HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-09-2015 Council Packet Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, November 9, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
The public is invited to address the City Council regarding any item on the regular agenda. If your topic is
not on the agenda, you may speak during the Public Comments section.
Roll Call
Pledge of Allegiance
Approval of Agenda
1. Consent Agenda – Consent agenda items, including (*) asterisk items, are considered to be routine
items to be enacted upon by one motion by the City Council under this section of the agenda. Items
on the Consent Agenda are reviewed in total by the City Council and may be approved through one
motion with no further discussion by the Council. Any item may be removed by any Council
Member, staff member or person from the public for separate consideration. If you wish to remove
any item from the Consent Agenda, please state the item number and description of the
item. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet located in the
lobby near the sign in sheet.
Approval of Minutes
2. Regular Council Meeting of October 26, 2015*
3. Council Work Session Meeting of October 26, 2015 *
Presentation
4. MET Council Sewer Main Project – Jeff Schwarz, P.E.
5. Navarre Community Festival – Event Recap and Volunteer Recognition
Planning Commission Comments – Representative Jon Schwingler
Public Comments – (Limit 5 Minutes Per Person)
This is an opportunity for the public to address matters not on the agenda. The Council will not engage
in discussion or take action on items presented at this time. However, the Council may refer issues to
staff for follow up or consideration at a future meeting. Speakers should state their name and home
address at the podium before speaking.
Public Works Director/City Engineer’s Report
6. Water Treatment System Improvements – Pay Request No. 7 and Change Order 1
7. Park Commission Priorities for 2016
Public Safety Report
8. Accept Donations
Planning Department Report
9. 15-3768/15-3780 Michael & Lisa Larson, 3569 Shoreline Drive Text Amendment to Amend B-1
Zoning District and Conditional Use Permit
10. 15-3774 Michael Steadman o/b/o Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive – Preliminary Plat Approval
11. 15-3784 City of Orono Text Amendment Regulating Living Walls
12. 15-3787 David & Lisa Wipson, 2264 Shadywood Road, Variance
13. Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2016
Agenda for Council Meeting Set for Monday, November 9, 2015, 7:00 P.M.
Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356
952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us
Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us – follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification
Mayor/Council Report
City Administrator's Report
14. 2015 Inter-fund Transfers
16. Authorization to Disburse Funds for Claims Received
17. Proposed 2016 Official Calendar
18. Claims/ Bills*
City Attorney's Report
Closed Meeting
The meeting will be closed as permitted by the attorney-client privilege (section 13D.05, subdivision 3(b))
to discuss the pending lawsuits and potential new lawsuit between the City of Orono and the Nygards.
Adjournment
Upcoming Events
11/11 – Veterans Day City Offices Closed
11/16 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Mayor McMillan)
11/23 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m.
11/23 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
11/26-27 – Thanksgiving City Offices Closed
12/14 – Council Meeting, Monday, 7:00 p.m.
12/24-25 – Holiday City Offices Closed
01/04 – Park Commission Meeting, 6:30 p.m.
01/11 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
01/19 – Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 p.m. (Council Liaison – Dennis Walsh)
01/18 – Martin Luther King Day City Offices Closed
01/25 – City Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m.
01/25 – City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 23
ROLL CALL
The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor
Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr., Lizz Levang, and Dennis Walsh. Representing
Staff were City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development
Director Jeremy Barnhart, Senior Planner Michael Gaffron, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Adam Edwards, City Attorney Soren Mattick, Consulting City Engineer David Martini, and Recorder
Jackie Young.
Mayor McMillan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
McMillan noted the closed meeting will not occur this evening since there is not a full Council.
CONSENT AGENDA
Item Nos. 7, 8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20 and 21 were added to the Consent Agenda.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
*2. REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 2015
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of
October 12, 2015, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PUBLIC HEARING – 7:00 P.M.
3. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES – RESOLUTION NO. 6555
Finance Director Olson stated the City is required to certify to the County all unpaid annual service
charges for the septic program, the recycling program, and all delinquent sewer and water accounts of
$50.00 or more, to be collected with the following year’s taxes. In addition to the outstanding amounts
delinquent, eight percent interest and an administrative fee of $25.00 is added to all accounts. The
amount to be assessed at this time is $119,882.15.
State Statutes require that the City hold a public hearing regarding the assessment of these fees prior to
certifying the assessment roll to the County. Notices of the public hearing have been sent to all
delinquent properties.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 23
3. CERTIFICATION OF DELINQUENT UTILITIES – RESOLUTION NO. 6555 (continued)
Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6555 , a Resolution for the
Collection of Delinquent 2015 Water and Sewer Utility Service Charges, Recycling Program Fees,
On-Site Sewage Treatment (Septic) Program, Storm Water Charges. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
4. CERTIFICATION OF UNPAID SERVICES CHARGES – RESOLUTION NO. 6556
Olson stated the City is required to certify to the County all unpaid service charges to be collected with
the following year’s taxes. In addition to the outstanding amounts delinquent, eight percent interest and
an administrative fee is $25.00 is added to all accounts. At this time the amount to be assessed is
$18,576.78 compared to $20,380.24 in 2014. This amount will be decreased by any payments received
up to the final payment date of November 25, 2015.
State Statutes require that the City hold a public hearing regarding the assessment of these fees prior to
certifying the assessment roll to the County. Notices of the public hearing have been sent to all
delinquent properties.
Mayor McMillan opened the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
There were no public comments.
Mayor McMillan closed the public hearing at 7:08 p.m.
Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6556, a Resolution for the Collection
of Delinquent Development and General Service Bills. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PRESENTATION
5. JIM GREGORY RESOLUTION FOR 40 YEARS OF SERVICE – RESOLUTION NO.
6554
Mayor McMillan presented a resolution to Jim Gregory recognizing his 40 years of service to the City as
a Public Works employee.
Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6554, a Resolution of Appreciation
to Employee Jim Gregory for his Forty Years of Dedicated Service. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
6. FIRE CHIEF JAMES VAN EYLL – LETTER OF SUPPORT
Jim Van Eyll, Fire Chief, stated he is looking for a formal letter of support from the Orono City Council
to allow the Long Lake Fire Department to submit a grant application to the Fire and Rescue Shared
Services Feasibility Study Grant Program. The Long Lake Fire Department, the Loretto Fire Department,
Maple Plain Fire Department, and Mound Fire Department are interested in participating in this grant
program for 2016. The departments are looking at conducting two studies with the grant money. The
first one would be a study on a regional fire training coordinator, which could also include coordination of
fire prevention and fire inspections between the four cities. The other study would be a shared staffing
study.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 23
6. FIRE CHIEF JAMES VAN EYLL – LETTER OF SUPPORT (continued)
Van Eyll indicated he spoke last week with the Fire Marshal’s Office about what they were attempting to
do and it was suggested they should include the two studies in one grant application. If the funds are
available, they will fund both; and if not, they will fund priority number one, which is the study of the
regional training coordinator position.
Council Member Levang asked how much they are seeking in grant money.
Van Eyll stated the grants are capped at $40,000. One grant request is just over $20,000 and the other
was just under $35,000. Van Eyll stated both of the requests are all inclusive and would be under the cap.
Van Eyll stated there is also a 10 percent match on the grant money, which means they can be reimbursed
for their meeting times and data gathering under that 10 percent match.
Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize a letter of support for the Fire and Rescue Shared
Services Feasibility Study Grant. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS – LOREN SCHOENZEIT, REPRESENTATIVE
Planning Commissioner Schoenzeit stated he had nothing to report but would be available for questions.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road, stated she lives on a private road and that they have been
experiencing some problems with the road. Ferril stated she would like to read the following letter she
wrote to the City:
“In October of 2014, she called the City road department and expressed a concern. The edge of the road
at the junction of Old Long Lake Road and Wakefield Road showed signs of losing road structure and
would only get worse if left unattended. I was interested in where the responsibility laid being that
Wakefield Road is a private road. The response was quick to my answering machine that the responsible
party was the City of Orono and a repair would be made the next week.
The weather became a factor and it did not happen. I expected that the repair would be made in the spring
of 2015. Over the summer of 2015, I left messages with the road department but no answer. I literally
chased down the head person in the maintenance building who told me he could not find the problem.
Now the problem is bigger and two-fold as another hole is opening. We are now looking at spring of
2016.
On Wakefield Road, Mediacom has left four cable spools from their installation that was authorized by
the City of Orono. I asked Mediacom to pick them up over a month ago. Bill Ferril has since e-mailed
the City offices to aid in getting Mediacom to pick up their materials – no response and the materials are
still there.”
Ferril stated she would like the problems fixed and information on who she should be contacting for
future questions. Ferril distributed a picture of the spools to the City Council.
Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards indicated he will take care of the problem.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 23
PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued)
Resident Jay Nygard, 1386 Rest Point Road, stated it is kind of funny how he was put in jail for a minor
BS political reason and that there is no other reason he was put in jail. Nygard stated he has documents
showing where two of the Council Members actually had reasons to end up in jail. They have actually
committed real crimes. Nygard stated for those who do not know, he went to jail for having a buried
chunk of concrete in his yard which is the reason he is here tonight.
Nygard noted City Attorney Mr. Mattick did not have time to get him out of jail without an affidavit but
yet has time to do an interview with Fox News. Nygard stated during that news interview, Mr. Mattick
had a hard time telling the truth, at least from what he can tell. One of Mr. Mattick’s main comments is
that jail is not what the City asked for. Nygard stated he has two letters in September alone where
Mr. Mattick specifically asked that both he and his wife go to jail for six months for a buried chunk of
concrete and that his closing arguments, when they were in front of the judge, was that he and his wife
should go to jail for six months. Nygard noted Mr. Mattick asked for jail three times in the month
leading up to him being incarcerated.
Nygard noted Orono’s City Attorney also spoke with the Lakeshore Weekly News in which he said that
City officials responded in a prompt manner and that the affidavit was signed Monday and a letter was
filed with the court the following day. Nygard stated that is a comical statement because his law firm
gave his attorney the runaround all day Monday after they had the inspection done and then he was told
that he had to sit in jail because they were not going to do anything until he got back in town. Nygard
stated thankfully, due to his lawyer and his wife coming down to City Hall and camping out, they were
able to obtain an affidavit that was then given to his lawyer and then the judge. Nygard stated it was not
the City Attorney of Orono doing his job rather his family had to do his job in order to get him out of jail
for a buried chunk of concrete.
Nygard noted the order itself states defendants filed an inspection report as well as the affidavit to Roger
Peitso. Nygard stated it does not say the City of Orono filed anything. Nygard commented this is
Orono’s tax dollars at work and that this is what the City has been spending their time doing. Nygard
stated the City has harassed him for five years for going green and that they ended up throwing him in jail
for six months for a useless chunk of cement.
Nygard stated in his opinion Mayor McMillan is a very, very poor leader, which can be proven by the fact
that she had the courage to knock on his door and ask for his vote but not once in five years has she had
the courage to talk to him about his issue.
Mayor McMillan noted the City did attempt mediation with Mr. Nygard, and that when the lawyers
became involved, she was not able to speak to Mr. Nygard.
Nygard noted this is his time to address the Council and that he would like to finish.
McMillan noted public comments are typically limited to five minutes.
Nygard noted Mayor McMillan allowed Mr. Richie Anderson to speak for over 20 minutes a couple of
meetings ago. Nygard asked whether the Mayor is going to treat him differently than she has treated
other residents.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 23
PUBLIC COMMENTS (continued)
McMillan noted Mr. Nygard has spoken quite a bit in the past. McMillan stated she would allow Mr.
Nygard extra time.
Nygard noted the Mayor stated to the Laker and Pioneer that the Nygards have chosen to be in contempt
of court. Nygard stated he has never chosen to be in contempt of court and that the City put him there.
The Mayor further stated that they still have not chosen to comply and that the issue is not so much about
disobeying Orono’s Code but instead is showing complete disregard for the District Court’s
determination. Nygard stated the Mayor made that statement knowing the turbine was off his property,
the pole had been removed, and that the footing had been rendered useless with a jackhammer and a
saws-all. Nygard stated he does not know how going to that much work is completely disregarding the
Court’s order and that they are attempting to cover their butt.
Nygard stated in his opinion there is a huge lack of experience on this Council. Nygard stated no matter
how many years Mayor McMillan has been here, she has a very poor idea of what the Mayor’s job is. In
addition, the City Attorney did not once bring Minnesota State law from 1995 to the Council showing that
people have a right to have a turbine and instead fought him tooth and nail to keep him from overturning
the ban.
Nygard stated in his view, as he has previously said, this is a very weak mayor and a very weak Council
that have plenty of their own problems but obviously have too much time on their hands. Nygard stated
the problem is that Mayor McMillan is still being lead around by Former Mayor Gabriel Jabbour and that
he is still running the City. Nygard stated Gabriel Jabbour has been running the City since he got out of
office in 2000, and that if that was not true, City Staff would not be calling Big Island Gabe Island and
allowing him to turn it into his own private resort.
Nygard stated this is Orono’s tax dollars at work and that this is what they spend their time doing to
someone who wants to go green and did comply with the Court’s order. Nygard stated the City needs to
back off.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT
*7. #15-3781 STONEWOOD ON BEHALF OF BELLE AND HARRY YAFFE, 3185 CASCO
CIRCLE, VARIANCE – RESOLUTION NO. 6557
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6557, a Resolution Denying a
Variance From Orono Municipal Code Section 78-1279, for the property located at 3185 Casco
Circle. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*8. #05-3131 GLENDALE COVE LANE – ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC ROAD –
RESOLUTION NO. 6558
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6558, a Resolution Accepting
Glendale Cove Lane as a Public Road and Accepting Public Trail and Sewer, Water and Storm
Sewer Improvements in the Glendale Cove Development as Public Facilities. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays
0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 23
*9. #15-3770 JON NORRIS AND CATHERINE MORRISON AND PATRICK AND MELISA
MULHERAN, 460 ORCHARD PARK ROAD – PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL –
RESOLUTION NO. 6559
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6559, a Resolution Granting
Preliminary Plat Approval for Subdivision of the Property Located at 460 Orchard Park Road.
VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
Michael Steadman, Applicant, was present.
Senior Planner Gaffron noted the City Council tabled this application at their October 12 meeting in order
for the applicant to explore the potential for eliminating the new cul-de-sac that was proposed and simply
extending three individual driveways to serve the three new lots. The applicant has submitted a drawing
depicting such a driveway and is attached as Exhibit A.
The primary intent of this review is to analyze and compare the alternate plan without a new cul-de-sac
incorporating comments from Consulting Engineer Bob Bean, City Engineer Adam Edwards, and
Planning Staff. The applicant has submitted additional information earlier today regarding the alternative
access that would go through the Jacobs’ property. Gaffron stated the applicant can address that in further
detail.
The original proposed cul-de-sac was for a full cul-de-sac with three individual driveways coming off of
it along with an extension of Heritage Lane with the expectation that once the cul-de-sac is built, the two
sides of the existing cul-de-sac would no longer be needed. The applicants have now looked at not
constructing a full cul-de-sac but rather split it off into three individual driveways serving the three new
homes. That revised plan will save a few additional trees.
Gaffron noted at the last meeting the neighbors demonstrated that there is not room for a bus to turn
around in the existing cul-de-sac. Staff has reviewed the revised proposal and recommends the City
Council consider the following:
1. A cul-de-sac is required per City Code when three or more lots are being served. The alternate
plan would require a variance, even though the cul-de-sac bubble would be platted.
2. The existing cul-de-sac on Heritage Lane does not meet current City standards. If a new cul-de-
sac is not provided with the new development, the existing cul-de-sac should be reconstructed to
meet current standards. The existing cul-de-sac is tear-drop shaped and, as was demonstrated by
the resident’s video, not capable of allowing large vehicle movements without backing up.
