. The first set of photos is looking towards west - I called it north before- Price’s side. The design as built cut into the hill 22ft from the original crest. Truckloads of soil was removed. Both adjacent properties have fences where the natural edge was. The hill from the lake: Whenever there is new construction,- which this wall design now is- and the grade is disturbed, it’s required that contours be matched with the neighboring properties. This design does not meet those requirements on either side. They already have a bowed wall- and we have hardly had any rain: There doesn’t appear to be enough weeps. There is no drainage designed. The drain that is on the drawings is at the top of the hill on grade. Also, no handrails are shown on the drawings. They are required any time there is a 30” height difference in accessible areas. They need to be 42” high and have 4” max spacing for horizontal rails. If there is granular fill backing the retaining walls as there should be, plantings shown will not flourish nor even survive. They continue to go around the ordinances to expand and use “after the fact” as if they have no choice. Please don’t let them get away with this. It’s a ploy and their response is as a spoiled child. Besides that, preservation, conservation and restoration are more in character of the lake. Thank you, Penny Saiki 2874 Casco Point Road psaiki@icloud 952-237-6753 L I V E W E L L AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is gain council direction on what to do with respect remodel of the existing Public Works facility. 2. Background. In 2022 the city completed a facility future use study for the existing/old public works facility. The study looked at use of the facility for either a fire station or a recreation facility. A copy of the study results is at Exhibit A. As part of the Fire Needs Assessment staff analyzed potential facilities needs to support the future fire department using the existing fire stations. Resolution 7375 directed staff to solicit design proposals for remodeling the old public works facility for potential use as a fire station and a facility study on the existing stations. Staff solicited a proposal for Oertel Architects, the design firm for our new public works facility and author of the future facility study. Their proposal is at Exhibit B. Staff is soliciting proposals for facilities studies of the existing stations. Functioning fire facilities will be required to finalize our state fire number and for providing service to the Navarre area by July of 2024. Current litigation may hamper access to existing facilities to complete the studies. In July of 2023 the City of Long Lake’s legal actions have resulted in limiting Orono’s access to our Fire Facilities in the near term. 3. Costs. Below are the costs from estimates for fire facility remodels and renovations as well as a design proposal for renovation to the existing PW facility to a permanent fire station. a. Facility Costs. The estimated cost for renovating the PW facility is $3,499,618. The cost for work needed at the existing facilities is 2,213,200. If everything was completed the total would be approximately $ 5,712,818. These are planning level estimates. Work Cost Comment Remodel of the existing PW facility to a permanent fire station $3,499,618 From Future Facility Study and Oertel Design Proposal Station 2 Facility Needs $ 338,200 The Fire Needs Assessment Station 1 Facility Needs $ 1,125,000 The Fire Needs Assessment Station 1 buyout of Long Lake 50% ownership $ 750,000 The Fire Needs Assessment & Facility Appraisal b. Design Proposal. Oertel Architects provided a Design for remodel of the exiting PW facility to a permanent fire station for a cost of $ 295,120. The proposal is broken into design phases with the understanding that the city may take an alternate path for full conversion of the PW facility to a permanent Fire station. 4. Funding. The Facilities Bonding included $3,000,000 for potential fire facilities. 5. Staff Recommendation. a. I do not recommend committing to the remodel of the PW works facility into a permanent fire station. The facilities bonding dollars would be better spent on needed remodeling and updates to the existing fire stations. b. I do recommend that we engage with Oertel Architects to assist us in establishing baseline needs for use of the PW facility as a temporary fire station and to look at solutions for providing fire facilities in Item No.: 11 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Old Public Works Facility Remodel (23-044)-Design Proposal Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E. City Engineer Agenda Section: City Engineer Report the Navarre area, should mediation and negotiation not reach a reasonable solution for our use of our existing facilities there. This is option B in the Council action requested. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED • Option A- Move to Accept Oertel design proposal and direct staff to begin the design process for the remodel of the existing Public Works Facility as a Fire Station. • Option B- Direct Staff to coordinate with Oertel Architects to bring back a contract for approval to provide architectural services for remodel of the existing public works facility into a temporary fire facility. Exhibits A. Future Facility Support B. Oertel Design Proposal References A. Fire Needs Assessment Orono Public Works Existing Facility Re-Use Study Prepared by Oertel Architects May 31, 2021 021 Date: May 31st, 2022 To: Adam Edwards, P.E. – City Administrator / City Engineer From: Thomas Stromsodt – Oertel Architects RE: Orono Public Works Existing Facility Re-Use Study STUDY SUMMARY In May of 2022, our firm was hired to perform a re-use / renovation study of the existing City of Orono Public Works facility. The purpose of the study was to determine the feasibility of repurposing the existing facility to function as a fire station or as a parks and recreation facility. Our study determined that the existing Public Works facility could be renovated to accommodate the functional requirements of either a fire station or a parks and rec. facility. As part of the study we included the items noted below, which are included on the following pages: · Fire Station Study Space Needs Program · Parks and Recreation Study Space Needs Program · Fire Station Study Site Plan · Fire Station Study Building Plan · Parks and Recreation Study Site Plan · Parks and Recreation Study Building Plan · Opinion of Cost Summaries · Interior Renderings Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal Oertel Architects, Ltd OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD. ROOM SQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim)# TOTAL ADJACENCIES NOTES OFFICE AND SUPPORT AREA Entry Vestibule 64 10'x6' 1 64 Dispatch Visible from Dispatch Area Dispatch 260 12'x21'-8" 1 260 Entry and Waiting areas Storage Room 420 20'x21' 1 420 Reception / Waiting 144 12'x12' 1 144 Entry and Dispatch Office 144 12'x12' 1 144 Dispatch Dedicated Office Restrooms 70 7'x10' 2 140 Locker Rooms Locker Room 700 Varies 1 700 Restrooms Fitness Room 550 25 x22' 1 550 Locker Rooms Turnout Gear Room 550 25 x22' 1 550 Apparatus Bay and Decontamination Room Direct access to / from Apparatus Bay, centrally located Decontamination Room 396 18'x22' 1 396 Apparatus Bay, Turnout Gear Room, Wash Room Direct access to / from Apparatus Bay, isolated HVAC system Wash / Extractor Room 120 12'x10' 1 120 Decontamination Room and Apparatus Bay Mechanical / Electrical Room 120 12'x10' 1 120 SCBA Equipment Room 380 Varies 1 380 Apparatus Bay Storage 88 8'x11' 1 88 Multi-purpose / Training Room 1,560 26'x60' 1 1,560 Apparatus Bay Room for 50 + seated at tables, includes Kitchenette VEHICLE AND EQUJIPMENT AREA Apparatus Bays 18,800 Varies 1 18,800 24,436 GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 26,076 City of Orono Fire Station Study SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM DOES NOT INCLUDE WALLS AND CIRCULATION INCLUDES WALLS AND CIRCULATION 1 OERTEL ARCHITECTS, LTD. ROOM SQ.FT. SIZE (rough dim)# TOTAL ADJACENCIES NOTES AREAS Existing Office Area 1,770 59'x30' 1 1,770 Main visitor Entry