3. Expansion of the existing cul-de-sac will have an impact in reducing the neighbors’ improved
yard areas and possibly their landscaping. Existing driveways will have to be adjusted
accordingly.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
4. Without a cul-de-sac that meets current City standards, emergency and maintenance vehicles may
have difficulty accessing the new development and turning around. The proposed layouts should
be reviewed by the Fire Department.
5. The “no new cul-de-sac” alternative would not result in any significant change to traffic patterns
or views. However, not adding the new cul-de-sac could easily result in sightseers continuing
past the existing cul-de-sac and then having to maneuver to exist the site.
6. City maintenance of the public road will be less efficient if the new cul-de-sac is not built. Or,
will the City simply not plow past the existing cul-de-sac and expect the three new homeowners
to plow not only their own driveways but the added 300 feet to get to the existing cul-de-sac?
7. The alternate plan would result in only 6 – 10 less significant trees requiring removal when
comparing the two plans side-by-side. The minimal tree savings does not justify the creation of
another substandard road, a public one at that, in the City.
8. The amount of hardcover needed to be added is roughly equal in each plan. A full new cul-de-sac
coupled with removal of portions of the existing cul-de-sac, is roughly the equivalent in
hardcover of simply adding driveways and expanding the existing cul-de-sac to meet code.
9. If no new cul-de-sac is provided, construction traffic during home construction is more likely to
spill out onto the existing Heritage Lane cul-de-sac despite the efforts to avoid such activity. The
applicant has proposed onsite parking for the construction traffic, which will help keep traffic off
of Heritage Lane.
10. City Engineer Edwards recommends that whether a new cul-de-sac is built or the existing one
expanded, surmountable concrete curbing should be used rather than asphalt curbing. A suitable
transition from existing asphalt curbing to concrete curbing is easily accomplished and asphalt
curbing is a maintenance issue.
Staff recommends that the original plan to create a new cul-de-sac be approved, accompanied by removal
of the excess portions of the existing cul-de-sac. Staff would oppose the alternate plan.
If the Council determines that the alternate plan should be followed, Staff recommends that the existing
cul-de-sac be brought up to City standard as part of the development improvements and a determination
made as to future maintenance of the extended road.
Levang asked where the bus would turn around if existing portions of the cul-de-sac are removed.
Gaffron indicated it would turn around on the new road that would have the new cul-de-sac.
Levang asked if he is suggesting the new cul-de-sac be further in.
Gaffron stated Staff is recommending creating a straight stretch of road with the cul-de-sac at the end.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Council Member Walsh stated from a plat standpoint, it makes sense to have the cul-de-sac at the end but
that he is not sure if the neighborhood would like to retain the other cul-de-sac. Walsh commented it
would be nice to have the extra room in the street because kids sometimes play in a cul-de-sac.
Michael Steadman, on behalf of Irwin Jacobs, stated they are interested in doing whatever the City feels is
appropriate. Steadman stated if the original cul-de-sac is approved, he would recommend having
temporary parking as well. If a bus is attempting to turn around and there are construction vehicles there,
that may be an issue. As a result, the Council may want to consider any work to the existing cul-de-sac
be done at a later time.
McMillan stated there are pros and cons with each option. McMillan asked if there are any neighbors that
would like to comment on the application.
A resident in the audience noted that Steve Brynes, president of the homeowners association, is out of
town and that is why he is not present tonight. The resident stated he is not a member of the homeowners
association and cannot speak for them.
McMillan asked how long the driveways will be with the new cul-de-sac.
Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, indicated they will be approximately 400 feet long and that there will most
likely be circular drives at each of the homes.
McMillan stated if the original cul-de-sac is not removed, that is okay, but noted that a cul-de-sac in the
middle of the road is not a playground area since there will be traffic going through there.
Walsh stated he was not saying it was okay.
McMillan stated a few people have made that comment to her and that she just wants to make sure the
Council is not promoting that. McMillan stated she is torn with having more bus traffic going northwest
in the new cul-de-sac since it might be more impactful to the neighbors but that she can understand why
Staff would like the cul-de-sac to end where it does.
Levang asked if the applicant’s proposal would be that during the construction phrase the existing cul-de-
sac would be expanded to handle the bus traffic. Levang asked if that would be a safer alternative.
Levang stated currently it is problematic as Mr. Libby demonstrated in his video. Levang asked if they
would be expanding that and later removing that.
Steadman stated they would be open to that as well, particularly if it creates a safer situation at the end of
the cul-de-sac.
Walsh stated that underscores the issue with the construction traffic. Walsh noted one of the neighbors on
the side of the existing cul-de-sac has a very large old tree and that Mr. Libby has some retaining walls.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Walsh stated if the cul-de-sac is expanded, they would be destroying those yards and trees, which the
neighbors have some issue with. Walsh stated he does not see that as an option and that it is not a good
situation in general.
Steadman stated he is willing to work with the neighborhood on landscaping and mitigating any impacts
to their properties.
Walsh stated once a 6-foot diameter tree is removed, it is gone. Walsh noted Mr. Libby has had water
problems in the past and that he is not sure how the work will impact that. Walsh stated he does not want
to exacerbate the problem and that sometimes it is best to leave things as they are.
Council Member Cornick asked how the bus negotiates now.
Gaffron stated the bus comes up to the cul-de-sac, makes a half turn, backs up, and then goes back out.
Edwards stated in his view widening the existing cul-de-sac for a temporary period would not provide any
real value. It functions as it functions now and would not necessarily change during construction.
Edwards stated with the new cul-de-sac, the City has an opportunity to correct a deficiency on that road
for the whole neighborhood, which is to provide the ability for buses and service vehicles to make a full
turn without backing up. Edwards stated the trade-off will be that the property owners with the extension
will have more traffic but they will not hear the beeping associated with certain vehicles backing up.
Edwards noted the City has lots of dead-end streets without cul-de-sacs and they are an issue for
maintenance and emergency issues.
McMillan stated she sees a lot of trade-offs either way and that if the cul-de-sac to the right is not built, it
would be up to the homeowners association to plow to the end of the existing cul-de-sac since there is no
way the City would be able to plow that stretch and turn around easily.
Walsh stated that makes it even more complicated and could create a situation where no one can get out.
Walsh stated he is in favor of what Adam suggested since it seems the only way to really solve that long
term for everybody.
Levang noted each of the homeowners would have a circular drive and that a service vehicle could turn
around.
Walsh stated they could also install a gate.
McMillan stated a cul-de-sac usually is a place to turn around and that most people would not go down
someone’s driveway to turn around. McMillan stated the two cul-de-sacs might be confusing but it would
provide some extra parking, which could be determined later.
McMillan stated she appreciates the applicant exploring the alternatives. McMillan noted there will be
some tree loss but that the new cul-de-sac, from an engineering point of view, is very valued. McMillan
stated a cul-de-sac tends to be more of an urban design in a Big Woods area.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
McMillan noted the area will all be have sewer so no mound systems will be taking existing trees down.
McMillan stated she would appreciate the developer looking at a more sensitive design since it is a
significant stand of Big Woods, and that once a big canopy is opened in a Big Woods, the woods become
degraded fairly quickly.
McMillan stated if the Council is okay with the new cul-de-sac, Staff could bring the preliminary plat
back at their next meeting.
Levang stated she would like to hear the neighbors’ view of the new cul-de-sac. Levang stated since the
HOA president is not here, the Council will have to wait to hear from him.
McMillan noted the City still has the original proposal and that she is sensing the Council is leaning
towards the new cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated he is looking for direction on whether he should bring back a preliminary plat approval
resolution in two weeks and that he is hearing the resolution should include the new cul-de-sac.
Cornick asked if that would include removal of the old cul-de-sac.
Gaffron stated that can be left for a period of time if the Council chooses.
Walsh stated in his view the Council is in agreement with the new cul-de-sac. Walsh asked if the Council
should discuss the issue or the desire to have the construction traffic go through the Jacobs’ property and
the other issues that the developer has agreed to do.
Gaffron stated primarily the Council is discussing whether or not the cul-de-sac should be constructed,
but the applicant is prepared to have a discussion regarding the potential alternative access through the
Jacobs’ property. Staff has not had a chance to review the information that was submitted earlier today
and that the intent was to concentrate on this specific cul-de-sac. Gaffron stated the resolution for
preliminary plat approval would be with Heritage Lane as access unless directed otherwise. Gaffron
noted the temporary access was discussed at the last meeting and then the issue of the new cul-de-sac
came up.
Walsh stated it sounds like the Council is in agreement from a plat standpoint for the new cul-de-sac but
that he is not sure this is the right night to discuss everything else since the president of the homeowners
association is not present.
McMillan stated she is in favor of utilizing Heritage Lane and that she is not sure if any Council Member
has changed their mind since the last meeting.
Cornick stated he scanned over the documents and that there is some new information. Cornick stated he
would like to hear that and get it into the minutes.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Steadman stated they are proposing construction hours from 8:30 to 4:30, daily street sweeping at the end
of the day, providing phone numbers to the residents in case there is an issue, attempting to be proactive
ahead of time for when contractors will be showing up, and asking contractors who do not follow the
rules not to come back.
Steadman noted they also provided a tree inventory and the impact to the woods. Steadman stated in their
view the arborist did a very thorough job documenting the condition of the Big Woods and the trees. At
this point 150 trees would be disturbed and approximately 62 percent of the woods is in good condition.
Vernon Swing, Traffic Engineer with Westwood, stated he has been doing traffic studies for
approximately 29 years and that he was asked to take a look at the construction traffic impacts associated
with bringing construction traffic along Heritage Lane as well as to consider an alternative access route
that would come in through the Irwin Jacobs’ property. Swing noted his report is in front of the Council
but that he will summarize the report.
Swing stated to begin with, Heritage Lane is currently 24 feet wide. It begins at its intersection with
Shoreline Drive and then traverses back to the cul-de-sac. The 24-foot wide street is typical for
residential type roadways in that the narrower road provides for slower speeds and a safer environment
for those who live in the neighborhood.
As it exists today, there are occasional lawn service and other service vehicles that will park on the sides
of the road further adding traffic calming measures to the traffic traveling through the neighborhood.
Swing stated the construction traffic as it is for purposes of building a single-family home is actually quite
low. The number of construction related trips that will occur on a daily basis would be approximately 20.
The neighborhood currently generates 162 trips, which are extraordinarily low numbers. Swing stated
from a traffic operations and a traffic safety perspective, those numbers are negligible and difficult to
measure in terms of impact.
Swing stated one of the things that was brought to the Council’s attention on the video was that school
buses will turn right and swing wide into the opposing lane of traffic. Swing indicated he reviewed this
using the software that is typically used to design a street and design corners for truck and bus turning
maneuvers referred to as Auto-Turns.
Swing stated on the overhead is a replica of an Auto-Turn with a school bus and a passenger car coming
out of the neighborhood. Swing stated what is key to remember is, when the school bus was turning on
the video, there was nobody coming from the opposite direction. As with most people that drive, if there
is nobody coming from the opposite direction, the vehicle making the turn does not turn as tightly as they
might otherwise. Swing stated a school bus can safely make it around the corner and is bigger than a
dump truck or a cement truck. It is approximately the same size of most delivery vehicles of construction
materials.
At the time houses are to be constructed, it is estimated there will be one truck delivery one week, which
will vary sometimes but generally it is estimated at one truck per week. That, along with the 20 trips
associated with the construction workers, is a negligible number as far as being able to measure it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
A typical subdivision of this size generates 162 trips a day, with 12 occurring during the morning peak
hour, 17 trips occurring in the evening peak hour, and the rest of the day on average will be eight trips in
an hour. Swing stated that is just slightly over one trip an hour from the neighborhood traffic either into
or out of the area. Swing stated it is a very small number and will not create an unsafe condition.
Swing stated when reviewing the alternative route, they found that the road currently is approximately 12
feet wide and is proposed to be approximately12 feet wide going down the hillside in the back. Swing
stated the hillside itself is quite problematic due to the very steep drop initially of approximately 20
percent grade for the first 80 feet. After that it flattens slightly and continues down at about a six percent
grade. When a road plan is put together that will carry construction traffic for the few deliveries that are
expected per week, the road still has to be designed in a way that the delivery vehicles can get in and out.
Most delivery vehicles will have a very difficult time negotiating steep slopes.
Swing stated in this case, the design that they will end up with from the driveway turnaround on
Mr. Jacobs’ property to the new cul-de-sac results in a 12 percent grade, which is a very difficult grade
for a truck to go down and brake. It is also a very difficult grade to come up, particularly when the
pavement is wet or covered with snow. Swing stated in his view it cannot be designed in a way that can
be safe since the trucks will not be able to negotiate that kind of slope safely.
Swing stated they further explored the opportunity to access in off of Shoreline Drive, which is a County
road. Swing stated they are presuming that would be allowed. In that situation, the vehicles would be in
traffic causing other cars on Shoreline Drive to back up, which is an opportunity for a rear-end type
collision or other collision. Swing stated by coming in at the driveway entrance on the property, they
would be creating an unsafe condition.
Swing indicated when they talked to Hennepin County about the opportunity to gain construction access
at this location, they were told by the County it would not be allowed because there is a public street that
has been improved to allow for construction traffic. Swing stated they would not be able to get a permit
for access. In addition, when they looked at the City’s Codes for an access road along bluffs and steep
slopes within the Shoreland District, they found it is not permitted. Swing stated they have looked at it
from the standpoint of engineering, whether access would be allowed, and whether it is allowed per City
Code, and the answer in all those cases is that this is not a feasible solution.
Levang noted he talked about traffic calming strategies. Levang asked if there are additional traffic
calming strategies that could be put into place.
Swing stated the developer has proposed a speed limit for construction traffic at 15 miles per hour, which
is slower than what the road is posted for. Swing stated he does not know if much calming is needed
since it is a narrow street and vehicles are occasionally parked on the sides. Swing stated they could
perhaps add barrels at strategic locations to continue to engrain the idea in the driver’s head that there is
something there to look out for but that he would not suggest putting in speed bumps or something along
those lines.
Walsh asked if he is saying the alternative road is not feasible or not doable.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Swing stated it is not possible to provide an access that will accomplish what the goal is, which is to bring
in construction workers and construction traffic. Swing stated it would not be safe.
Walsh asked if there was someone who said otherwise, whether it is not true.
Swing stated he is a licensed engineer and has been doing this for 29 years. Swing stated he strongly
believes it will not be a safe scenario. Swing stated it is unsafe and should not be done.
Walsh stated the part he thought was a little bit disingenuous is that it will not impact the area since there
will probably only be 20 construction vehicles. Walsh stated there will probably be at least 20 vehicles
coming in and out of Jacobs’ property every day. Walsh stated he was wondering if it is an issue of not
wanting it to be done or whether it cannot be done. Walsh stated he has heard otherwise and that he is
trying to get to the bottom of it.
Swing noted traffic coming into the neighborhood off of Shoreline Drive has a right-turn lane, which will
take those cars out of through traffic and those vehicles will slow to the appropriate speed to make the
turn. When turning into Mr. Jacobs’ property, there is not that right turn lane. Vehicles in that case will
be slowing down in traffic, which is an enhanced opportunity for some type of collision as people attempt
to avoid the car in front of them.
McMillan asked if the Council would like to take another vote on the construction road. McMillan noted
the Council did vote against it at the last Council meeting.
Cornick stated he would like to vote on the cul-de-sac.
Stephen Charrier, 1910 Heritage Lane, noted he submitted a note after the last meeting regarding these
issues. Charrier stated he has walked the property a number of times and that the discussion has resolved
around traffic from the Jacobs’ property all the way down to the cul-de-sac. Charrier stated the only real
issue is from the Jacobs’ driveway and then the first 80 feet.
McMillan stated it depends on when the homes will be built. McMillan noted the middle lot could not be
built on for ten years.
Charrier stated he understands that but that the discussion has centered on the entire length of the road.
Charrier stated he does not understand that. Charrier stated if you stand on the property, there appears to
be a solution and that the intent of the neighbors has always been to alleviate some of the construction
traffic.
McMillan noted that would be asking the developer to create a temporary construction access road that
already has access off of Heritage Lane. McMillan stated she does not want to build a whole new road
and take down 20 or 30 trees and drive on bluffs when the applicant has a legal right to access that
property and develop it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
McMillan stated she understands the concerns of the neighborhood and that it will be disruptive, but to
ask the applicant to build a temporary road and remove 20 to 30 trees, drive on bluffs for a development
that may happen in one year, two years, or ten years, is an unbelievable burden for the developer.
McMillan stated the applicant has the right to split off the lots and have access to those lots from a public
road.
Charrier stated the point is driving all the way down to the cul-de-sac. Charrier pointed out the proposed
location of the homes. Charrier stated traffic coming east on Highway 15 by Brackett’s Point is
considerably slower there and that it would be more difficult to pull out of Heritage Lane than it is to turn
out of Jacobs’ driveway given the slower traffic and sightlines. Charrier stated in his view those points
have been stated.
McMillan stated anything that pulls out onto County Road 15 is difficult but that Heritage Road is wider,
has a turn lane, and has more room.
Charrier noted there are also 17 families on Heritage Lane.
Walsh stated the points are well taken. Walsh stated they could take a direct route, which would
eliminate the grade issues. Walsh stated that would require the developer to build one home at a time.
Walsh stated that would put a little more burden on Jacobs versus the majority of the burden being placed
on the 17 or so families.
Dennis Libby, 1000 Heritage Lane, stated he has never once mentioned any objection that he has to this
development despite the fact that he will have the most immediate negative affect. Libby stated he
basically recused himself from representing the homeowners association and since it is in his best
interests to speak to his own personal views.
Libby stated he does not have any new points to raise other than to comment on the expert’s information
that was brought forward tonight. Libby stated he is very careful about having empirical data when trying
to advise the Council. Libby stated in his view it is necessary for the Council to consider, in contradiction
to several comments that were made tonight, that the residents have empirical class data that shows in two
separate projects, both adjacent to either side of the Jacobs’ property, the construction crews removed
various materials in and out onto County Road 15 via a private driveway.
On the Burwell project, a private road was constructed from County Road 15 with equivalent equipment
that would be coming in and out of Heritage Lane in connection with this project. Libby stated in the
process of doing that, there was consistent traffic in and out for a number of months by these heavy pieces
of equipment over private driveways.
Libby stated in a call to Hennepin County, he was surprised to learn that Hennepin County has very light
oversight or governance of construction access when it comes to a private driveway. Libby stated
Hennepin County does not have oversight over private driveways. Libby stated it is in contrast to
Mr. Gaffron’s comments that Hennepin County would deny a turn in/turn out access on a private
driveway.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
Libby stated it does not take a lot of engineering to make a turn lane and that the residents actually have
empirical data concerning ingress and egress on projects that have been done within the same block for
the last five years.
McMillan asked how he feels about the cul-de-sac.
Libby stated he is speaking for himself and that the school bus backing into his driveway five days a week
is not a real big inconvenience. Libby stated it did bother him when the City plow came in to plow the
cul-de-sac and took out his mail box.
Libby noted they are creating a circumstance where the route of a school bus is going to be expanded and
extended because they will have to drive to the end of the cul-de-sac. Libby stated as of last Friday, no
member of Staff or Council has had a conversation with Orono’s Transportation Department and nobody
really has a plan about how this is going to work. Libby stated connection to the infrastructure for the
sewer and other utilities are going to disrupt the traffic flow of the UPS truck, the school bus, and
anything else that comes into the cul-de-sac for a very protracted period of time. Libby stated his
neighbor informed him that in 1974 or 1975, the children walked down to County Road 15 and Heritage
Lane, which is where they were picked up, which might be the adjustment that needs to be made.
McMillan stated the School District will adjust the bus routes every year prior to school starting.
Libby noted the other issue is the actual impact of living in an area with a very mature canopy. Once
those trees are removed, the residents will experience those intense, hot summer days to a greater extent
and their air-conditioners will need to run more. Libby stated that is the reality the residents have to come
to grips with.
Mark Gronberg stated they are proposing culverts to continue the water through to the stormwater pond
and that they do not want to do anything to make the water runoff worse. Gronberg noted Irwin Jacobs’
house is 40 feet higher than where the cul-de-sac is and that they will be able to work their way through
the woods and save as many trees as possible.
Gronberg indicated he has had extensive talks with Steve Groen with Hennepin County and that he has
sent an e-mail that has been submitted into the record saying that he would require construction traffic go
through Heritage Lane. Mr. Groen has indicated that anytime there is a private street versus a city street,
they want the developer to use the city street. Gronberg noted the projects referenced by Mr. Libby did
not have a city street they could access.
McMillan stated she did look at those properties today on Google Maps and they did not have access to
the north.
Gronberg stated in the 1963 minutes relating to this property, it was proposed to be graded to the end of
the property line, which never was done. Gronberg stated that would have solved a lot of problems if that
had been followed through on.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 23
10. #15-3774 MICHAEL STEADMAN ON BEHALF OF IRWIN JACOBS, 1700
SHORELINE DRIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT – REVIEW CUL-DE-SAC ALTERNATIVES
(continued)
McMillan stated she appreciates the amount of work and money that has spent by the developer in
looking at the alternative road. McMillan stated the developer has been very responsive to the concerns
of the City and the residents.
Steadman stated it should be evident he has been very proactive with the homeowners association.
Steadman noted he did have a discussion with Steve Brynes this morning and that there is support for his
ideas about the construction traffic and parking. Steadman stated he just wanted to make sure that is on
the record as well.
Gaffron stated he is looking for direction from the Council on whether or not he should bring a draft
preliminary plat resolution to the next meeting. Gaffron noted the resolution will be in draft form and can
be revised if the Council so chooses.
Cornick moved, Walsh seconded, Application No. 15-3774, Michael Steadman on behalf of Irwin
Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive, to direct Staff to prepare a draft resolution approving the original
preliminary plat with construction of the new cul-de-sac and the extension of the existing cul-de-sac
being optional. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER’S REPORT
11. BULK FUEL CONTRACT FOR 2016
Public Works Director/City Engineer Edwards stated this is a proposal to join the State bulk fuel
consortium for the purchase of the City’s bulk fuel in 2016. The City has purchased fuel in the past by
whatever the price of the day was, which changes throughout the year. In 2014, the City worked with the
contractor that has the state contract and was able to piggyback on that contract price, which saved the
City some money and provided some predictability.
In 2015, the Council approved entering into the fuel consortium. However, immediately after the
approval, the fixed prices went outside the ranges that were approved by the Council. Edwards stated that
actually turned out in the City’s benefit that it was not a fixed price since the price of fuel dropped more
than what was anticipated.
Edwards stated he is again asking for approval to join for 2016 since it gives the City some budget
predictability and the City will receive the state price when they purchase the fuel. Edwards noted he is
not proposing the City purchase all of its fuel that way but probably 75 percent of it.
Walsh noted there is a huge price gap on the diesel prices in 2015 of approximately 25 percent. Walsh
stated if that is the difference, he would suggest going with the spot price since otherwise the City would
be paying a pretty big premium to get the fixed price.
Edwards pointed out that was true for 2015 but in the other years there was not such a gap.
Walsh asked if the prices are fixed in January.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 23
11. BULK FUEL CONTRACT FOR 2016 (continued)
Edwards said the state would fix the prices in January and then the cities would receive that price in
February. Edwards stated the City has to commit to the State by the end of this month in order to receive
that price.
McMillan stated she thought a couple of years ago they were able to know the price before committing.
Edwards stated in 2014, former City Engineer Jesse Struve reached out to the contractor who held the
state contract and they allowed Orono to get in.
Walsh stated he is comfortable with 70 percent, but that it is difficult to commit to it without a price two
months out. Walsh stated if you look at the history of the prices, it appears to be worth it.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize the City to enter into the State of Minnesota Fuel
Consortium, Purchase Program for 2016 (February, 2016 – January, 2017). VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
12. SANITARY SEWER REHABILITATION FOR 2015-2016
Edwards stated every year the City looks at rehabilitating a portion of the City’s sanitary sewer. This past
summer the Public Works Department went and looked at the City’s inspection records and data from the
lift stations on the amount of water/sewage that is being moved in certain areas. The Public Works
Department has identified three low lying areas that should be done in 2016.
Edwards stated he would like to solicit bids for the lining of the areas highlighted on the map. This
project will be funded through the Sanitary Sewer Enterprise Fund and a $25,000 grant from MCES.
$250,000 was budgeted in the Capital Improvement Plan.
Walsh asked how much is in the City’s sanitary sewer enterprise fund.
Olson stated to his knowledge it is just under $2 million.
Walsh noted earlier in the year there was a discussion to place the City’s infrastructure on a 3D model.
Edwards indicated it would be a 2-dimensional model and that the City has contracted with Bolton &
Menk to do that work. Edwards stated it was a verification of the exact locations using the manholes and
aligning the pipes. That work is approximately 95 percent completed.
Walsh stated that leads into best practices in terms of having the City’s infrastructure documented very
well. Walsh stated it also helps in soliciting bids and compiling a list of people who bid on city projects.
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize the solicitation of bids for the 2015-2016 sanitary
sewer rehabilitation project. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 18 of 23
13. ASSET MANAGEMENT
Edwards stated the City spent this past year trying to verify the City’s infrastructure and that he would
like to now take it to the next level and consolidate the data into one place. Edwards stated currently the
City’s asset records are kept in multiple repositories, including old file cabinets, numerous spreadsheets
on different servers, and in the brains of long-term employees.
Edwards stated the City has invested considerable monetary resources into the City’s services and that the
current system is not efficient. Edwards indicated he would like to pull that system into the future by
implementing an asset management system. Edwards stated asset management is maintaining a desired
level of service for what the City wants their assets to provide at the lowest life cycle cost. Lowest life
cycle cost refers to the best appropriate cost for rehabilitating, repairing or replacing an asset.
The Public Works Department is looking to implement an asset management system that will (1) allow
Staff to monitor, maintain and manage assets; (2) generate work requests and work orders; (3) associate
work orders to assets; (4) associate and track labor, materials and equipment costs to assets; (5) spatially
map assets in GIS; (6) easily generate the standard and customizable reports; (7) be a simple and mobile
interface for ease of employee use.
Informal quotes received to date indicate it will cost $25,000 to $30,000 to implement and $7,000 to
$10,000 per year for licensing and system maintenance. The implementation of this project will be
funded through the Sanitary Sewer, Water, and Storm Water Enterprise Funds and the annual licensing
fees would be distributed amongst the operating budgets for streets, water, sewer, storm water, and parks.
Edwards stated he is requesting Council approval to obtain formal proposals and then do a final selection
in November. Edwards stated he is expecting the system would be implemented in January, with training
to take place for six months after that.
Cornick asked whether any nearby cities have this system.
Edwards stated Waconia, Plymouth, and Golden Valley utilize this system.
Walsh stated this is exactly where he wanted the City to head for a while and that this is a very good step
in that direction.
McMillan asked if the residents would be able to submit something digitally.
Edwards stated there is a module that allows that.
Cornick asked what it would take to get the system up and running.
Edwards stated the architecture of the program would be up and running within a couple of weeks but that
it would likely take at least a year for all the data to be inputted and then several years before trends are
developed.
Levang moved, Walsh seconded, to authorize the Public Works Director to solicit proposals for an
asset management system. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 19 of 23
14. FOX STREET SURVEY AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL
Edwards noted at the September 28 City Council meeting, the Council authorized engineering and design
for the MSA section of Fox Street. The engineering work includes surveying, wetland delineation,
project development, design and bidding for improvements to Fox Street between Willow Drive and
Broad Road. The cost of the engineering work is not to exceed $53,100 and may be funded from the
MSA fund.
Levang stated she would prefer to complete Watertown Road and that she is not interested in doing Fox
Street. Levang stated the City needs to finish what it started.
McMillan stated her biggest concern is to do only one section of Fox Street and not the other given the
costs associated with mobilizing and issues with detours. McMillan stated in her view the City should do
it all at one time. McMillan noted the City had to do Watertown in phases due to the cost. McMillan
stated in her view it is too early on Fox Street and that she would like to do that when the City is ready to
do the entire road. McMillan stated she would like to keep Fox Street on the front burner and start
looking at it once Watertown Road is completed. McMillan stated the City made a promise to do
Watertown, the project has been started, and the City should finish it. McMillan stated she will not deny
Fox Street is bad but that the entire stretch needs to be done in one construction season.
Walsh stated it is more prioritizing the bad sections of roads and that there are sections of Watertown
Road that do not need to be done. Walsh stated that way the worst sections of the roads are done.
McMillan noted the Council identified Watertown Road as being a bad road a long time ago and that it
was the plan to complete Watertown Road.
Walsh stated the Council did not agree to do Phase II.
McMillan stated the Council looked at the entire project and decided to divide it up into two different
phases with the idea that Phase II would be done following completion of Phase I. McMillan stated when
the contractor is mobilizing equipment and closing roads down, it makes more sense to do the whole road
rather than different sections of different roads. In addition, when seal coating is being done years later,
the contractor can also do the entire road rather than different sections.
Walsh stated the City never committed to anything on Watertown Road beyond Phase I.
McMillan stated the Council discussed Watertown Road quite a bit before Council Member Walsh came
on the Council.
Walsh stated the City now has a better pair of eyes to see which roads need to be done.
Levang stated she takes issue with that and that she drives both of those streets. Levang stated there is not
a piece on Watertown that can be set aside. Levang stated she would like to do Fox Street from beginning
to end and that way every citizen on that road then gets equal priority. Levang stated the City has made
commitments to address the roads, which is what was done with Watertown, and parsing out one little
piece here and there does not make sense. Levang stated she does not want to burden the residents on
Fox Street about who should be first.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 20 of 23
14. FOX STREET SURVEY AND ENGINEERING PROPOSAL (continued)
Walsh commented sometimes poor decisions should be revisited.
Levang stated it was not a poor decision.
McMillan requested Mr. Walsh be respectful of other people’s opinions and thoughts.
Walsh stated he is expressing his opinion and that their narratives are the same.
McMillan stated they understand Mr. Walsh has a different opinion on the matter but that they are letting
him know their thoughts on it.
Cornick stated Mr. Walsh has a great idea but that he wishes it was brought up six months ago. Cornick
stated in his view it is too late to change after all the other decisions have been made.
Walsh moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the Bolton and Menk project development proposal
for a fee not to exceed $53,100. VOTE: Ayes 1, Nays 3, McMillan, Levang, and Cornick Opposed.
MAYOR/COUNCIL REPORT
Walsh stated his heart and condolences go out to Council Member Printup on the passing of his father.
Cornick stated he would concur with that.
Levang stated the City is enjoying a very wonderful fall and that she would encourage people to use the
city parks and trails. Levang noted a number of the parks and walking trails have been rehabbed.
McMillan stated she received a letter from the Westonka School District on October 14 to Chief Farniok
that she would like to read. The letter reads as follows: “The Westonka School Board honors
community members who have donated time and talents supporting Westonka students and teachers. At
the Monday, October 12, school board meeting, Superintendent Borg recognized the Chief’s generous
contributions to the district: assistance provided for the mock crash conducted by our students before
prom. Last spring was very helpful and we also appreciate your input in the lake area Heart Safe
Community Initiative. You have been active in collaborating with the school’s resource officers and
other enforcement agencies and participating in the education of our students concerning fire drills,
lockdown drills and other emergency procedures.