Renovate existing office area as required, including new connection to Entry Visitor Entry 260 Varies 1 260 Office area and Concessions Includes new vestibule addition Concessions 550 25'x22' 1 550 Main entry and Office area Access / visual connection to office area through entry vestibule Locker Rooms 484 22'x22' 1 484 Recreation area and Restrooms Direct access to recreation area and adjacent restrooms Restrooms 407 22'x18'-6" 1 407 Locker Rooms and Recreation area Direct access to recreation area and adjacent locker rooms, includes showers Equipment Storage 475 22'x21'8" 2 950 Recreation area Parks Area 3,050 61'x50' 1 3,050 Recreation area Existing vehicle and equipment storage area, including existing wash bay Equipment Storage 399 19'x21' 2 798 Recreation area Recreation Area 17,255 Varies 1 17,255 Main Entry, Concessions, Locker Rooms, Restrooms Open area, renovated as required to allow for flexible recreational functions 25,524 GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE 26,902 City of Orono Parks and Recreation Study SPACE NEEDS PROGRAM DOES NOT INCLUDE WALLS AND CIRCULATION INCLUDES WALLS AND CIRCULATION 1 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Date: May 16th, 2022 To: Adam Edwards, P.E. – City Administrator / City Engineer From: Thomas Stromsodt – Oertel Architects RE: Opinion of Cost Summary – Orono Parks and Recreation renovation study Adam, Please see below for a breakdown of the Opinion of Cost, based on initial study documents Division 02 - Demolition Selective Demolition Division 03 - Concrete Cast-in-Place Concrete Division 04 – Masonry Concrete Unit Masonry Division 05 – Metals Structural Steel Framing Steel Decking Cold Formed Metal Framing Misc. Metals Division 06 – Wood, Plastics, Composites Carpentry Architectural Millwork Division 07 – Thermal and Moisture Protection Roofing Sheet Metal Joint Sealants Foundation Insulation and Waterproofing 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Division 08 – Openings Doors and Hardware Overhead Doors Glass and Windows Louvers Division 09 – Finishes Metal Framing Gypsum Board Ceilings Painting Tile, Carpet, Base Polished Concrete Floor Division 10 – Specialties Signage Toilet Accessories Lockers and Benches Division 11-14 Kitchen Equipment / Appliances Division 21 – Fire Suppression Division 22 – Plumbing Division 23 – HVAC Division 26/27 – Electrical and Communications Division 31-33 – Site Work Additional Items General Conditions Contingency 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Division 02 $78,300 Division 03 $315,500 Division 04 $50,000 Division 05 $87,900 Division 06 $125,000 Division 07 $36,900 Division 08 $218,900 Division 09 $265,200 Division 10 $68,300 Division 11-14 $75,000 Division 21 $23,500 Division 22 $165,000 Division 23 $558,400 Division 26/27 $394,400 Division 31-33 $245,800 General Conditions $269,800 Construction $2,977,900 Sub-Total 5% Escalation $148,895 5% Design Contingency $148,895 5% Construction Contingency $148,895 Total $3,424,585 ($127.30/SF) Clarifications: · Does not include removing, storing or re-installing any furniture, parts, disconnected equipment, etc. · Phone, data, AV and security are all excluded · Architectural and engineering fees are not included · Does not include any permits, SAC fees, etc. · Does not include any fitness equipment, courts (interior and exterior), etc. · Flooring at main recreation area is assumed as polished concrete for the purpose of this estimate · Does not include any sports specific flooring, turf, exercise mats, etc. · Assumes fire protection will only require modifications, not an entirely new system · Complete mechanical systems replacement is included · Complete electrical and lighting systems replacement is included · A $75,000 figure has been used for concessions related appliances / equipment Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal Oertel Architects, Ltd 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Date: May 16, 2022 To: Adam Edwards, P.E. – City Administrator / City Engineer From: Thomas Stromsodt – Oertel Architects RE: Opinion of Cost Summary – Orono Fire Station renovation study Adam, Please see below for a breakdown of the Opinion of Cost, based on initial study documents Division 02 - Demolition Selective Demolition Division 03 - Concrete Cast-in-Place Concrete Division 04 – Masonry Concrete Unit Masonry Division 05 – Metals Structural Steel Framing Steel Decking Cold Formed Metal Framing Misc. Metals Division 06 – Wood, Plastics, Composites Carpentry Architectural Millwork Division 07 – Thermal and Moisture Protection Roofing Sheet Metal Joint Sealants Foundation Insulation and Waterproofing 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Division 08 – Openings Doors and Hardware Overhead Doors Glass and Windows Louvers Division 09 – Finishes Metal Framing Gypsum Board Ceilings Painting Tile, Carpet, Base Polished Concrete Floor Division 10 – Specialties Signage Toilet Accessories Lockers and Benches Division 11-14 Kitchen Equipment / Appliances Division 21 – Fire Suppression Division 22 – Plumbing Division 23 – HVAC Division 26/27 – Electrical and Communications Division 31-33 – Site Work Additional Items General Conditions Contingency 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Division 02 $79,900 Division 03 $113,300 Division 04 $41,000 Division 05 $68,600 Division 06 $125,000 Division 07 $36,900 Division 08 $153,400 Division 09 $265,200 Division 10 $98,000 Division 11-14 $68,000 Division 21 $23,500 Division 22 $171,000 Division 23 $633,400 Division 26/27 $410,200 Division 31-33 $245,800 General Conditions $253,320 Construction Sub-Total $2,786,520 5% Escalation $139,326 5% Design Contingency $139,326 5% Construction Contingency $139,326 Total $3,204,498 ($123.13/SF) Clarifications: · Does not include removing, storing or re-installing any furniture, parts, disconnected equipment, etc. · Phone, data, AV and security are all excluded · Architectural and engineering fees are not included · Does not include any permits, SAC fees, etc. · Does not include any SCBA equipment, includes rough-in only · Pricing for washers, dryers, and extractor is included · Assumes fire protection will only require modifications, not an entirely new system · Complete mechanical systems replacement is included · Complete electrical and lighting systems replacement is included Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal Oertel Architects, Ltd Orono Fire_ Rec. Center 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Rec. Center 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Rec. Center 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Fire Station 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Fire Station 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Fire Station 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Fire Station 06.02.2022 Orono Fire_ Fire Station 06.02.2022 PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES TO REMODEL THE EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY INTO A FIRE STATION Orono Fire Station JULY 14, 2023 SUBMITTED BY: Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal 1795 St. Clair Avenue | Saint Paul, MN 55105 e: tstromsodt@oertelarchitects.com p: (651) 696-5186 x 314 July 14, 2023 City of Orono Attn: Adam Edwards, City Engineer 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 e: aedwards@ci.orono.mn.us | p: (952) 249-4610 RE: PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES TO REMODEL THE EXISTING PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY INTO A FIRE STATION Dear Mr. Edwards & Evaluation Committee, Thank you for considering our qualifications for this exciting project. We value our relationship with the city of Orono and would be thrilled to continue working with you. Our firm already has a keen understanding of the community fabric, the intricacies surrounding the site and existing facility, the delicate relationship between Orono and the city of Long Lake, and the key community leaders who will be involved in the project. There is no learning curve with hiring our firm. As experts in fire services facilities, Oertel Architects will oversee the entire planning, design, and construction project. Our award-winning firm specializes in the planning and design of fire stations, public works, water treatment, and park & recreational facilities. With experience working on projects of all sizes and budgets throughout Minnesota and the Midwest, our team is well-equipped to execute even the most sensitive construction projects within the communities we serve. We understand the importance of fire services to the safety and well-being of residents and the environment. That’s why we approach every project with a focus on design and economy, regardless of its location or ultimate use. Our goal is to help you achieve your project goals and ensure the success of your community. If you have any questions or if there is anything more our team can provide you, please don’t hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal Oertel Architects, Ltd. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION COVER LETTER Table of Contents Proposing Firm Overview & Consultants ..................................................... pg. 1 Project Team Identification ..................................................... pg. 2 References ..................................................... pg. 4 Approach & Work Plan ..................................................... pg. 9 Schedule .................................................... pg. 13 Fee Quotation .................................................... pg. 14 NAME/LOCATION: Oertel Architects 1795 St. Clair Avenue Saint Paul, MN 55105 PROJECT ROLE: Project Management Architecture Interiors/ FF&E YEAR ESTABLISHED: 1996/ 27 Years in Business FIRM PROFILE: Oertel Architects was established by Jeff Oertel in Minnesota in January 1996 with a clear objective to tackle design and building challenges while keeping costs at a minimum. Our team is committed to providing exceptional service to all clients, regardless of project size or complexity, with a strong emphasis on attention to detail and problem-solving. We adopt a hands-on approach to thoroughly comprehend building conditions and work closely with user groups to achieve the utmost potential for each project. Our mission is to provide intentional and responsive design solutions to our clients through a transparent design process, inclusive approach, and attention to detail. We strive to ensure that every person feels heard and valued, with a “seat at the table” throughout the entire process. NAME/LOCATION: Design Tree Engineering 21308 John Milless Drive, Suite 104 Rogers, MN 55374 PROJECT ROLE: Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering Structural Engineering FIRM PROFILE: Design Tree Engineering is a top-tier firm that operates out of offices in Alexandria, St. Cloud, and Rogers, serving Greater MN and the Twin Cities. DTE offers engineering services to Architects, Developers, Construction Managers, Owners, and Design/Build Firms. Our business model is based on building strong relationships with our clients, regardless of the project location. Our project delivery approach involves providing high-quality documents and excellent service. What sets us apart is our team’s ability to consistently deliver excellent service throughout the organization. We strive to avoid surprises, provide quality documentation, and be responsive to our clients’ needs. Our company culture emphasizes maintaining a positive workplace environment and promoting a healthy work/life balance. We believe that our business success is a reflection of our core values, which include Responsiveness, Accountability, Trustworthiness, and Excellence. NAME/LOCATION: Aune Fernandez Landscape Architects 755 Prior Avenue North, Suite 103 Saint Paul, MN 55104 PROJECT ROLE: Landscape Architecture FIRM PROFILE: At AFLA, our founding members bring a wealth of experience to the table, having worked on diverse projects for many different clients over the course of 40 years. Our firm is proud to work on projects of all scales, from regional planning to intricate site design. Our ability to design, tackle complex challenges, and communicate effectively through graphics has proven to be a valuable asset when it comes to engaging with the public. Our mission is centered around establishing long-term, collaborative relationships with clients and other professionals. We believe that great design inherently involves building strong relationships through the design process. As artisan practitioners, we are dedicated to the traditional craft of the profession, and see our commitment to great design as a commitment to our clients, the environment, and creating places that stand out through exceptional design. proposing firm overview & consultants PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 1 Thomas is a Registered Architect in Minnesota and has been a part of Oertel Architects since 2000. He specializes in designing public works, water resources, parks, recreation facilities, and other municipal structures. Thomas has a wealth of experience in new constructions, historic renovations, and building expansions. He is known for his exceptional ability to explain the design process, explore different building systems, and manage expectations of both past and present clients to ensure a successful outcome. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, MnDOT Clearwater Truck Station, City of Apple Valley Central Maintenance Facility, City of Anoka, MN Animal Control/Law Enforcement Training Facility, City of Anoka, MN Greenhaven Golf Course Maintenance Facility, RDO Equipment Co.Retail Store- Dayton, MN, MnDOT Oakdale Sign Shop, MnDOT Arden Hills Truck Station Planning, MnDOT Virginia Headquarters Master Planning, City of Little Canada, MN Public Works Facility, City of Vadnais Heights, MN North Service Center, City of White Bear Lake, MN Public Works, City of Chanhassen, MN Public Works. project team identification Eric is also a Registered Architect in Minnesota and has been a part of our firm since 2005. He is a senior architect with extensive experience in designing municipal, commercial, hospitality, institutional, retail, and residential buildings. Eric has worked on new constructions, renovations, and remodels. His responsibilities include schematic design, master planning, project coordination, client and public interaction, construction documents, and administration. He is also proficient in 3D modeling and rendering programs, which he uses to illustrate the design’s intent to clients and the public. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, City of Shakopee, MN Fire Station No. 2, City of Vadnais Heights North Service Center (Fire Station, Public Works, & Community Center), City of Maple Grove Fire Station Expansion, City of Maple Grove, MN Law Enforcement Training Center Renovation, City of Anoka, MN Animal Control/Law Enforcement Training Center, City of Minnetonka, MN Safety Building Remodel, City of Apple Valley, MN Central Maintenance Facility Expansion, City of Hugo, MN Public Works Facility, City of Waite Park, MN Public Works Facility. Brenda joined Oertel Architects in 2003 and is an interior designer, marketing coordinator, and office manager for our firm. She has worked on virtually every project that has come through the office. Brenda’s work includes assembling proposals and qualifications packages for potential projects, drawing up contracts, space planning, architectural drawings, creating finish schedules and plans, interior and exterior finish selections, furniture selection, and creating presentation boards. She is skilled in InDesign, AutoCAD, and SketchUp. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, City of Shakopee Fire Station No. 2, City of Waconia Fire Station Expansion, City of St. Anthony Fire Station, Vadnais Heights North Service Station (joint facility Fire Station, Public Works, Community Center), City of Prior Lake Fire Station Remodel, South Metro Public Safety Training Facility Renovation, City of Ramsey Public Works Facility, City of Hugo Public Works Facility, National Guard Vehicle Maintenance Facility in New Ulm, MN, City of Mounds View Public Works Facility, City of Anoka Law Enforcement Training Facility, City of Waite Park Public Works Facility. THOMAS STROMSODT, AIA, PRINCIPAL | OERTEL ARCHITECTS ROLE: PROJECT MANAGEMENT, PRINCIPAL IN CHARGE YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 23 years, 23 with firm BRENDA DEVER, SDA, ASSOCIATE PRINCIPAL | OERTEL ARCHITECTS ROLE: FF&E, INTERIOR DESIGN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 20 years, 20 with firm ERIC WERNER, AIA, | OERTEL ARCHITECTS ROLE: PROJECT ARCHITECT YEARS OF EXPERIENCE: 25 years, 18 with firm KELLEN KIRCHBERG, LA | AUNE FERNANDEZ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ROLE: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Kellen spent several years designing sustainable homesteads and community gardens prior to joining AFLA. He worked closely with home owners and community members to develop working landscapes that match the unique needs and capacities of each client with their site. His passion for sustainable design helps him maintain a balanced approach to creating spaces for quality human experience that also respond to 21st century landscape challenges. His strengths lie in conceptual design, working across scales, and graphic representation. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: MnDOT Clearwater Truck Station, MnDOT Jordan Truck Station, City of Hilltop City Hall, MnDOT Des Moines River & Clear Lake Safety Rest Areas, City of Bloomngton Fire Station #3, Washington County West Central Service Center, NorthPoint Health Campus, Sibley Park Improvements. MPRB. Minneapolis, MN, Whitetail Woods Regional Park (Phase 2 Improvements), Dakota County, MN Thompson County Park Improvements. Wassermann Lake Preserve: Park & Native Restoration Project. MCWD & City of Victoria, MN. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 2 project team identification Carlos is a founding partner of Aune Fernandez Landscape Architects (AFLA). Prior to starting his own firm, CJ practiced at a multi-disciplinary design studios and has a total of 19 years of experience in landscape architecture. His experience is wide ranging from master planning and urban design to small scale detail development in commercial, public, corporate, transportation, and private project types. Strong design skills and construction administration experiences provided a solid foundation for working closely with clients from programming through budgeting and construction. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: CBRE Colonnade Bldg. Campus Improvements, Golden Valley, MN, Tennant Co. Campus Master Plan, PUD & Global Headquarters. Golden Valley, MN, Tennant, R&D Facility & Site Rennovation. Golden Valley, MN, Donaldson Company HQ Campus & Courtyard Renovation. Bloomington, MN, Blue Cross Blue Shield HQ, Campus Improvement Project., Eagan, MN, Reit Management & Research, Corporate Facilities Study. Apple Valley, MN Aaron is an expert in designing electrical systems for various buildings. He collaborates with multiple user groups and considers political exposure in municipal projects. He has a strong command of security and audio/visual design and is experienced in water and wastewater process electrical engineering. His expertise in energy codes helps minimize construction issues and changes. Aaron can also help the city engage in SCADA and controls engineering directly, eliminating markup and management costs. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, Camp Ripley Fire Hall- Little Falls, MN, City of St. Joseph, MN Fire Station Expansion, City of Fridley, MN Fire Station Space Needs Study, City of St. Louis Park, MN Fire Station, City of St. Joseph, MN Police and Government Center, City of St. Cloud, MN City Hall Remodel/Addition. Paul is a licensed mechanical engineer with 24 years of experience in project management and design. He oversees our team of mechanical designers and drafters and specializes in HVAC and plumbing design, energy use assessment, and construction administration. As a LEED Accredited Professional, he leads the project’s mechanical energy and sustainability efforts. His expertise in energy-efficient mechanical systems helps guide design decisions. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, Camp Ripley Fire Hall- Little Falls, MN, City of St. Cloud, MN City Hall Remodel & Addition, City of Sartell, MN Community Center, City of Shorewood, MN- South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility, City of Deephaven, MN- South Lake Minnetonka Public Safety Facility. Robert is an expert in designing HVAC and plumbing for buildings. He understands client requirements, municipal rules, and codes, which helps reduce construction issues. With his technical skills and knowledge of energy-saving features, he can implement strategic designs without compromising quality. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, Camp Ripley Fire Hall- Little Falls, MN, City of St. Cloud, MN City Hall Remodel & Addition, City of Sartell, MN Community Center, City of St. Joseph, MN Police and Government Center, and Grant County Government Center- Elbow Lake, MN. Joe Nicholson is a certified engineer with over 25 years of experience in project management and design. He specializes in building and site structures across the country, including concrete, masonry, steel, and wood structures designed for atypical loading situations. Although Joe is regularly involved in the design of new structures, he also undertakes many renovation projects utilizing both traditional and non- traditional renovation techniques and materials. RELEVANT EXPERIENCE: City of Orono, MN Public Works Facility, City of Beardsley, MN Fire Hall, City of Evansville, MN Fire Station Expansion, Camp Ripley, MN Fire Station, City of Morris, MN Bus Garage, Wright County, MN Satellite Maintenance Facility. PAUL QUIRIN, PE | DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING ROLE: MECHANICAL TEAM LEADER ROBERT SCHUSTER, PE | DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING ROLE: MECHANICAL ENGINEER JOE NICHOLSON, PE | DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING ROLE: STRUCTURAL ENGINEER CARLOS (CJ) FERNANDEZ, PLA, PRESIDENT | AUNE FERNANDEZ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS ROLE: LEAD LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AARON MUELLER, PE, LEED AP, WELL AP, VICE PRESIDENT | DESIGN TREE ENGINEERING ROLE: ELECTRICAL TEAM LEADER PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 3 SHAKOPEE FIRE STATION NO. 2 This project started as a facility study to program and plan a new station in the City of Shakopee. The plan for the future Fire Station was designed as a ‘prototype’ model which can be used at two different sites, based on immediate and future needs. The dispatch area has a clear view of the vehicles exiting the Apparatus Bay, which was critical to pedestrian safety as the site is surrounded by a park. CONTACT Rick Coleman, Fire Chief during design and construction of the project (retired) References PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 4 VADNAIS HEIGHTS FIRE STATION NO. 2 The project is a part of the North Service Center which includes a 78,100 sq. ft. joint facility consisting of a fire station, public works and community area spaces. The fire station includes dispatch, office, apparatus bays, a dayroom for the fire staff, sleeping quarters for the fire staff/volunteers, and space for hired ambulance contractor. The project had to be carefully planned and designed, given the adjacent public works and community center users. The entire facility has been a great success for the entire community. The fire station was awarded a Silver second place national Station Style Award in the Shared Facilities category by Fire Chief Magazine. CONTACT Mark Graham, Director of Public Services (retired) e: mjlagraham@comcast.net p: (651) 245-6493 personal cell PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 5 MAPLE GROVE FIRE STATION EXPANSION Throughout the 2,850 square foot addition, Oertel Architects employed a sympathetic and cohesive design, matching new materials, scale, and details to the existing structure for an even flow throughout the building. We designed a new drive-thru bay