Your ongoing willingness to meet with our administrative team for safety discussions and training is also
very much appreciated. We are grateful for the ownership, for the wellbeing of our students displayed by
our local police departments. Your partnership with our district is making a lasting impact on our schools
and on our community.”
McMillan reported the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District had one policy meeting so far related to their
Comprehensive Plan and additional meetings will likely be held in February. McMillan stated she would
like to sit down with Staff to discuss what they envision for the MCWD’s Comprehensive Plan.
McMillan noted MCWD’s comprehensive plan is due the end of 2017.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 21 of 23
(Recess taken from 9:13 p.m. to 9:17 p.m.)
CITY ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
*15. AUTHORIZATION FOR DISPOSAL OF WEAPON
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to authorize Striecher’s and/or H&H Sports to purchase
weapons from the Orono Police Department and authorize Orono Public Works to destroy guns
that have no value. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*16. DISPOSAL OF BICYCLES
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the disposal of the bicycles to Re-Cycle, Inc., or
WeCan in Mound. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*17. DISPOSAL OF FORFEITED VEHICLES
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to dispose of a 1994 Chevy Pickup, VIN#2GCEK19K7R1205875;
a 2006 Hyundai sedan, VIN#KMHFC46F96A106451; and a 1991 Honda Civic,
VIN#1HGED4666ML046175. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*18. DISPOSAL OF UNCLAIMED PROPERTY
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve the disposal of the property outlined in Staff’s
Memorandum dated October 26, 2015, through K-BID or other similar type of public auction.
Items that are not sold will be discarded. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
19. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT
Olson stated as it relates to revenues, the City is going to be at 105 percent of revenues by the end of the
year. Licenses and permits are currently at 95.8 percent and are forecasted to exceed 100 percent at the
end of the year. Charges for services are at 94.7 percent of budget. The golf course revenue is at 146
percent of budget, which is the first time that has ever happened. Olson stated given where revenues
currently are at, the City will finish the year well over 100 percent.
Olson noted expenditures are also looking good and are on target for the year. Assessing is currently at
77 percent of budget. This department will finish the year over budget by $6,000, which is 104 percent of
budget. The overage is a result of increased building activity and the charges associated with new home
construction. Olson noted Hennepin County charges the City an estimated amount at the beginning of the
year and then bills the City later the actual amount later in the year.
The human services department is at 96.75 percent of budget, but all of the department’s annual
expenditures have been recorded. The golf course is at 92.52 percent of budget at this point in the year.
It will likely finish the year slightly over budget. This overage is more than offset by higher than
budgeted revenues with the course showing a profit for the first time since 2000. The special service line
is over budget for the year. These expenditures are offset by revenues and reflect the increase in
construction activity. The other general fund department budgets are in good shape for this time o the
year. The overall expenditure budget is forecast to end the year at 100 percent or less.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 22 of 23
19. THIRD QUARTER FINANCIAL REPORT (continued)
Olson stated the third quarter investment listing is also doing fine. The purchase price of the City’s
current investments total $17,976,045.88. Total interest earned through September is $132,424.90. The
current market value of investments is $17,980,709.66, which is $4,663.78 greater than the City’s cost.
Olson stated overall the General Fund budget is in good shape through the end of June and that revenues
are expected to exceed budget while expenditures should finish the year at or below budgeted levels.
McMillan stated she would like to thank Staff and all the volunteers for making the golf course a huge
success this year.
The City Council took no formal action on this item.
*20. NON-WAIVER OF TORT LIMITS – RESOLUTION NO. 6560
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adopt RESOLUTION NO. 6560, a Resolution Making a
Selection Not to Waive the Statutory Tort Limits for Liability Insurance Purposes. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
*21. UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA – MN RESUSCITATION CONSORTIUM GRANT
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to accept the $2,000 grant from the University of Minnesota –
Resuscitation Consortium. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
*22. CLAIMS/BILLS
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to approve payment of the All Funds Account. VOTE: Ayes 4,
Nays 0.
CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
Mattick stated he had nothing to report.
CLOSED MEETING
23. CITY OF ORONO AND THE NYGARDS
This item was removed from the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
Levang moved, Cornick seconded, to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 9:24 p.m. VOTE:
Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, October 26, 2015
7:00 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 23 of 23
ATTEST
________________________________________ _______________________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Orono City Council Work Session, October 26, 2015 Page 1
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
October 26, 2015
5:00 o’clock p.m.
_______________________________________________________________
PRESENT: Mayor Lili Tod McMillan, Council Members Jim Cornick, Jr, Lizz Levang,
and Denny Walsh. Representing Staff City Administrator Jessica Loftus, Finance
Director Ron Olson, Police Chief Correy Farniok, Public Works Director/Engineer
Adam Edwards, Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart and City Clerk
Diane Tiegs
GUEST: Park Commission Chair Rick Meyers
1. Compensation Study Next Steps
City Administrator Loftus summarized the Compensation Study results. The goal of this
study was to obtain updated job descriptions and duties along with analyzing the
current salary plan to ensure the City is keeping up with the market. Loftus provided a
recommendation to Council for implementing the updated salary plan.
The Compensation Study provided updated job descriptions and duties for all positions.
Council agreed with Loftus’ recommendation that Council should formally approve the
job descriptions at an upcoming regular meeting.
Loftus distributed a handout of the COLA history for Orono and survey results of salary
adjustments from the lake communities for Council review. Loftus reviewed the
implementation options of the Compensation Study and recommended Option 1 which
is a phased in plan. Employees would move to the new step and grade program and be
placed at the step closest to their current salary. Employees compensated more than
the Compensation Study recommendation would remain frozen at their current wage.
All Council Members in attendance agreed with implementing Option 1 beginning
January of 2016.
Chief Farniok addressed Council and distributed wage information of communities that
are comparable to the Orono Police Department. The communities used in the study
did not take into consideration the contracted cities the Orono Police Department
serves which could change the Compensation Study recommendations for the Police
Department. Farniok stated the wage recommendation is not equitable for the number
of residents served and does not keep pace between the union and non-union
employees.
Council Member Walsh said that when the contract to provide police services for the
City of Mound was accepted, a new Deputy Chief position was created to assist with the
management of 11 more officers.
Orono City Council Work Session, October 26, 2015 Page 2
Compensation Study Next Steps (continued)
Council Member Walsh felt the compensation was fair when considering the staff
additions.
Loftus suggested reviewing the Police Department compensation portion of the study if
Council felt it was not a true picture of the department.
Council Member Cornick stated that the Compensation Study should be implemented as
presented. This has been in discussion for several months and it’s time to move
forward. It is not right to pick and choose certain areas or positions for adjustment.
Council reviewed the recommendation of a 2.75% cost of living adjustment (COLA).
Council discussed increase options of somewhere between 2 to 2.75%. The decision of
whether the increase would be a combination of a lump sum and COLA or if an increase
would be strictly COLA will be discussed at the November work session.
2. Park Commission Purpose and Guidance
Public Works Director Adam Edwards provided information on the Park Commissions
plans to provide park services for the Orono residents. The information also identified
Council concerns of the group regarding their focus compared to the Councils intentions
when re-instituting the group in 2014.
Park Commission Chair Rick Meyers addressed the Council on the goals and activities of
the Commission. The Park Commission has focused on the maintenance and
housekeeping of the current parks in Orono. The Livingston Park improvement is their
first major park renovation and the goal is to have the parks maintained and accessible
to all residents. The Park Commission advises and makes recommendations to the
Council and the Commission cannot move forward without their approval. There have
been many compliments received from residents on the improvements that have been
made to date.
Council discussed rotating the Council Liaison for each meeting. Council Member Walsh
felt there should be one Council Liaison to keep consistency in communication and
other Council Members are welcome to attend the meetings at any time.
Council appreciates the Park Commission’s accomplishments. Council discussed an
annual work session to review the proposed projects and goals.
Orono City Council Work Session, October 26, 2015 Page 3
3. Order of Reports on City Council Agenda
Mayor McMillan would like to discuss the meeting agenda items and the order in which
the Council hears them.
The Planning and Zoning agenda items make up the major portion of the meeting and
take the largest amount of time. In an effort to support the Police Department and
Public Works it would be prudent to hear their items before the Planning and Zoning
agenda items.
Residents would be able to hear what projects and issues the City is currently
addressing. Council was in favor of the changing the meeting agenda order. The change
will begin at the next Council meeting on November 9, 2015.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:32 p.m.
ATTEST
___________________________________ ____________________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 9, 2016
ITEM NO:
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jessica Loftus JML Presentation
Title City Administrator
Item Description: Navarre Community Festival – Event Recap and Volunteer
Recognition
The City of Orono wishes to thank the volunteers of the Navarre Community Festival and a brief
photo presentation will recap of the event.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
No action required.
5
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 09, 2015
ITEM NO:
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards ATE JML Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Water Treatment System Improvements – Pay Request No. 7 and Change
Order 1
______________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
A- Recommendation Letter from Bolton & Menk
B- Contractor’s Pay Request No. 7
C- Change Order1
1.Purpose. Gain Council authorization for Pay Request #6 of the Water Treatment System
Improvements.
2.Background. On January 12, 2015, the Council awarded the contract to improve the city’s water
treatment facilities to Municipal Builders, Inc and further authorized Bolton and Menk to perform
construction oversight. Work includes updating the chemical feed system to meet MN Department of
Health requirements as well as replacing roofing, replacing doors, painting, new electrical and HVAC
improvements.
3.Cost. Total Cost for the project is $710,899.78 broken down as listed below:
Who Work Cost
Bolton &Menk, Inc Design and Bid Engineering $42,160.00
Municipal Builders, Inc Water Treatment Improvements $625,000.00
Municipal Builders, Inc Change Order #1 $2,939.78
Bolton &Menk, Inc Construction Oversight $40,800.00
TOTAL $710,899.78
4.Funding. This project is funded from a bond issue in 2014.
5.Status. Municipal Builders has completed approximately 97% of the work and has requested
payment of $18,524.31. (Exhibit B). Bolton and Menk has reviewed the payment request and
confirmed that the work has been completed to standard (Exhibit A). Additional work was
required on the Navarre Plan Water Softener resulting in a change order for $2939.78 (Exhibit
C).
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to approve Pay Request No. 7 to Municipal Builders, INC. in the amount of $18,524.31
and change Order 1 for $2,939.78 for the Water Treatment Systems Improvement project.
6
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 9, 2015
ITEM NO: 7
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Adam Edwards JML Public Works Director/
Title Public Works Director/City Engineer City Engineer’s Report
____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Park Commission Priorities for 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Purpose. The purpose of this action item is to inform the City Council of the Park Commission 2016
priorities and provide the Council an opportunity to provide guidance.
2. Background. In 2015 the Park Commission established a set of focus parks in an effort to
focus effort and resources toward maintenance and improvements. The process worked well and
the commission is proposing to do the same for 2016.
3. 2016 Focus Parks. The Commission selected the following parks to focus on in 2016. The
Commission assigned a committee of three commissioners for each park. The committee will assess the
park, solicit input from stakeholders and develop a plan (list of priorities/needs). The plan will be
presented to the Park Commission in the early spring and once approved passed to the Public Works
department for preparation and execution. Any significant improvement requirements (<$5,000 or
changes to the character/purpose of the park) will be sent forward to the City Council for approval. The
committee will then assess the work performed and develop a long term maintenance strategy for their
subject park.
Park Type Commission Lead
Crystal Bay Active Sarah Lindahl
Sandy Beach Beach Jan Berg
Saga Hill Natural/Passive Julie Ruegemer
4. 2016 Initiatives. The Commission selected the following items to study in more detail in 2016. The
Commission established a three member committee for each item.
Initiative Description / Purpose Commission Lead
Trails Review the master trail plan for the City,
review easement acquisition.
Brenda Johnson
Seven Nations Study the cultural heritage / significance of this
Park in order to better inform future decisions
about improvements.
Brenda Johnson
Community
Outreach
Study opportunities to improve communication
with and increase community involvement in
our City Parks.
Julie Ruegemer
Outside Funding
Opportunities
Research grant opportunities that are applicable
to our City Parks
Bryce Johnson
5. Funding. The 2016 Park Budget has $10,000 identified for minor park improvements. This budget
line will be used to fund any minor improvements identified for the focus parks. Any major
improvements would be funded by the Park Fund, if approved by City Council. The initiatives are not
expected to require funding as they involve volunteer/ commissioner time.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Motion to endorse the 2016 Park Commission Focus Parks and Initiatives. .
ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November 9, 2015
Item No: 8
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name: Correy Farniok JML Public Safety
Title: Police Chief
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Accept Donation
______________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION: The Orono Police Department received a $100.00 donation from Aaron Printup and
Family.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider motion to accept $100.00 donation from Aaron Printup and Family.
ORONO POLICE DEPARTMENT
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November 9, 2015
Item No: 8
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name: Correy Farniok JML
Title: Police Chief
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Accept Donation
______________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION: The Orono Police Department received a $100.00 donation from Marsha
Gronneberg.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider motion to accept $100.00 donation from Marsha Gronnenberg.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 9 November, 2015
ITEM NO: 9
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: #15-3768/ 15-3780 Michael and Lisa Larson,3569 Shoreline Drive, Text
Amendment to Amend B-1 Zoning District and Conditional Use Permit
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
A. Draft ordinance
B. Revised site plan and floor plan
C. Applicant supporting letter
D. neighborhood information dated November 2, 2015
E. Letter of opposition dated October 30, 2015
F. Council packet September 28, 2015 RE text amendment
G. Council minutes, September 28, 2015
H. Planning Commission packet October 19, 2015 RE conditional use permit
I. Planning Commission draft minutes, October 19, 2015
Purpose. The applicants request approval of two actions:
1. Amend the zoning district regulations to include indoor dog boarding, indoor dog day care, and
dog grooming as conditional uses in the B-1 zoning district.
2. Approve a conditional use permit for The Woofington, an indoor dog boarding, indoor dog day
care, and dog grooming business at 3596 Shoreline Drive, housing up to 72 dogs at one time.
Background. The Planning Commission and City Council have reviewed these applications on a number of
occasions. The text amendment was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission on August 17th.
The Council tabled discussion on both Sept 14th and 28th. The Conditional Use Permit was reviewed by the
Commission on September 21st, tabled, and recommended for approval on October 19th. The packets for the
September 28 City Council and October 19 Planning Commission meetings are attached, as are the minutes
from those meetings for more information.
A 60 day extension to the 60 day rule has been taken for both applications. The extension to the text
amendment application 15-3768 will expire November 30, 2015. The extension to the CUP application 15-
3780 will expire January 1, 2016.
Text Amendment. On September 28th the applicant provided a list of similar businesses located near
residentially zoned properties. Council and Planning Commission members were invited to inspect these
areas.
The B-1 zoning district allows, by right, pet shops, which inherently include live dogs and cats for sale. There
is no regulation regarding the number of animals. The zoning district allows, as a conditional use, garages for
automotive repair, provided repair occurs indoors. The concerns with automotive garages are often the
sound from clanking tools and the whine of air and power tools. The requirement to place the garage
business within the building is consistent with the definition of indoor dog boarding and indoor dog day care.
The only outdoor activity is relief. Given the service nature of the business, licensing and conditional use
permit requirements, Staff believes this use is appropriate in the B-1 zoning district.
Conditional Use Permit
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the conditional use permit with 5 staff recommended
conditions and two added conditions:
When the occupancy level for three consecutive months exceed 50% of capacity, the business shall be
staffed overnight. Capacity of the facility is 72 dogs (1 dog per 85 square feet. 6160 square feet/ 85 = 72). 50%
capacity is 36 dogs (72 x 0.5 = 36).
A 24 hour contact number shall be provided that can promptly respond to concerns.
Concerns
The primary concerns raised thus far have focused on noise generated by barking dogs, and the concern that
this sound could continue unabated for any length of time. These concerns have been received wither during
the numerous public hearings or via phone call. To date, one letter in opposition has been received,
attached.
Staff has spoken with the planners in Richfield, Minnetonka, Medina, and Plymouth, they have reported
similar concerns during their review process. Once operational, these businesses have generated no
complaints. The Commission, given the sound mitigation measures proposed for the building, seemed
comfortable with sound indoors, but concerns outdoors remain. The condition that dogs outdoors be
supervised at all times is intended to address that concern, as is the capacity related condition.
The applicants were encouraged to reach out to the neighboring properties to provide more information, and
to hear their concerns first hand. The applicants were unable to connect with the property owners after
repeated attempts, but a letter was sent to the property owners. This letter is attached.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Staff recommends the following:
1. Approval of the B-1 zoning ordinance as drafted
2. Approval of the Conditional Use Permit to include following conditions:
a. The use is a listed permitted or conditional use in the B-1 zoning district.
b. The operator shall maintain the annual kennel license. Failure to maintain the kennel
license shall render the Conditional Use Permit lapsed.
c. Dogs shall be supervised while outdoors at all times.
d. The trash enclosure shall be constructed of materials consistent with the principal
structure and located as approved by staff.
e. A solid 6’ fence shall be constructed between the subject property and the adjacent
residential properties.
f. When the average occupancy level for three consecutive months exceed 50% of
capacity, the business shall be staffed overnight. Capacity of the facility is 72 dogs (1
dog per 85 sq ft. 6160 sqft/ 85 = 72). 50% capacity is 36 dogs (72 x 0.5 = 36).
g. A 24 hour contact number shall be provided that can promptly respond to concerns.
3. Direction to prepare a resolution for approval or denial for consideration at the next City Council
meeting.
Date Application Received: 7/22/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 7/22/15
120-Day Review Period Expires: 11/19/1
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November 4, 2015
Item No.: 10
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Michael P. Gaffron JML Planning Dept.
Title: Senior Planner
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: #15-3774, Michael Steadman o/b/o Irwin Jacobs, 1700 Shoreline Drive
- Preliminary Plat Approval - Resolution
______________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits:
A – Draft Preliminary Plat Approval Resolution
B – Draft Council Minutes 10-26-15
At the October 26 meeting Council voted 4-0 to direct staff to prepare a Preliminary Plat
Approval Resolution for review and consideration, reflecting the Council’s conclusion that
Heritage Lane should be extended to a new cul-de-sac built to City standards.
A variety of topics have been discussed during Planning Commission and Council review of the
application. The attached draft Resolution attempts to address all relevant issues, including some
that have not received much discussion. It is possible that certain items may require additional
consideration if Council desires. To summarize the key elements of the Resolution:
- Physical characteristics of the property and the proposed development are documented;
- It is noted that a variance for road length is intended to be granted and justification for the
variance provided;
- Concerns of the Foxhill residents are noted in the ‘Findings’, and the Developer’s
remedies for addressing those concerns are noted in the Conclusions, Order and
Conditions;
- The Conservation Design inventory and Master Plan are summarized, with the condition
that the Conservation Design recommendations be adhered to;
- Provision of municipal sewer to the property is discussed; a Sewer Connection Charge of
$67,320 is established based on the 1998 Shoreline/Heritage Sewer project per the 2015
Fee Schedule;
- It is noted that Lots 1 and 2 will have new existing grades established for height and story
determination purposes;
- The three Outlots along Shoreline Drive intended as future potential dockage for Lots 1
thru 3 are discussed, noting that this plat approval does not approve use of those outlots
for dockage, but requires separate City and MCWD review and approval
- The standard easements for wetland protection are required; the small wetland being
filled for the road extension technically requires approval by MCWD, may require
mitigation, and under Orono Code is required to be removed from the Wetland Overlay
District;
15-3774 1700 Shoreline Drive
November 4, 2015
Page 2
- Removal of the existing cul-de-sac wings is to be decided prior to final plat approval;
- Minnehaha Creek Watershed District approval of the stormwater management plan and
facilities will be required in order to gain final plat approval;
- Recommendations of the City Engineer regarding stormwater management and other
topics shall be addressed and adhered to:
- Park Fee of $16,650 and Stormwater & Drainage Trunk Fee of $23,040 are established;
- Final design for retaining walls will be required (the extension of Heritage Lane through
the small wetland requires a retaining wall);
- Development Agreement and Letter of Credit will be required;
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends adoption of the attached draft resolution. Council should direct staff with
regard to any necessary revisions in order to accurately reflect Council’s conclusions with regard
to this plat.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Review the attached draft resolution. If all issues of concern have been addressed, a motion
would be in order to adopt the attached resolution entitled A Resolution Granting Preliminary
Plat Approval for a Class III Subdivision of Property Located at 1700 Shoreline Drive - File
No. 15-3774.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: 9 November 2015
ITEM NO: 11
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Jeremy Barnhart JML Planning Department Report
Title Community Development Director
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: #15-3784, City of Orono Text amendment regulating living walls
_____________________________________________________________________________________
List of Exhibits
Draft Ordinance
Planning Commission packet dated October 19, 2015
Planning Commission packet dated September 21, 2015
Planning Commission draft minutes 9/ 21 and 10/ 19
Abatement process
Lot example
Purpose. The City has received a number of complaints regarding trees and landscaping placed so as to
block view into area lakes. The draft ordinance defines living walls, and establishes the same as a
nuisance.
Background. The city has a long history of protecting the lake views of lake shore property by regulating
the average lake shore setback since 1974. The Planning Commission feel that landscaping can have the
same effect on blocking lake views as structures and buildings.
The proposed ordinance defines living walls as 3 or more evergreen plants 6 feet or more in height
placed in such a manner that their spacing is equal to or less than the width of the plant. The
maintenance of a living wall in the average lakeshore setback is a nuisance, and may be abated following
the abatement procedure outlined in section 70-5, attached.
Staff feels that plants placed to block views of the lake are best treated as nuisances from a mitigation
standpoint, because existing trees that are a living wall could remain in perpetuity, and could be
replaced when deceased, not addressing the complaints received. The education, enforcement, and
mitigation of these nuisances may be time consuming and with a marginal effect.
Planning Commission discussion.
The Planning Commission has discussed this item at both the September and October Planning
Commission meetings. Their recommendation of support is primarily a statement of agreement that a
problem exists, but there was no consensus as to the best remedy. Commissioners recognized the
complexity of regulating living landscaping in our rural community. Commissioners had issue that a
property owner could influence their neighbors landscaping through the process of filing a complaint.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Council is asked to comment on the proposed Ordinance.
Page 1 of 1
ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 78-1, and 70-4,
REGARDING LIVING WALLS IN THE AVERAGE LAKE SHORE YARD IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions of the City of Orono Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding the following text:
“Living Wall means a combination of three or more evergreen plants that are 6ft or more in
height and planted in such a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of the plant.”
SECTION 2. Section 70-4 Public Nuisance of the City of Orono Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding the following text”
(a) It is unlawful for any person to maintain a public nuisance by his act or failure to perform a
legal duty. For purposes of this section, a public nuisance shall be defined as any of the
following:
(1) Maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or
endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of
members of the public, including, but not limited to:
a. The maintenance of a living wall within the average lake shore setback;
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ____day of ______________, 2015 on a vote of __ ayes and __
nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
______________________________ _____________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2015.
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: October 19, 2015
Subject: #15-3784, City of Orono,
Text Amendment: Lighting and Living Walls
Public Hearing
List of Exhibits
Draft Ordinance
Planning Commission packet dated September 21, 2015
Foot candle comparison chart
Background
City Council has directed staff to review city ordinances in response to a number of complaints
regarding lighting so placed to negatively impact the enjoyment of neighboring residential
properties, and the use of landscaping that has the same impact on lake views as structures.
A regulatory response is proposed as part of a single ordinance. The Planning Commission may
separate both solutions to allow for additional review time as appropriate.
On September 21, the Planning Commission reviewed a draft of the ordinance; comments
included:
Define length of the living wall. The proposed ordinance identifies “a combination of
three or more evergreen plants that are 6ft or more in height and planted in such a manner that
their spacing is equal to the width of the plant.”
Living walls in the lake yard versus the average lake shore setback. The draft ordinance
proposes the lake yard.
Analysis
Lighting
Concern: As stated previously, our unique neighborhoods have evolved creatively over time, and
do not have uniform setbacks, nor do they have a uniform orientation or separation from each
other. The consequence is that the living areas of a home are often adjacent to the more private
areas of neighboring homes. Front or side security lights may be in line with neighboring
Application Summary: The draft ordinance proposes new language, defining glare and living
walls, establishing the same as nuisances, and provides lighting requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
FILE # 15-3784
19 October 2015
Page 2 of 3
bedrooms, etc.
Solution: The most common, non-regulatory solution is for the property owner to willingly adjust
or shield lights so that does not impact a neighbor. For situations where that does not occur, the
proposed regulatory solution establishes measurable (1.0 fc) lighting at the property line as a
nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the code, including citations and
mitigation. The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding “Glare or Heat” to a
more specific “Lighting”, and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting.
The ordinance also requires light fixtures in the lake yard to be fully shielded, which is a new
defined term. A full moon on a cloudless night is approximately .03 foot candles, based on
internet studies, though that measure can vary based on several factors, including elevation. The
standard for variance (1.0 fc) is purposely higher than the design standard for new fixtures. We
recognize that existing lights provide light higher than 0.4 foot candles at the property line, but
those lights would be allowed to remain as a permitted non-conforming improvement.
Staff performed a real world test from a single light source in a residential neighborhood on a
clear night with a crescent moon 2% illuminated. Results are tabled below. Topography,
vegetation and competing light sources prevented full measurements.
Distance
from source
60w clear
bulb,
clear
enclosure
60w frosted
enclosure
150w flood
light
Excel energy
street light
@5 feet 0.34
@10 feet 1.73 0.9 12.5 0.46
@15 feet 0.4 0.34
@20 feet 0.22
@25 feet 0.22 3.3
@30 feet 0.12 0.13
@50 feet 0.07 0.06
All measurements are taken in footcandles
Previous versions of the ordinance included a time limit. Upon further analysis, the time limit was
removed, due to behavior modifications (a neighbor could simply turn off the light once every 2
hours or 2 minutes) and the expense of an officer or staff staying on the site for an extended
period of time to verify that the light(s) never turned off.
Options considered: Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulating lighting in the zoning
ordinance only, but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring properties
would be considered legal non-conforming, and allowed to continue in perpetuity. The city should
be cautious about over regulating lights, recognizing that lights are very important features, often
directly linked to safety and security.
Enforcement: The enforcement of this code may be challenging, and will likely require equipment
not currently owned by the city. Due to the nature of the potential violation, enforcement will
most likely be completed by Police officers.
FILE # 15-3784
19 October 2015
Page 3 of 3
Living walls.
Concern: The City of Orono has placed great importance on the lake views enjoyed from homes
on lake shore properties, initiating the Average Lake Shore setback for structures in late 1974. No
new structures may be placed within the Average Lake Shore, and any variances requested are
scrutinized carefully. Other than removals, the code is silent on landscaping in these same areas,
though they can have the same screening impact.
Of secondary concern is a hesitation to over-regulate landscaping. Most cities do not regulate
landscaping, so the public will plant trees and bushes with no expectation of specific rules. The
City should anticipate higher than normal education and enforcement costs related to living wall
administration.
Solution: The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance
when placed within the average lake shore setback. A living wall must be evergreen plants
planted. Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae, and spruce. Other plants (lilac, dogwoods,
etc.) may provide similar screening characteristics part of the year are purposefully not included,
as these varieties are not likely to be chosen for ‘nuisance landscaping’. Trees placed by nature,
regardless of size, type, and location, are not a living wall, and non-evergreen trees planted are
not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Living walls
(or landscaping meeting that definition) are frequently used for screening throughout the city.
Issues for Consideration
1. Should living walls be regulated, and if so, should the regulation apply to the average lake
shore or lake yard setback?
2. Does the lighting limit proposed (1.0 fc) appropriately define a nuisance situation?
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed ordinance?
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director
Date: September 21, 2015
Subject: #15-3784, City of Orono,
Text Amendment: Lighting and Living Walls
Public Hearing
List of Exhibits
Draft Ordinance
Light pollution health impacts
Background
City Council has directed staff to review city ordinances in response to a number of complaints
regarding lighting so placed to negatively impact the enjoyment of residential properties, and
the use of landscaping that has the same impact on lake views as structures.
Analysis
Lighting
Concern: In some situations, residential lighting can extend into adjacent properties negatively
impacting these adjacent homes. In standard suburban neighborhoods, houses are often a
uniform distance apart, and often share a front setback. In Orono, our unique neighborhoods
have evolved more creatively over time, and do not have uniform setbacks, nor do they have a
uniform orientation or separation from each other. The consequence is that the living areas of a
home are often adjacent to the more private areas of neighboring homes. Front security lights
may be in line with neighboring bedrooms, etc.
Solution: The most common, non-regulatory solution is for the property owner to adjust or shield
lights so that does not impact a neighbor. For situations where that does not occur, the proposed
regulatory solution establishes measurable (0.4 fc) lighting at the property line as a nuisance and
may be corrected through means offered in the code, including citations and mitigation. The
proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding Glare or Heat to a more specific
Lighting, and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting. The ordinance
also requires light fixtures in the lake yard to be fully shielded, which is a new defined term. A full
moon on a cloudless night is approximately .03 foot candles, based on internet studies.
Options considered: Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulated lighting in the zoning district
Application Summary: The draft ordinance proposes new language, defining glare and living
walls, establishing the same as nuisances, and provides lighting requirements.
Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the ordinance as
drafted.
FILE # 15-3784
21 September 2015
Page 2 of 2
only, but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring property would be
considered legal non-conforming, and allowed to continue in perpetuity. Staff was cautious about
over regulating lights, recognizing that lights are very important features, directly linked to safety
and security. Unfortunately, it is also recognized that lighting can annoy neighbors.
Living walls.
Concern: The City of Orono has placed great importance on the view of the lake from homes on
shore properties, initiating the Average Lake Shore setback for structures in late 1974. No new
structures may be placed within the required lake yard (75 feet for Lake Minnetonka) and any
expansion of existing structures requires a variance, which are scrutinized carefully. Other than
removals, the code is silent on landscaping in these same areas, though they can have the same
negative impact.
Solution: The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance
when placed within the required lake yard. A living wall must be evergreen plants planted.
Evergreen plants include pine, arborvitae, and spruce. Other plants (lilac, dogwoods, etc.) may
provide the same screening characteristics part of the year, are purposefully not included, as
these varieties are not likely to be chosen for screening only part of the year. Trees placed by
nature, regardless of type and location, are not a living wall, and non-evergreen trees planted are
not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required lake yard. Living walls
(or landscaping meeting that definition) are frequently used for screening throughout the city.
Options considered: The regulation of landscaping in residential areas is a slippery slope. The cost
of resources necessary to permit, review, and enforce landscaping requirements in residential
areas are greater than the benefits offered. Most cities do not regulate landscaping in residential
areas, so the education time and effort requirements would be extraordinary. Early drafts of the
ordinance had living walls in the lake shore regulations, but were discarded for the same reasons
lighting was, living walls already planted would be grandfathered and allowed to continue, to be
maintained and replaced, in perpetuity.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission feel that the problems identified by the report require a
regulatory solution?
2. Does the Planning Commission feel that the solution proposed solves the problem in
an effective manner?
3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this proposed ordinance?