to house a new 100-foot ladder truck. Additions included a turn-out gear area, 730 square foot mezzanine storage, a hose tower and a training balcony. As is common in our projects, particularly for additions where the original space is still in use, the team was able to ensure that the existing fire station remained operational throughout the entire construction process. CONTACT Tim Bush, Fire Chief/ Emergency Manager e: tbush@maplegrovemn.gov p: (763) 494-6301 PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 6 PRIOR LAKE FIRE STATION NO. 1 REMODEL The Prior Lake Fire Station renovation project began as a study to determine a means of adding sleeping quarters / dormitory rooms to the existing facility in anticipation of full time staffing beginning in 2023. A complete remodel of the kitchen, multipurpose/dayroom, and the conversion of a conference room into a workout room will also be included in the renovaiton. Our team designed several different options for the City to consider including remodeling the existing interior spaces and including an addition to the existing facility. Cost estimates and potential construction schedules were provided for the different options, as the City had to weigh the options based on a fixed budget and a condensed construction timeline. In the end, working closely with the City it was determined the best option for the City would be to renovate the existing facility, in lieu of a potential addition. The interior renovation allows the City to meet their budget goals and condensed construction schedule, while still meeting their day to day operational requirements. The project was recently completed in 2023. CONTACT Rick Steinhaus, Fire Chief e: rsteinhaus@priorlakemn.gov p: (952) 440-3473 PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 7 WACONIA FIRE STATION CONCEPT The city of Waconia is exploring options for the re-use of the former public works site and our office submitted a concept design for a new fire station. The site is located in a commercial area adjacent to a rapidly developing residential area. The site has limited options for access and includes a pump station that needs to remain. The building program includes apparatus bays, supports spaces, a large training room, offices, sleeping quarters, and a day room/kitchen area. CONTACT Craig Eldred, Public Services Director | Waconia, MN p: (952) 442-4265 | e: celdred@waconia.org PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 8 Approach & Work Plan This proposal will outline the services to be provided to the City of Orono to design and renovate the existing public works building as a fire station facility. Oertel Architects and our team will provide complete architectural and engineering design and construction administration services for the building as well as all associated site and landscape work. By working closely with the City’s project manager, stakeholders, and staff, we will work diligently to achieve the Fire Department’s specific goals and project objectives. The City is at the beginning of an exciting and challenging chapter. The establishment of a new Fire Department will be an improvement for the City of Orono’s citizens and firefighters alike. This fire station is not simply a place where trucks and equipment are stored, it’s a building that will serve as the center of operations for the station and provide a critical contribution to the overall preparedness, consistency, and quality of life of the staff. Providing a safe, healthy, and comfortable environment for firefighters is paramount to the success of the project. Key design factors for your facility include: 1. Health safety: Red/transition/ green zone layout 2. Provide training spaces for a variety of situations and equipment 3. Provide space for community outreach programs 4. Provide natural lighting throughout the facility 5. Provide a mixture of “active” and “quiet” areas for use by staff 6. Provide functional and operational spaces appropriate for fire service readiness, emergence operations, and fire service training 7. Provide comfortable finishes and furnishings while maintaining a high-level of durability 8. Provide appropriate air ventilation, specifically at the vehicle areas 9. Provide enhanced separation of hot, transition, and cold zones for hazard mitigation 10. Provide safe but useable “common-sense” security measures for firefighters, equipment, and materials 11. Provide design flexibility to adapt to the changing nature of the department over time 12. Provide design compatible with the surrounding commercial and residential lots 13. Provide design which is efficient in materials, space, and energy to be a good steward of public monies 14. Provide sustainable design elements for the building and surrounding site features REVIEW PRE-DESIGN The City has already completed a preliminary department analysis for this project that will provide an excellent starting point for review with City and fire staff. Having a consistent and informed basis for the initial review and decision-making process will be of great benefit to the overall project and help expedite the initial pre-design phase. Our first task will be to create the Purpose and Needs Statement through discussions with staff, and a review of the department’s goals/ future direction. We will use this Purpose and Needs Statement as a framework to help delineate more specifically the ‘how and what’ this facility will provide for the City. Items in the Framework will include Economic, Functional, Physical, Sustainable, Service and Environmental measures. This Framework will provide the Basis of Design for which future project decisions will be gauged. The Basis of Design will also ensure we stay on task to meet the desired timeline of the City. With a Statement and Framework in place, we will review the preliminary space needs program outlined in the concept needs and update/alter to match the current space and potential future needs of the department. The output from the programming phase will establish a baseline of spaces and design criteria including: • Space Size • Adjacencies • Fixtures and Equipment • Architectural Finishes • Lighting • Mechanical/Electrical Systems • Technology Requirements • Sustainability Features • Special Criteria All of the factors will be captured and tracked on a series of worksheets. These worksheets will be updated throughout the project as part of an overall “Project Snapshot” to ensure that everyone is, quite literally, on the same page and will serve as the master reference for tracking the project’s program, scope, and detailed requirements. After the project scope is solidified, if the City requires, we will assist the City with any required public engagement including open houses, neighborhood meetings, mailers, website updates, news articles, etc. Given the timeline of the project to this point, it will be important to keep the process and results as transparent as possible. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 9 Deliverables include: • Project Schedule • Purpose and Needs Statement • Performance Framework • Program w/ Room Data Worksheets CONCEPTUAL DESIGN SCHEMATIC DESIGN This phase of the project is where we will begin the design process in earnest. The design team will begin detailed plan layouts that meet the Performance Framework and space needs program goals identified in the previous phase. Plans will review traffic flows, personnel workflows, equipment locations and equipment choices, structural, mechanical, and electrical systems, and integration of sustainable features. Initial concepts will be presented to the Core Team for discussion and revision. The associated site and floor plans and a 3D image of each will be developed for sharing with the stakeholders and city leadership, providing a key component to total project buy-in. We will also provide initial cost estimates for the various options which are designed during this phase. We will work closely with the City stakeholders to ensure the City budget can be met by looking at potential alternate options and value engineering systems and components during this phase and all subsequent phases of the project. The deliverables include: • Site Plan Options • Building Plan Options • 3D images • Sustainability Options • Preliminary Cost Estimates for Concept Options ABOVE: EXAMPLE PROGRAM SNAPSHOT WORKSHEET BELOW: EXAMPLE OF A BUILDING MASSING/SITING EXERCISE PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 10 DESIGN DEVELOPMENT Within this phase, most of the detail will be incorporated into the project. This includes final equipment selections for apparatus bays and support operations, as well as building systems including HVAC, plumbing, lighting, power systems, and other building support systems. Site designs are finalized enough to begin official regulatory submittals such as watershed reviews if they haven’t been done so already. The design at this stage should be 80% finalized. At this time the project scope may have changed and been affected by project costs, perhaps the project scope has grown or maybe it has been reduced. Cost estimates will be updated and reviewed with the owner. We will work closely with the City Stakeholders during the review of these cost estimates to discuss potential options, such as alternate material choices and possible systems revisions in order to ensure the City budget and schedule requirements are met. If the City requests, this is the phase of the project where we will assist the City with neighborhood or community engagement. This is also the stage in which council is updated via a workshop on what is included within the total project in terms of design and cost. It is important to keep in mind that making significant changes to the scope or design after this phase may result in additional design costs. Nonetheless, our design team believes that by keeping track of design issues and cost estimates during earlier phases, we can significantly decrease the likelihood of incurring such costs. At the end of this phase, the project team will have a building plan and layout that is complete enough to begin more detailed structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing designs, and site plans ready on some level for regulatory discussions, if not some official submittals. The deliverables include: • Civil Site Plans (grading and utilities) • Landscape and Site Plans • Detailed Building Plans, Elevations, and Sections • Structural Layout Plans • Mechanical Systems Defined • Electrical Systems Defined • Sustainability Systems Defined • Revised 3D images • 60% Cost Estimate CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS During this phase, design meetings are reduced in frequency as documents are prepared. Internal coordination meetings between design team members take place to prepare the bid documents. A final set of documents will be presented to city staff at the 95% point for review for compliance with staff expectations and conformance with final project expectations and understanding. Quality Assurance & Quality Control QA/QC checks are critical at this phase to ensure a smooth bidding and construction process. In total, the duration of the schedule for the development of a bid package is rather short but there is still enough time to get a comprehensive set of documents created. These checks and meetings will take place periodically during design coordination among the design consultants. The quality control process is another means of maintaining the City budget PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 11 goals, and can also be a component of maintaining the overall project schedule. In addition to full bidding document preparation, additional regulatory submittals are prepared for any reviews that have not already taken place and that can be started or completed prior to bidding. (Example: SAC assessment). Any submittals which can be reviewed prior to going out to bid will assist in maintaining the condensed construction scheduled the City desires. It is anticipated that within this phase there is the final presentation of completed documents to City Council for the authorization to release for bids. Deliverables include: • 95% review set plans and specs • Updated Cost Estimate • 100% review set plans and specs • Final Cost Estimate • Final Presentation Documents BIDDING The design team will participate in this phase by answering all requests for information and clarifications, reviewing and approving where necessary requests for acceptable products, coordinating with other design consultants and authoring addenda for distribution. The design team will also attend a pre-bid conference and answer questions regarding the scope of design and project. The Architect will also attend the bid opening and assist the City in evaluating bids as qualified and responsible and recommend acceptance by Council and authorization of the contracts. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION IIt is our firm’s philosophy that it is as critical for the same design team members to be as involved in the construction process as they were in the initial design phases. These are the people who know the job the best, so it is best to have that continuity during construction. It is also our firm’s philosophy that it is critical to heavily participate in regular construction meetings and observe the construction on a regular basis. We do not administer the construction process from a distance. We have experience in these types of projects and have seen issues that can arise from the low bid sub-contractors. That is why we believe the close and heavy involvement is necessary to head off issues right away when things come up or before they come up through close observation on the job site and though predicting issues based on prior experience. We strongly feel this is a benefit to the owner because it helps the contractor stay in-front of time and cost issues, get questions addressed quickly, and keep the project on schedule and on cost. Deliverables include: • Shop drawing review – including review with City/Fire department leadership where applicable • Answering RFI’s • Issuing supplemental instructions and proposal requests • Reviewing applications for payment • Attending weekly construction meetings • Attending pre-construction meetings for critical trades • Review construction and create a punch list PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 12 DESIGN DEVELOPMENTPRE-DESIGN REVIEW & SCHEMATIC DESIGNCONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTSBIDDINGPHASE CONST. ADMIN.MILESTONES/ TASKS Council to award project Project kick-off meeting Review current pre-design documents to establish space needs programming and update concept as needed CONCEPT PACKAGE • Project Schedule • Purpose and Needs Statement • Performance Framework • Complete Building Program with Space Needs/ Data Worksheets City Review and Approval of Concept Plans 30% DELIVERABLE • Preferred Site Layout Diagram • Preliminary Opinion of Cost • Schematic Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations • Complete Builing Projgram with Space Needs/ Data Worksheets City Review Schematic Design Documents 60% DELIVERABLE • Code Review(s), initial submittals for approval (site) • Detailed Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Building Images • Preliminary Structural,Mechanical, and Electrical layouts and detailed scope documents • Design Development Opinion of Cost City Review and Approval of Design Development Documents 95% DELIVERABLE • 95% Project Manual • 95% Construction Documents • 95% Opinion of Cost City Review of 95% documents 100% DELIVERABLE • Final Project Manual • Final Construction Documents • Final Opinion of Cost City Review and Approval of Construction Drawings and Specifications and Counciil Approval to Bid Pre-bid Meeting Bid Opening Bid Award and Contract Execution/ Notice to Proceed Contractor/ CM Mobilize & Pre Construction Submittals Groundbreaking for Fire Station Substantial Completion TIMELINE July 2023 Early August 2023 September 2023 September - October 2023 October - December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 Early March 2024 March 2024 Council Meeting April 2024 No later than September 2025 Schedule PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 13 Fee Quotation ConclusionPreliminary DesignSchematic DesignDesign DevelopmentConstruction DocumentsBidding & Construction AdministrationTotalsOertel Architects $8,500.00 $21,000.00 $48,000.00 $56,000.00 $28,000.00 $161,500.00 Design Tree Engineering • Mechanical • Electrical • Structural • Plumbing $3,216.00 $12,864.00 $32,160.00 $40,910.00 $17,830.00 $107,200.00 Aune Fernandez Landscape Architects $2,160.00 $4,020.00 $3,220.00 $10,280.00 $6,740.00 $26,420.00 Totals $13,786.00 $37,884.00 $83,380.00 $107,190.00 $52,570.00 $295,120.00 In addition, we propose a not-to-exceed expense fee of $3,000 for items such as mileage, plots, and presentation boards. These items will be billed at their direct cost and a detailed explanation will be provided. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit our qualifications to you. Our firm is dedicated to providing the best possible quality product for our clients. Oertel Architects has first-hand knowledge and field-tested experience of what works and what doesn’t in Fire Service Facilities. We dedicate our time to maintaining a high level of expectations and quality in order to exceed all of your goals. Working for the citizens of a community on essential services projects such as this one is a privilege and a responsibility that we take very seriously. More important than all of this, we are problem solvers and we aim to do our best to provide our clients with the best value possible. If there is anything further that we can provide to demonstrate our commitment to making your project a success, please let us know. Best regards, Thomas Stromsodt, AIA, Principal Oertel Architects, Ltd. PROPOSAL FOR ARCHITECTURAL & ENGINEERING SERVICES- ORONO FIRE STATION OERTEL ARCHITECTS- 14 AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: AMC Approved By: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to get formal council approval of Change Order 1 to the Public Works Facility Construction contract. 2. Background. On October 10th, 2022 Council awarded the contract to build the new public works facility. Construction is under way. To date there have been a several necessary changes to the project which involve increased costs. 3. Change summary. A listing of justifications form the Architect and Civil Engineer are at Exhibit A. Item Cost PR#02 – Structural Steel Changes $ 7,718.17 PR#03 – Electrical Masonry Chase & Electrical $ 17,570.81 PR#04 – Flammable Waste Trap $ 24,325.83 PR#05 – Force Main $ 5,419.68 PR#08 – Settlement Plates $ 7,578.88 PR#09 – Stormwater Changes $ 3,465.28 PR#11 – Drainage Pond Revisions $ 11,876.48 GC#01 – Overhead Stops $ 618.00 GC#02 – Northwest Parking Lot Soil Corrections $ 3,666.00 GC#03 – East Parking Lot Soil Corrections $ 26,564.00 GC#04 – Water Main Excavation $ 5,560.00 GC#05 – Lift Station Access Cover $ 2,939.00 RFI #01 – Additional Stair Flat Plate $ 2,300.00 RFI #28 – Vulcraft Joist Changes $ 14,656.50 PR#10 – Storage Bins $ 19,577.60 TOTAL $153,836.23 4. Proposed Offset. To offset the cost of the changes we will remove the backup Generator from the contract. The generator list price in the contract is $499,000. The removal of the generator from the contract has some additional cost savings benefits. First, the original generator was speced for natural gas however CenterPoint energy recently changes its fees and its installation would have cost an additional $50,000 as well as a $15,000+ per year fees. We will change the generator to diesel and if ordered, after the building is complete the sizing requirements are different so a smaller generator will likely suffice. 5. Funding. The original contract sum was $16,067,000. Change Order 1 amounts to $153,836.23. However, the proposed offset will more than cover the change order so the overall cost to the contract is expected to remain at or below $16,067,000. 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend approval of the change order 1 and removal of the generator form the contract to offset the additional costs. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move to approve change order #1. Exhibits A. Architect and Civil Engineer justification comments. Item No.: 12 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Public Works Facility (21-039)- Change Order 1 Presenter: Adam T. Edwards, P.E. City Engineer Agenda Section: City Engineer Report 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com DATE: 7/14/2023 TO: Adam Edwards RE: Current Change Order Details/Status MEMORANDUM Hello Adam, Please see below for a brief synopsis and recommendations for the outstanding change orders to date. PR#02 – Structural Steel Changes The documents included a continuous bearing beam for the long span steel joists. The design, as bid, included individual joist pockets for each beam. This required additional steel angles to transfer the force to the sheer walls located on the north side. The owner realized good value on bid day by changing to the pocket design but it did necessitate a small amount of additional steel. Recommend approval PR#03 – Electrical Masonry Chase & Electrical The electrical service was designed to be located inside the building. The power utility company mandated an exterior service entry during the permitting process. The delta is the cost difference between the equipment required and the additional fire rated chase space required to route the conduit to the exterior. Recommend approval PR#04 – Flammable Waste Trap Changes to the flammable waste trap design and elevation necessitating additional excavation and footing depth. Recommend approval PR#05 – Force Main Changes to the Force Main. The forcemain was increased from 1-1/4” to 2”. Recommend Approval. PR#08 – Settlement Plates 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Monitoring plates for area west of the building identified for soil correction. Required to monitor settlement within the building limits. Once settlement reached acceptable limits, building construction could continue. Recommend approval PR#09 – Stormwater Changes Grading and utility changes to the east storm drainage pond. The lengths of pipe shown on the drawings did not match the contours that were shown on the grading plan. Recommend approval PR#10 – Storage Bins Construction of partial concrete wall (easternmost wall of north storage bin bid alternate) for mounting of control panel and venting for the force main. Recommend approval PR#11 – Drainage Pond Revisions Changes to piping, silt fence, and removals at the southwest corner of the storm water pond. The extra required removals and additional erosion control were not in the bid. Recommend approval GC#01 – Overhead Stops Additional overhead stops for the overhead crane Recommend approval GC#02 – Northwest Parking Lot Soil Corrections Soil corrections required to meet project requirements. Unforeseen conditions observed and directed by AET. Recommend approval GC#03 – East Parking Lot Soil Corrections Soil corrections required to meet project requirements. Unforeseen conditions observed and directed by AET. Recommend approval GC#04 – Water Main Excavation The water service was much deeper than indicated on plans and as-built drawings. This required additional and more complicated excavation time and strategies 1795 St. Clair Avenue St. Paul, MN 55105 (651) 696-5186 www.oertelarchitects.com Recommend approval GC#05 – Lift Station Access Cover The access cover as specified was for a protected area. The force main will be located in an unprotected area until the storage bins are completed, necessitating a heavy-duty vehicle rated cover. Recommend Approval RFI #01 – Additional Stair Flat Plate Coordination between the structural steel drawings and the delegated design drawings for the stairs/landings/ and railings Recommend Approval RFI #28 – Vulcraft Joist Changes Removed (2) 14K1 and added (2) 52DLH13 joists per coordination between joist supplier, precast supplier, and structural engineer Recommend Approval AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: Reviewed By: A. Carlson 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 Community Development Department will lead discussion on Average Lakeshore setbacks. 