Page 1 of 3
ORDINANCE NO. ___, THIRD SERIES
CITY OF ORONO
HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ORONO MUNICIPAL CODE
BY AMENDING SECTIONS 78-1, 70-4, and 78-1573
REGARDING LIVING WALLS IN THE LAKE YARD AND LIGHTING IN
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS:
SECTION 1. Section 78-1 Definitions of the City of Orono Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding the following text:
“Fully shielded luminaire means a luminaire constructed and installed in such a manner that all
light emitted by the luminaire, either directly from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly
by reflection or refraction from any part of the luminaire, is projected below the horizontal plane
through the luminaire's lowest light-emitting part.”
“Glare means the sensation produced by one or more luminaires within the visual field that are
sufficiently greater than the luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance,
discomfort, or loss in visual performance and visibility.
“Living Wall means a combination of evergreen plants that are 6ft in height and planted in such
a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of the plant.”
SECTION 2. Section 70-4 Public Nuisance of the City of Orono Municipal Code is
hereby amended by adding the following text”
(a) It is unlawful for any person to maintain a public nuisance by his act or failure to perform a
legal duty. For purposes of this section, a public nuisance shall be defined as any of the
following:
(1) Maintaining or permitting a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or
endangers the safety, health, morals, comfort or repose of any considerable number of
members of the public, including, but not limited to:
a. Lighting which casts light on adjacent residential property that exceed four-tenths
(0.4) foot candles (meter reading) as measured at the property line for a period longer
than 2 hours.
b. The maintenance of a living wall within a required lake yard;
(2) Interfering with, obstructing or rendering dangerous for passage any street, public
right-of-way or waters used by the public; or
a. Lighting that is aimed or directed to create glare within any street.
Page 2 of 3
(3) Any other act or omission declared by law to be a public nuisance.
(b) It is unlawful for any person to permit real property under his control to be used to
maintain a public nuisance, or let the property to another knowing it is to be so used.
SECTION 3. Division 6 Performance standards, Section 78-1583 Glare or heat of
the City of Orono Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding the following text
Sec. 78-1573. – Glare or heat Lighting.
Any use requiring an operation producing an intense heat or light transmission shall be
performed with the necessary shielding to prevent such heat or light from being detectable at the
lot line of the site on which the use is located. Lighting in all instances shall be diffused or
directed away from R districts and public streets.
(a) General provision. Any lighting used to illuminate a structure, an off-street parking area,
or other area in any district in any residential zoning district shall be arranged so as to deflect
light away from any adjoining residential property or from any public right-of-way. All
lighting shall be installed in accordance with the following provisions:
(1) Lighting adjacent property. Lighting sources shall not be permitted so as to light
adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity.
(2) Architectural/historical light fixtures. Architectural/historical light fixtures that
feature globes that are not shielded may be approved by the City Administrator or
designee. In no case shall the light affect adjacent property in excess of the maximum
intensity.
(3) Maximum Intensity. No light source or combination thereof which casts light on a
public street shall exceed one foot-candle (meter reading) as measured from the right-of-
way of said street nor shall any light source or combination thereof which casts light on
adjacent residential property exceed four-tenths (0.4) foot candles (meter reading) as
measured at the property line.
(4) Location. The light source of an outdoor light fixture shall be set back a minimum of
ten feet from a street right-of-way. Outdoor light fixtures, when placed within the lake
yard, shall be fully shielded.
SECTION 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect immediately upon
its passage and publication.
ADOPTED this ____day of ______________, 2015 on a vote of __ ayes and __
nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota.
ATTEST:
Page 3 of 3
______________________________ _____________________________
Diane Tiegs, City Clerk Lili Tod McMillan, Mayor
Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of ________, 2015.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 17
7. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT TO 78-1 DEFINITIONS AND
LAKE YARD LANDSCAPING, RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, AND LIVING WALLS, 8:28 P.M. -
9:25 P.M.
Barnhart noted the Planning Commission reviewed this text amendment at its September meeting. Staff
has attempted to address these issues in one ordinance but that the Planning Commission may wish to
separate the two.
Barnhart stated the City has a pretty rich history of preserving lake views from residential property into
the lake area by prohibiting or regulating structures. It is recognized that landscaping can have the same
effect as a structure and there has been some interest expressed by some residents that the City look at
regulating landscaping in the zone near the lake.
The proposed ordinance defines a living wall and establishes the same as a nuisance when placed within
the average lakeshore setback. A living wall must be evergreen plants planted. Evergreen plants include
pine, arborvitae and spruce. Other plants such as lilac, dogwoods, etc., that may provide similar screening
characteristics part of the year are not included as these varieties are not likely to be chosen for nuisance
landscaping. Trees placed by nature, regardless of size, type, and location, are not a living wall and non-
evergreen trees planted are not a living wall. This ordinance only identifies living walls in the required
lake yard. Barnhart noted living walls are frequently used for screening throughout the city.
The definition of a living wall in the ordinance means a combination of three or more evergreen plants
that are six feet or more in height and planted in such a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of
the plant. Barnhart stated evergreens that grow on their own would not be considered a living wall.
Schoenzeit asked what would happen if something meets the nuisance definition.
Barnhart stated the property owner can trim the tree or shrub back to the point where it is no longer six
feet high or widen the width of the plant space or they can remove part of the living wall providing an
opening to the lake. Barnhart stated alternative aggressive solutions would likely be similar to how the
City pursues other nuisance situations.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 17
Schoenzeit asked if it would be considered a living wall if there is a four feet space even though the row
of trees is 100 feet long.
Barnhart stated if there are three or more trees in a row and one is removed every so often, it would no
longer be considered a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize that this is not a perfect solution but
that Staff is attempting to balance reasonable landscape goals with the reasonable expectation of
someone’s view of the lake.
Schoenzeit stated trimming it back to six feet would be enough to help mitigate it but removing every
third tree would not be.
Barnhart stated when the City is in the process of enforcing the ordinance, some type of guidance has to
be given.
Schoenzeit stated there are hundreds of examples of this in the City and that they need to know what the
intention of the living wall is. Schoenzeit stated in his view taking out every third arborvitae is not going
to mitigate this nuisance.
Barnhart stated a living wall is defined in a specific way in the ordinance and the property owners will be
advised what they need to do to ensure it is not a living wall. Barnhart stated he does recognize there will
always be some visual impacts for property owners who choose to plant a tree in the 0-75 foot zone.
Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission has some specific recommendations for enforcement, those
can be incorporated.
Schoenzeit stated currently there are neighbors feuding over this and that the City has an obligation to fix
things, but if the nuisance enforcement does not have sufficient strength, the City will not solve anything.
Lemke asked if he would have to trim the tree down to six feet if it grows over six feet and is located in
the 0-75 foot zone.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 17
Barnhart stated the height, spacing, and the number of trees in a row defines a living wall and that
trimming the tree down to six feet would be one way to mitigate that. The property owner could also
increase the spacing or reduce the number of trees.
Schoenzeit stated the goal is to create a view by breaking down a living wall, and the nuisance remedy
has to be in maintaining the view that is opened by mitigating the nuisance.
McGrann asked if the City has received any commentary related to non-lakeshore living walls.
Barnhart stated the more notable complaints are associated with the lakeshore lots but that there have
been some concerns expressed with living walls near an intersection.
McGrann stated it feels like the City is being selective on what views to protect and that they may run into
challenges in the future.
Barnhart stated this is a drastic change to the City’s ordinances and that it will be an enforcement
challenge. Barnhart stated due to the City’s history of protecting lake views, he is recommending it.
Schoenzeit stated the ordinance should not allow grandfathering in.
Barnhart stated the second component of the ordinance deals with lighting. The most common, non-
regulatory solution is for the property owner to willingly adjust or shield lights so that it does not impact a
neighbor. For situations where that does not occur, the proposed regulatory solution establishes
measurable lighting at the property line as a nuisance and may be corrected through means offered in the
code, including citations and mitigation. Early drafts of the ordinance proposed regulating lighting in the
zoning ordinance only but were discarded because existing lights that shine on neighboring properties
would be considered legal non-conforming and allowed to continue in perpetuity.
Staff is proposing the City Code be amended by adding the following: “Fully shielded luminaire means a
light fixture constructed and installed in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly
from the lamp or a diffusing element, or indirectly by reflection or refraction from any part of the fixture,
is projected below the horizontal plane through the fixture’s lowest light-emitting part. Light emitting
part, for the purposes of this section, may include bulb, diode, or tube.” Lighting that casts light on
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 17
adjacent residential property that exceed one foot candle as measured at the property line would not be
allowed.
The ordinance further states, “Any lighting used to illuminate a structure, an off-street parking area, or
other area in any residential zoning district shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any
adjoining residential property or from any public right-of-way. All lighting shall be installed in
accordance with the following provisions:
1. Lighting adjacent property. Lighting sources shall not be permitted so as to light adjacent
property in excess of the maximum intensity.
2. Maximum intensity. No light source or combination thereof which casts light on a public street
shall exceed one foot-candle as measured from the right-of-way of said street, nor shall any light
source or combination thereof which casts light on adjacent residential property exceed four-
tenths foot candles as measured at the property line.
3. Architectural/historical light fixtures that feature globes that are not shielded may be approved by
the City Administrator or designee. In no case shall the light affect adjacent property in excess of
the maximum intensity.
4. Shielding. Outdoor light fixtures, when placed within the lake yard, shall be fully shielded.
The proposed ordinance also alters the existing text regarding glare or heat to mean a specific type of
lighting and offers a definition and general requirements for the use of lighting.
Barnhart noted a 60-watt bulb measured at 15 feet would be a one foot candle, which in some situations
could be the distance from a person’s house to the property line. A chart in Staff’s report illustrating the
various distances and candle measurements has been included in Staff’s report. Barnhart stated he would
advise against making it lower than a one foot candle.
Barnhart stated the enforcement of this code may be challenging and will likely require equipment not
currently owned by the City. Due to the nature of the potential violation, enforcement will most likely be
completed by police officers.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 5 of 17
Schoenzeit noted one component in order to be considered a nuisance is it has to be a certain foot candle
across the property line. Schoenzeit asked whether all lights have to be shielded in the lake yard.
Barnhart stated the lighting would be determined at the property line. As it relates to the shielding, that
would be part of the new lighting standards but is not necessarily deemed a nuisance.
Schoenzeit asked if the old lights would be grandfathered.
Barnhart stated they would be. Barnhart noted there are quite a few dock structures and lake
improvements that have lighting and that it will take years before there is a noticeable difference, which is
the reason why Staff went with the nuisance component. Barnhart stated the property owner would be
allowed to replace the bulb if it is part of the lighting fixture and would be considered normal
maintenance. Barnhart stated shielding would only be required in the lake yard and foot candles would be
measured anywhere on the property.
Acting Chair Landgraver opened the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.
Joey Mandel stated he is here tonight representing his parents who live at 3155 North Shore Drive.
Mandel displayed a picture of the lot adjacent to his parents’ home. Mandel stated the lot was
unmaintained for six years and was a nuisance. The property to the left is his parents’ property. Both
properties are located on Crystal Bay.
Reed Mandel stated the property owner was hauling in a bunch of fill a little bit at a time, which meant
that every two weeks there were heavy construction vehicles and noise.
Joey Mandel stated the construction vehicles left a lot of dust, noise, and rodents. This situation
eventually led his parents to calling into the City and filing a complaint against the property and how it
has been maintained.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 6 of 17
Reed Mandel stated as a result of the work, flooding occurred on his parents’ property and for the entire
summer the yard was flooded. Mandel stated all the dirt from the hill and debris ran into his parents’
front yard and caused the driveway to always be muddy.
Joey Mandel stated the neighbor also built a very large white fence all the way down the property line but
did not follow regulations. The mud and debris could still go under the fence. The neighbor’s latest
effort has been to install a living wall all the way down the property line. The trees are 16 or 18 feet tall
and are evergreen. Mandel stated the trees were just planted a couple of months ago and also affects
another property a lot and a half back from the lake. That property owner cannot see the water anymore
as a result of the living wall.
Reed Mandel displayed a picture of the view from the interior of his parents’ house. Mandel stated this is
not within the 75 feet jurisdiction but that it is impacting his parents’ lives greatly.
Joey Mandel stated the living wall has dramatically changed their views of the lake.
Landgraver asked if they are suggesting that it is not just a hard measurement from the lakeshore and it
should be the average lakeshore setback.
Joey Mandel stated they wanted to convey that he applauds the 75-foot setback as an option and that it is
a good start. Mandel stated what he is suggesting is that even though the 75-foot setback is a great start,
there will always be circumstances that will be drastically violating the intent of the ordinance. Mandel
stated a special mediating committee could be instituted whereby the committee mediates the situation
and determine whether it is a violation of the intent of the statute. Mandel stated the examples shown
here are within the 75-foot guideline but are clearly intended to be hostile and degrading to the other
property owner’s enjoyment of their property.
Lemke asked if the residence is located behind the 75-foot line.
Joey Mandel stated it is approximately 75 to 80 feet. Mandel stated as it relates to the view, if his parents
were looking straight out at the lake from the house, that view is not affected, but if they look to the right,
it is impacted.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 7 of 17
Schoenzeit stated as proposed it is the fence setback line and not the 75-foot line, which would cover the
view to the right. Schoenzeit stated the City’s proposal is more aggressive than the 75-foot line.
Barnhart stated previous versions were at the 75-foot line and that the more recent version reflects the
average lakeshore setback.
Joey Mandel stated the neighbor’s home is well away from this wall.
Barnhart displayed an aerial photograph of the property.
Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated the situation with this neighbor started ten years ago and
that he appreciates the City taking a look at this. Russin noted their property is not on the lake but that
they did have a view of the lake when they first purchased the property approximately 20 years ago.
Russin indicated they built a screen porch a number of years ago, and because of the living wall, they
cannot see the lake anymore. Russin stated if that living wall was put in to shield someone from looking
in that neighbor’s windows, that is one thing, but the house is far away from the trees and that it is not for
privacy. Russin stated the living wall was put in there because they complained about other things.
Russin stated their general concern with the proposal is having some type of relief valve for special
circumstances, and the reason for that is to deal with the white fence. Russin stated as the fence was
going in, he called the City, and after a couple of conversations, the City told him they were going to take
a pass on enforcing the ordinance. Russin stated the fence is ugly and white, but the biggest issue is, if
you look at the fence, there are gaps because one section is eight feet high and other sections are six,
which leaves a two-foot gap in some areas. Russin stated he also has watched the maintenance guy blow
all the leaves under the living wall into the Mandels’ property on a couple of occasions. Russin asked
how they can resolve that situation.
Russin stated the other issue relates to the lighting. Russin stated the general issue with the lighting is the
one-foot candle. Russin noted .4 is the lightness of the moon coming in but that moonlight is natural
light. Russin stated the neighbor has five commercial size lights that are extremely bright.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 8 of 17
Russin stated he also has an issue with the Orono Police Department enforcing the lighting code. Russin
stated he has called the police several times about the lights and that they were told to cover their window
with solid material. Russin indicated he did not receive good service from the police department and that
in his view enforcement has to be through some other avenue.
Russin displayed a picture of the lighting. Russin noted they hired a professional photographer to come
out and photograph the lights when there was no moon. The neighbor has had as many as 12 floodlights
on at one time pointed at his house. Russin stated the neighbor’s house is located up on the hill and that
the light comes into his house.
Russin displayed a picture of his master bedroom and the reflection of the light on the bedroom door.
Russin pointed out his bedroom has small windows, which prevents even more light from coming in, but
that it is still lit up. In addition, the entire back of their house is lit up by this individual’s lights.
Russin stated in one of the court hearings, the judge wrote in her order that this individual would probably
put a cannon on the dock and fire it because the City did not specifically say he could not. Russin stated
in his view, whenever they ask for a relief valve, the neighbor will do something else to circumvent the
City’s regulations, which is why he is asking for more detail to be included in the ordinance.
Russin displayed a picture of the Wagner property. Russin indicated originally there were five of these
lights and each one of them has three bulbs. Russin stated they also light up the inside of his house all
night long. Another five lights have since been put in, for a total of 30 bulbs now. Russin stated he is in
favor of beautifying property but that he is not sure why these lights have to stay on until 1:30 at night.
Russin stated if they were for safety, they would stay on all night long. Russin stated he does not care
that these are commercial lights on the property but that they cannot stay on until 1 or 2 in the morning.
Russin stated the only time they vary is because of daytime savings. Russin stated their entire house is lit
up on both sides. Russin noted the lights are 53 feet from the lake and that in his view it is a safety hazard
because someone might mistake them for landing lights since there are so many of them.
Russin stated the neighbor initially started with a flashlight over his head as he walked through the
easement path and that he called it in numerous times but the police questioned how he would know it
was his neighbor. Russin indicated he finally put an animal camera on the easement, which stopped the
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 9 of 17
neighbor from doing that. The neighbor then put a construction light near the garage and focused the
light on his wife while she lay in bed. Russin stated he again called the police several times but nothing
was done. As a result, they secured a mirror in the tree and shined the light back in his house, which
stopped that. After that the neighbor installed the lights down by the lake.
Russin stated this situation has been going on for ten years and that the ordinance also needs to consider
the time of day the lights are on. Russin stated unnatural light can be harmful. Russin stated they are not
concerned with someone lighting their property with motion detectors for safety, but that he has 14 lights
shining on his property and into his house.
Russin indicated he has tried to resolve this many, many times with the City but has basically been
ignored. Russin stated it is impossible to draft language to address all scenarios in planning ordinances
but that a relief valve solution will enable the City to address each situation with an objective thought
process. In that way citizens would be encouraged to work out their issues before mediation is put into
effect, which will lessen the ultimate burden placed upon the City. Russin stated that way all residents
will be served rather than the privileged, motivated and/or wealthy families who are able to actively seek
gray zones. Russin stated the situation is very, very unfortunate.
Acting Chair Landgraver closed the public hearing at 9:16 p.m.
Landgraver asked if Staff should bundle these or separate the ordinances.
It was the consensus of the Planning Commission to separate the ordinances.
Landgraver suggested the Planning Commission discuss the living wall component first.
Schoenzeit stated the living wall definitions are fair and usable but that his concern would be once it
becomes an ordinance and a nuisance definition is available, once someone brings the nuisance to the
City, mitigation is not part of the ordinance. Schoenzeit asked what the venue or avenue is to discuss the
mitigation. Schoenzeit stated if that is not defined, in his view it is going to be an issue. Schoenzeit
stated you can change the mathematical spacing but it might still be opaque, which will not solve any
problems.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 10 of 17
Barnhart stated he does not have a solution to that at this time. Barnhart acknowledged that there are
landscaping, trees, and other natural improvements that do block views of the lake. Barnhart stated
someone can have a row of maple trees 20 feet apart that will block the view just as effectively as a row
of evergreen trees. Barnhart stated how the City mitigates the nuisance is to make sure the improvement
does not meet the definition of a living wall, and that mitigation could include trimming the tree or
removing the tree. Barnhart stated there are a lot of scenarios but that it depends on actual dimensions
and field work.
Schoenzeit stated they could also see if nuisance and mitigation brings any satisfaction to the issue; and if
not, it could be brought back before the Planning Commission.
Barnhart stated that is why the City reviews their ordinances annually.
Landgraver stated people who have been impacted by a living wall might become frustrated if it is not
satisfied like they think it will be. Landgraver noted the proposed ordinance is attempting to have a
vertical and horizontal solution but that perhaps they should simply limit the trees to six feet tall.
Landgraver stated in that case it does not matter how close someone plants them together, but if it is over
six feet tall, it is a nuisance.
Schoenzeit stated if you have two trees at six feet, you should need six feet of open space between the two
trees, which would severely disrupt the living wall.
McGrann stated he would rather see two out of three trees removed.
Schoenzeit stated the blocking factor should not be more than 50 percent.
Barnhart stated he understands the comments made so far. Barnhart indicated he is trying to craft an
ordinance that does not make everything illegal but yet also recognizes that there are some challenges
with certain individuals in how they choose to landscape their yard.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 11 of 17
Schoenzeit stated the number of trunks is irrelevant and perhaps they should adjust it to take into account
the blocking factor of the trees. Schoenzeit stated if the living wall is blocking more than 50 percent of
the view, then it should be considered a nuisance.
Landgraver stated he would propose a height limit of six feet tall to help manage it. Landgraver stated it
is likely the City will have to hire someone to measure the trees.
Schoenzeit stated a nuisance is also the number of trunks, but if the stand of trees is mature and full, the
mitigation should be the height. Schoenzeit stated if someone removed every one out of three trees, the
view could still be mostly blocked and unimproved. Schoenzeit stated in his view the mitigation in that
situation is not sufficient, but if they are cut down to six feet, it would be improved.
Barnhart stated with the last version, a number of trees was not listed, and based on past direction, he
started with three trees. Barnhart asked if it is the expectation of the Planning Commission that a group of
three pine trees will get cut down at six feet.
Schoenzeit stated it depends on the blockage.
Barnhart stated that is where it gets fuzzy and that he has to write an ordinance that defines a living wall.
Barnhart indicated there is a fine line between a living wall and trees that block visibility, and that even if
the City does nothing, there will still be people out there that will plant trees based on their own goals
regardless of their relationship with their neighbor. Barnhart stated there are also situations where trees
are planted by nature or where someone stops maintaining them.
Barnhart stated if the intention is to impact their neighbors or someone did not really think about the
impacts, this ordinance will fix that, but if someone is looking for loopholes, they will find a loophole.
Barnhart stated the ordinance is very challenging from an enforcement standpoint and that he would be
cautious about being more aggressive on this type of ordinance. Barnhart stated if they look out in their
neighborhoods, they would likely find a living wall pretty quickly even if it was unintentional. Barnhart
stated he wants to avoid people coming in for a variance related to landscaping.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 12 of 17
Schoenzeit stated he would encourage the Planning Commission to go forward with the ordinance even
though not all situations will be resolved.
Lemke stated he has a concern with grandfathering or not grandfathering. Lemke stated he planted trees
along the side of his yard that are now 20 feet tall. Lemke asked if the City is going to require him to cut
them down to six feet.
Schoenzeit stated someone would need to lodge a complaint.
Lemke stated if that happens, he is going to be pretty mad. Lemke asked if the City can retroactively put
an ordinance in.
Barnhart stated in working with the City Attorney, this is the approach they arrived at, which was to come
at it from a nuisance standpoint. Barnhart noted the living wall would need to be located within the
average lakeshore as defined in the ordinance. Barnhart stated if the City receives a complaint and it is
determined to be a living wall, mitigation could include removing one or more trees.
McGrann stated he agrees with Commissioner Lemke, and that out of 100 times that this has happened,
perhaps only three or four are intentional. McGrann commented they could be opening up Pandora’s
Box.
Schoenzeit stated there could also be a number of people who are impacted and are getting no relief.
McGrann asked if he can call the City and say Bruce’s trees are a nuisance even though he does not live
next to him.
Barnhart stated anyone could complain as the ordinance is currently written.
Lemke stated in his view the City is asking for trouble if they have an ordinance that is difficult to
enforce. Lemke stated if the ordinance makes a lot of people upset, he is not sure the City should pursue
it.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 13 of 17
Landgraver asked if Commissioner Lemke is suggesting grandfathering the trees or whether he is against
the ordinance.
Lemke stated he is suggesting grandfathering the trees. Lemke noted that then raises the question of how
the City would know the trees are grandfathered. Lemke stated he is not sure how the City would
regulate that.
McGrann stated he has no problem moving forward with being more restrictive on living walls but that in
his view the retroactive piece is going to be difficult to determine.
Schoenzeit stated the rights and rules for fences are very clear and that they should have applied from day
one. Schoenzeit stated someone should not be allowed to organically abuse someone’s property like this.
Schoenzeit stated even though the trees are beautiful, once the trees take off, they truly can be a nuisance
to the neighbors.
Schoenzeit stated the question is who is able to call in about a nuisance. Schoenzeit stated in his view the
person complaining about the nuisance should be affected by the nuisance rather than living out of state
or out of the neighborhood. Schoenzeit noted Prior Lake requires the person calling in the complaint
undergoes the same sort of review on his property that he is complaining about. Schoenzeit stated it
should go both ways, which is different from what the City currently does.
Gaffron stated he is not sure whether there is anything in the draft ordinance that says somebody’s view
has to actually be blocked in order for it to be considered a nuisance. Gaffron noted there are situations
where someone could have three trees in a row up by their house and they are technically violating the
average fence setback ordinance but not blocking lake views at all.
Gaffron stated the question becomes from what part of the house are those views protected and is
someone allowed to have a 180 degree view from the side of the house. Gaffron asked whether it would
be considered a legitimate blockage if the side views are blocked. Gaffron stated there are so many
loopholes that could be found and that the whole idea of limiting vegetation is difficult to deal with.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 14 of 17
Landgraver noted some citizens have asked the City to do something about this and that the City Council
directed Staff to take a look at it. Landgraver stated in his view the Planning Commission has a concern
about whether it should be grandfathered or not.
Schoenzeit stated if existing nuisance conditions are grandfathered, this is a waste of time, but at the same
time it is a difficult position to put the City in because there are many residents who are then stuck duking
it out on their own. Schoenzeit commented he is not sure whether the City is throwing a weight or a lift
raft at these situations, but that grandfathering would gut the ordinance.
Lemke and McGrann indicated they disagree with that.
Schoenzeit stated simply because the material changes and is not a fence, the abuse can go wild. In
addition, a fence would stay in the same position but a living wall would grow and expand. Schoenzeit
stated the particular walls that are being focused on are the arborvitaes and that perhaps the ordinance
could be more narrowly focused since they are not talking about spruce trees that are 20 feet apart.
Barnhart agreed the majority of the complaints relate to arborvitaes. Barnhart noted the earlier draft had
much closer spacing but it was widened based on Planning Commission feedback. Barnhart stated the
Planning Commission could table the draft ordinance and Staff could review it a little bit more. Barnhart
stated he is not sure what the solution is, but that it appears the main issue is the nuisance and whether the
trees/shrubs should be grandfathered. Another option is the Planning Commission could move forward
with that being a strong concern. Staff could work with the City Attorney on it and present the challenges
or reasons or responses to those challenges to the Council.
Landgraver stated he would like to advance it and that there will never be a perfect solution. Landgraver
stated there might be something responsive to the citizens that is enforceable but that there likely will be
some negative feedback from the residents.
Schoenzeit stated there is value and concerns with the ordinance and that he would suggest Staff ask the
City Council how they would like to resolve it. Schoenzeit stated even if someone is in favor of it, it is
apparent it will have negative connotations and would be difficult to enforce.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 15 of 17
Landgraver stated the Planning Commission has vetted some key issues but that they are getting
diminished returns on the discussion. Landgraver suggested Staff look at the ordinance further based on
tonight’s discussion.
Barnhart asked what thoughts the Planning Commission had on the lighting portion of the ordinance.
Landgraver stated in his view one candlelight measurement is too liberal versus the .4.
Barnhart stated originally it was .4 for three minutes or five minutes. At the suggestion of the City
Attorney, the time limit was removed and the higher candle limit was included. Barnhart stated whoever
enforces it would need to be on site for that time period, and if the person flips off the light for one
minute, the time period would start over.
Schoenzeit stated the City could require the light to be off for a certain period of time.
Barnhart noted lighting offers securing and regulating the limit of time or how frequently it needs to be
off is very dangerous and he would not recommend it.
Landgraver stated the typical measurement by the City is the power of the light. Landgraver noted there
was a concern raised by one of the residents about enforcement and having to go through the police
department. Landgraver stated that resident suggested some type of mediation.
Lemke stated he is not sure whether it should be one foot candle or half a candle. Lemke noted he is able
to see his neighbor’s light that is around 200 feet away. Lemke stated he would like to see more shielding
not just on lakeshore properties but non-lakeshore properties as well.
Schoenzeit stated clearly new light fixtures should have shielding regardless of whether they are
lakeshore properties or elsewhere.
Barnhart stated the candle measurement would be the distance from the light fixture and would apply at
the property line. Barnhart noted he is not proposing any shielding for lights that are not near the
lakeshore.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 16 of 17
McGrann asked if the City’s current light ordinance is sufficient to cover other properties.
Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance only talks about glare and heat and that he is not proposing any
level of shielding with this ordinance for non-lakeshore properties. Barnhart indicated that could be a
topic of discussion in the future if the Planning Commission would like to expand that. Barnhart
suggested the Planning Commissioners use the City’s light meter to gain some idea of what one foot
candle is. Barnhart stated he is trying to balance the annoyance factor with the nuisance factor.
Lemke asked if existing light fixtures would be grandfathered in.
Barnhart indicated they would be unless they throw more than one foot candle at the property line. In that
situation they would be considered a nuisance and would need to be addressed.
Schoenzeit stated at some point any light can be a disturbance, but if the foot candle is measured at the
property line, it seems reasonable and also fairly straight forward on mitigation.
Barnhart stated the ordinance can always be changed, but that the Planning Commission may want to
explore it further on how it impacts the neighborhood. Barnhart stated it would be difficult for Staff to
enforce the lighting ordinance since Staff is not here in the summertime at night and the police would
need to be involved.
McGrann stated he does not know what the exact lumens should be but that he is comfortable with a
baseline.
Barnhart stated if the Planning Commission likes the language in the text, they can either test the lumens
or forward the ordinance to the City Council. Barnhart stated he would offer the Planning Commission
the opportunity to use the light meter to explore it at their convenience if they so desire.
Schoenzeit stated he would suggest moving the living wall component forward and having the Planning
Commission take a look at the lumens.
Lemke asked whether they could do that as a group.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 19, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 17 of 17
Barnhart noted the inspection would need to be done individually since it would be considered a public
hearing if they all got together at the same time.
Landgraver requested the Planning Commissioners use the lighting meter on their own to get an idea of
the lumens. Landgraver noted there will also be issues with commercial versus residential.
Schoenzeit moved, McGrann seconded, to recommend on Application No. 15-3784, City of Orono,
Text Amendment to 78-1, Definitions and Lake Yard Landscaping, Residential Lighting, and
Living Walls, that the living wall component and the lighting portion of the ordinance be separated,
with the lighting component being tabled and the living wall component proceeding forward to the
City Council, with Staff highlighting the Planning Commission’s discussion regarding the pros and
cons of grandfathering living walls. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 21, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 1 of 4
12. #15-3784 CITY OF ORONO – TEXT AMENDMENT RELATED TO DEFINITIONS,
LAKE YARD LANDSCAPING, RESIDENTIAL LIGHTING, AND LIVING WALLS,
11:25 P.M. – 11:58 P.M.
Barnhart stated the City Council had directed Staff to review city ordinances in response to a number of
complaints regarding lighting so placed as to negatively impact the enjoyment of residential properties as
well as the use of landscaping that has the same impact on lake views as structures.
Barnhart stated the City has received a number of complaints over the years regarding lighting and the
City’s ordinance is relatively vague in terms of how it regulates lighting. Barnhart stated this is an
opportunity to define what negative lighting is or better define what glare is and then provide a
mechanism to address lighting. Barnhart indicated Staff has not been able to really address some of the
concerns because the current ordinance is so vague. As an example, light that causes glare or heat is a
violation of the ordinance but it comes down to what is glare and what is heat.
If the Planning Commission sees that as a concern, the draft ordinance defines what glare is, which is the
sensation produced by one or more luminaires within the visual field that are sufficiently greater than the
luminance to which the eyes are adapted, which causes annoyance, discomfort, or loss in visual
performance and visibility. The basic concept is that a bright light in a dark room is glare and would be
considered a nuisance.