4. Proposed Future Topics. This is an opportunity for council members to propose and agree to future work session topics. 5. Work Session Items. The table below depicts topics for works sessions. Those shaded have already occurred. Those in the future are proposed. Date Subject Date Subject 9 Jan 23 -THC License discussion - Navarre Parking Lot Funding 10 Jul 23 Cannabis Legislation Update 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 - Average Lakeshore Setbacks 27 Feb 23 - City Council -Staff Procedures - Park Commissioner interviews 28 Aug 23 - Enterprise Budgets Update 13 Mar 23 -No items -Cancelled 11 Sep 23 - Preliminary Levy/Budget 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 - Retaining Wall Discussion - Planning & Park Commission Interview 23 Oct 23 - Draft Capital Improvement Plan 8 May 23 - 2024 Street Maintenance Part II - Draft Fire Needs Study Report 13 Nov 23 22 May 23 - Retaining Wall Discussion Part II 27 Nov 23 - Fee Schedule Update 12 Jun 23 - 4PM Start- Council Interviews - THC Legislation Update - Preliminary Budget Guidance 11 Dec 23 - Community Survey Discussion 26 Jun 23 - Preliminary Budget Guidance - - THC Legislation Update 6. Staff Recommendation. I recommend holding the next Work Session as scheduled. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Move hold the next work session as scheduled. Item No.: 13 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Next Work Session Draft Agenda Presenter: Adam T. Edwards City Administrator/City Engineer Agenda Section: City Administrators Report AGENDA ITEM Prepared By: A. Carlson Reviewed By: A. Carlson Approved By: 1. Closed Meeting: Attorney – Client Privileged Discussion. The meeting will be closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege (section 13D.05, subdivision 3 (b)) to discuss the threat of litigation by the City of Long Lake regarding the Contract for Fire Protection and will include an update related to the following lawsuits: • Theodore Bonnett and Allision Bonnett v. City of Orono • Barbara Schmidt v. City of Orono, MnDNR, MCWD, Orono Schools • Jay Nygard, et Al v. Orono • Kendall Nygard, et al v. Orono • Jay Nygard vs. Orono, Dennis Walsh, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Attorney Soren Mattick, Attorney Jared Shepard • Lake Minnetonka Real Estate II, LLC v Feldshons and Orono • Brad Erickson v. Walsh, Crosby and Orono Exhibit A. Non-privileged letter from attorney retained through the LMCIT. Item No.: 14 Date: July 24, 2023 Item Description: Closed Meeting – Client Privileged Discussion Presenter: Soren Mattick, City Attorney Agenda Section: Closed Meeting DATE: July 18, 2023 TO: Mayor and City Council CC: City Staff / City Attorney / LMCIT FROM: Paul Donald Reuvers RE: City of Long Lake v. City of Orono Court File No. 27-CV-23-9758 ___________________________________________________________________________ My law firm has been retained through the League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust to represent the City of Orono (“Orono”) in this litigation. This memorandum will update you on the status of this litigation and provide our preliminary analysis of the legal issues and recommendations moving forward. The City of Long Lake (“Long Lake”) sued Orono, asserting various breach of contract claims. In summary, we do not believe any of the claims have any legal merit, and we view this litigation as more politically motivated. It is our legal opinion there has been no breach of contract and Orono’s decision to establish its own fire department has been open and transparent. Long Lake sought and the district court granted Long Lake’s Motion for a Temporary Injunction on July 14, 2023, which essentially maintains the status quo of the relationships between Orono and Long Lake during the pendency of this litigation. Importantly, the court made clear its order was not a decision on the merits of the case, and that will be sorted out in the litigation process. Instead, the court directed the parties to engage in mediation to avoid the cost and expense of litigation between two municipalities. We have agreed to utilize the services of retired Minnesota Supreme Court Chief Justice Kathleen Blatz to act as a mediator. We are coordinating with Long Lake’s counsel to set up mediation and hope to do so in the next 30-60 days. It is also significant the district court did not find Orono violated any of its contractual obligations. Quite frankly, it clearly has not. Orono has repeatedly confirmed it will abide by its contractual obligations, while taking the reasonable steps to construct and establish its own fire department. I want to make clear that despite the litigation and current order from the district court, Orono will be able to continue to hire personnel, acquire equipment, and take the steps necessary to establish its own fire department to serve this community, while vigorously defending this litigation initiated by Long Lake. July 18, 2023 Page 2 Please also keep in mind the court largely accepted Long Lake’s arguments for the temporary injunction which, putting it charitably, are inaccurate in many respects. We will have the opportunity to correct the record, if necessary, if this matter does not resolve at mediation. For example, there was nothing illegal concerning Orono’s acquisition of a ladder truck. Orono is entitled to assemble the necessary equipment to outfit its fire department (and will continue to be able to do so). Even after acquiring the ladder truck, Orono offered to allow Long Lake to utilize the ladder truck, if it did not want to acquire its own ladder truck. This demonstrates Orono is not attempting to undermine the Long Lake Fire Department (“LLFD”). To the contrary, Orono is on record that it will ensure the LLFD has the equipment necessary to service the needs of the community. As to hiring Chief Van Eyll, Orono went through an open and public process, no different than any other community or public employer. It should be no surprise the Chief, who was most familiar with the community, was the top choice. The decision to accept the chief position was his own decision to accept as he can choose where he wants to work, just like any other prospective employee. Similarly, the City may choose to hire any LLFD firefighter who applies for a position, but pursuant to the order may not proactively solicit their employment. Finally, the Minnesota Legislature recently passed a law this past session that bans non-compete agreements between employers and employees, so any argument LLFD firefighters cannot choose where they work would be a violation of existing state law. As to Long Lake’s complaints concerning capital budgets, Orono is contractually authorized to reject a proposed budget, and Long Lake is as well. More to the point, there is a process in place if either Orono or Long Lake does not approve a proposed capital budget. It would be financially irresponsible for Orono to approve budgets that are not economically realistic. Taxpayers should expect their elected officials will critically review any proposed budget, and the Court cannot usurp that legislative function. The City Council has made clear it is committed to providing the LLFD the equipment it needs and will continue to review capital purchase proposals on a case- by-case basis. As to the firefighters’ pension programs, there is also no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the City. Rather, it is an undisputed fact that representatives from Orono and Long Lake jointly met with legislators in 2023 to see if firefighters from the LLFD could transfer their pension dollars to Orono on an individual basis if they decided to work for the Orono fire department. This was done for the benefit of any firefighters who may choose to make the career switch to keep their years of pension vesting without interruption. In summary, Long Lake’s characterization of this legislative effort is a false narrative. July 18, 2023 Page 2 I look forward to discussing this litigation with you further. If this matter does not resolve at mediation, I recommend a vigorous defense against the meritless claims asserted in this litigation. Thank you.