Barnhart stated under the proposed language, any nonconforming would be allowed to remain. In
addition, the language identifies criteria for a foot candle so Staff will have something to measure against.
The criteria states that “lighting which casts light on adjacent resident property that exceed four-tenths
foot candles as measured at the property line for a period longer than two hours. Barnhart indicated
moonlight is .3 foot candles.
The second issue being address with the ordinance is living walls. Barnhart noted Orono has placed a
strong level of protection on lake views from the residential lakeshore lots to the lake. The City Council
in the past has been reluctant to make changes to the landscaping ordinance because once you start
regulating landscaping, it can become a slippery slope. A living wall means a combination of evergreen
plants that are six feet in height and planted in such a manner that their spacing is equal to the width of the
plant. Non-evergreen trees would not constitute a living wall.
Barnhart noted the City does not allow fences in the 0-75 foot zone and that this ordinance proposes that
living walls also not be allowed.
Landgraver asked whether it could be described in a different way than plants that are six feet in height
and planted in such a manner so the spacing is equal to the width of the plant.
Barnhart stated generally arborvitaes or evergreens have a described width. If the width of the plant is
four feet and they are planted every four feet apart, half of that plant is two feet, and if it touches the other
half of the next plant, so a living wall has essentially be created. Barnhart stated if they are planted
further apart and there is an opening, it would not be considered a living wall.
Lemke asked whether the ordinance should say at least six feet in height.
Barnhart stated the language could be changed if the Planning Commission determines it is appropriate.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 21, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 2 of 4
Leskinen asked if there is a prescribed width of the living wall that would trigger this.
Barnhart stated that is not being proposed but that could be added if the Planning Commission desired.
Leskinen stated that would help clarify what a living wall is.
Schoenzeit noted arborvitaes also grow in other directions, and when they are on the property line, they
are growing into the neighbor’s yard and essentially taking their property.
Barnhart stated this is regulating the screening characteristics and that the ordinance does not cover that.
Schoenzeit noted an existing living wall would be allowed to be grandfathered and replaced. Schoenzeit
stated in his view it would be just like someone rebuilding a new house and having a clean slate.
Schoenzeit stated the goal should be to get rid of these.
Barnhart stated the City would look at it as a nuisance primarily and it would not necessary be
grandfathered in. Staff did look at it from a regulatory standpoint but discarded that.
Berg asked whether it can be replaced if it exists now and it dies.
Barnhart stated it could not be replaced. Barnhart stated there is a distinction between a nuisance issue
and a nonconformity. Barnhart stated the ordinance is not regulating where the trees can be and provides
a distinction between a living wall and what is naturally growing.
Thiesse asked whether the living wall can be past the 75-foot setback or the average lakeshore setback.
Barnhart stated it would be the 75-foot setback.
Schoenzeit stated if the City does not have some firmer rules, it may come down to neighbor arguing with
neighbor. Schoenzeit noted Council Member Walsh has said that the City forces neighbors to fight and
bring litigation because the City is not helping, and anything the City can do to help this, he is in favor of.
Thiesse stated his preference would be to include the average lakeshore setback and to have the spacing s
be two times the width or five feet on center with an opening of only a few inches.
Berg asked if there are a lot of complaints about this.
Barnhart stated there are a fair number of them and that he sees the potential for more.
Thiesse asked if the glare definition would also cover reflective light. Thiesse stated reflective light
would likely not reach the limit on the meter but it could still be an annoyance.
Barnhart stated it would not be covered in the ordinance and that the line has to be drawn somewhere.
Barnhart stated the glare would be measured by a light meter.
Chair Leskinen opened the public hearing at 11:42 p.m.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 21, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 4
Jim Mandel, 3155 North Shore Drive, stated when he sees the row of 25-foot arborvitaes on his
neighbor’s property blocking his view of the lake, in his opinion it is a travesty. Mandel stated when
something like this is done in a malicious manner, there is no reason for it, and until the City stops this
type of activity, there will always be someone who takes advantage of it. Mandel stated they happen to
be victims of a living wall and that they hope it doesn’t happen to someone else.
Mandel stated a living wall is invasive, deteriorates property values, closes the property in, and is
annoying. Mandel noted in a number of situations the lot lines along the water do not run perpendicular
and so it is possible for someone who lives on the water to construct living walls that totally block the
view of the water for their neighbors when they live on the lake. Mandel stated a person who lives on the
lake pays a lot in taxes and that they should be able to enjoy their view of the lake.
Mike Russin, 3175 North Shore Drive, stated he understands the issues with the living wall and that he
lives with it also. Russin stated he is here tonight, however, to talk about the lighting issues. Russin
noted Staff defines it as a nuisance, which is how he views it as well.
Russin indicated he has spent some time looking on the web at other cities’ light ordinances and they tend
to classify a lighting nuisance as a private nuisance that is an interference with a person’s enjoyment and
use of his land. The law recognizes that landowners are those in rightful possession of land, have the
right to unimpaired condition of the property and to reasonable comfort and convenience in its
occupation. Examples of a nuisance include things that would interfere with the comfort, convenience or
health of an occupant, and include such things as foul odors, noxious gasses, dust, loud noises, excessive
light or high temperatures. In addition, the following factors should be considered: Extent and duration
of the disturbance, the nature of harm, and the motivation of person creating the nuisance.
Russin stated from their standpoint they did not want to ask for something that was unreasonable. Russin
stated he is not sure whether Staff looked at the standards by the Illuminating Engineers Society of
America, but that they have very clear standards. Those standards state that between the hours of 10 p.m.
and 6 a.m., all single and two-family residential developments must conform to certain provisions, and
those laws are sensitive to the property owners’ right to use and enjoy their private property without
having to close blinds or curtains on their windows to accommodate another individual’s actions.
Russin indicated the provisions basically state that it is unlawful for any person in a residential zone to
maintain lighting upon the premises under their ownership or control so that the beams, rays or reflections
spill out over or onto adjoining or neighboring residential properties as defined in the zoning ordinance of
the city. If said lighting by its degree of intensity or operation interferes with the peaceful operation of
the property of adjoining landowners or unreasonably disturbs the comfort and repose of the adjoining or
neighboring landowners, it shall constitute a nuisance.
Russin stated floodlights that come on before dusk and go off an hour before dawn should be considered a
nuisance. Russin stated closing the blinds or closing the curtains is not the solution and that they have
been experiencing this since October of 2005. Russin stated he appreciates the City addressing this issue
and that he would encourage the City to include some specificity in the language so there is no wiggle
room. Russin stated they would also request that a strong process be put in place in the event the
ordinance is not followed.
Chair Leskinen closed the public hearing at 11:50 p.m.
Landgraver asked what the City does after it identifies something as a nuisance.
MINUTES OF THE
ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, September 21, 2015
6:30 o’clock p.m.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Page 4 of 4
Barnhart stated in addition to the normal notification, the City could abate the nuisance if the property
owner refuses to do so. Barnhart stated City Code provides better mechanisms and more pronounced
mechanisms to address nuisances than the zoning ordinance. Barnhart stated the challenge in the past
from an enforcement standpoint has been the vagueness of the ordinance and not being sure what glare
means.
Landgraver asked if the City would do the same thing with a living wall.
Barnhart stated the City could cut the living wall down and that they do the same thing with tall grass and
debris. Barnhart stated that is a drastic step but if it has been identified as a nuisance, the City can go in
and fix the property and bill it back to the property owner.
Schoenzeit stated if the neighbor is told a living wall meets the nuisance and it is cut down, what would
happen if he uses the same hole to plant a different species.
Barnhart stated from a proposal standpoint, he did not want to go full speed ahead and regulate all types
of landscaping. Barnhart stated it is a fine line and that Orono values the trees and landscaping but he did
not want to start regulating all types of landscaping.
Schoenzeit stated the lake is special and it is bold of the City to do this ordinance.
Barnhart stated if trees are planted in such a way that the apparent attempt is to screen someone’s view of
the lake, the person is going to choose an evergreen because then they would get the benefit year-round
and they are not likely to screen the neighbor’s view by planting deciduous trees. Barnhart indicated he
tried to draw a balance.
Barnhart stated as it relates to the lighting concerns, lighting offers security, beauty and other things, and
that he attempted to draw the line as measureable at the property line. Barnhart stated everyone should
have the ability to have security lighting on their property and that he does not want to take that right
away. Barnhart stated he is attempting to balance those goals.
Landgraver stated the spacing for the living wall needs to be twice the width of the plant.
Thiesse stated someone’s view could be impacted when the trees or shrubs are staggered as well.
Leskinen stated given the lateness of the meeting, she would suggest tabling the application, which would
also allow Staff to tighten up the language.
Landgraver moved, Thiesse seconded, to table Application No. 15-3784, City of Orono, Text
Amendment Related to Definitions: Lake Yard Landscaping, Residential Lighting, and Living
Walls. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0.
Date Application Received: 09/18/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/09/15
60-Day Review Period Expires: 12/17/15
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: 4 November 2015
Item No. 12
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Melanie Curtis mcc JML Planning
Title: Planner
Item Description: #15-3787, David & Lisa Wipson, 2264 Shadywood Road, Variances, Resolution
Application Summary:
The applicants are requesting approval of a structural coverage variance to allow construction of a two level,
detached garage with a 289 square foot footprint resulting in 16.9% structural coverage. The applicant stated
a need for a storm shelter which is typically provided by basements in standard residential construction. The
applicant is prevented from building a basement because of the floodplain and water table on the property.
Additionally, the applicants are requesting approval of a second driveway curb approach on the property to
serve the detached garage.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On October 19, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed the application. Following
the public hearing where there were no public comments, the Commission voted 4 to 0 on a motion in favor
of approval of the variance requested. An amendment recommending the applicant be required to provide
evidence that the detached garage meets structural requirements for a storm shelter. The Council should
refer to the draft minutes from this meeting for further detail.
Planning Staff Recommendation
In response to the Planning Commission comment requiring a storm shelter level construction. There are no
requirements for single family homes to provide a storm shelter. If an area is designated as a “storm shelter”
it must comply with the wind load requirements designated in Chapter 423 of the International Building Code
or IBC. Relevant excerpts from the IBC and ICC-500 are attached as Exhibit D. Staff does not recommend the
proposed garage conform to the storm shelter construction requirements. The garage structure will be
required to comply with all residential building code requirements for wind loads.
The applicants’ request does not exceed the total square footage of the 2014 structural coverage variance.
Staff recommends approval of the structural coverage variance.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Council should consider the applicants’ request for a second driveway approach and structural coverage
variance and direct staff to draft a resolution reflecting the Council’s decision.
List of Exhibits:
Exhibit A. Draft Resolution
Exhibit B. Proposed Survey
Exhibit C. Proposed Plans & Elevations
Exhibit D. Storm Shelter Requirements (IBC & ICC-500 excerpts)
Exhibit E. PC Staff Report & Exhibits 10/14/15
Exhibit F. Draft PC Minutes 10/19/15
Date Application Received: 09/18/15
Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/09/15
60-Day Review Period Expires: 12/17/15
To: Chair Leskinen and Planning Commission Members
Jessica Loftus, City Administrator
From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc
Date: 14 October 2015
Subject: #15-3787, David & Lisa Wipson, 2264 Shadywood Road,
Variances
Public Hearing
List of Exhibits
Exhibit A. Application & Description of Request
Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation
Exhibit C. Proposed Survey
Exhibit D. Proposed Building Plans
Exhibit E. Proposed Landscape Plan
Exhibit F. Submitted Hardcover Calculations
Exhibit G. Resolution No. 6448 and Extension
Exhibit H. City Code Sections
Exhibit I. Site Photos – Staff
Exhibit J. Aerial Photo – Bing
Exhibit K. Property Owners List
Exhibit L. Plat Map
Below is a listing of referenced code sections:
Sec 18-136. Residential Driveways, Approaches, and Turnarounds.
Sec 78-1. Definitions.
Sec. 78-350. Area, height, lot width and yard requirements.
Sec. 78-1440. Exterior materials.
Sec. 78-1685. - Massing standards.
Sec. 78-1700. - Specific tier regulations.
Application Summary: The applicants are requesting approval of a variance to allow 289
square feet of additional structural coverage in order to construct a detached garage.
Staff Recommendation: Based on the applicants’ request, if the Planning Commission
identifies practical difficulties exist which support the granting of the requested structural
coverage variance, staff recommends making a motion recommending approval of the
structural coverage variance allowing the new 289 square foot (footprint) detached garage.
Staff further recommends that dimensional limitations be placed on the overhangs and
cantilevered area.
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
#15-3787
14 October 2015
Page 2 of 5
Background
The applicants’ home is newly constructed, however does not have a basement. In 2014 the
previous owners received variances in order to permit construction of a small addition to the
home to allow for additional storage space; and a two-level shed to provide additional storage
as well as a severe weather shelter. The home addition and shed have not been constructed. In
the spirit of the previous approval, the current owners would like to forgo the addition to the
home and construct a larger detached structure to meet their storage needs as well as serve as
a severe weather shelter. They request a structural coverage variance to permit construction of
a two-story detached garage on the property to be served by a new driveway on the rear. The
footprint of the proposed garage results in the same calculable level of structure as the 2014
approvals, however includes a larger cantilevered floor on the top level (4-feet where 2-feet was
the previous plan).
LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Sections 78-350, 78-1435 & 78-1436 – Garage Setbacks:
LR-1C Required Proposed
Rear 10’ - if doors face away from the street
30’ - if doors face street
30’ (doors face street)
East Side Street 15’ 22’
West Side 10’ 10’
From House 10’ 81’
Section 78-350 - Lot Area/Width:
LR-1C Lot Area Lot Width
Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acre) 100’
Actual 12,197 s.f. (0.28 acre) 41’ @ OHWL & 45’ @ 75’ SB
Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage:
Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage
12,197 s.f. (0.28 acre) Allowed: 1,829.5 s.f. (15%)
Existing: 1,782 s.f. (14.6%)
Proposed: 2,071 s.f. (16.9%)
Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations:
Stormwater
Overlay District
Tier
Total Area
in Zone
Allowed
Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover
Tier 1 12,197 s.f. 3,049.2 s.f.
(25 %)
2,224 s.f.
(18.2%)
3,047 s.f.
(24.9%)
Applicable Regulations:
Structural Coverage Variance (Section 78-1403)
The existing attached garage is a (20’ x 20’) two-car garage. The existing home and attached
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
#15-3787
14 October 2015
Page 3 of 5
garage total 1,782 square feet. The current structural coverage level is at 14.6% where 15% is
allowed. In 2014 the previous owners applied for and received a structural coverage variance to
permit an additional 289 square feet of structure to be added to the property consisting of an
addition to the home (145 s.f.) and a proposed two story shed (144 s.f.). This shed had a 2-foot
cantilevered top floor.
The current owners are requesting approval to construct a 289 square foot detached garage in
the location of the previously approved 12’x12’ shed. This results in the same 289 additional
square feet of calculable structure on the property resulting in 16.9% structural coverage where
15% is allowed. Due to the proposed driveway to serve the garage additional driveway hardcover
would be added, resulting in 24.9% hardcover.
The new garage proposed will be 19.25 feet wide and 19 feet deep on the (top) garage level (365.7
square feet) with a 2 ½-foot roof overhang. The lower level is 19 feet wide by 15 feet deep (289
square feet). The additional 4 feet of depth on the garage level is proposed to be achieved with
a cantilevered floor. The definition of “building footprint”, does not count the cantilevered floor
area because it is greater than 4 feet above grade. While the Code defines “building footprint” as
described, staff suggests the additional 4-foot cantilevered garage floor with 2½-foot roof
overhang exacerbates the massing effect of the proposed garage and suggests inconsistency with
the intent of the ordinance. The mass of the garage level if it were calculable toward building
footprint would result in 318.2 square feet above the 15% limitation, or 17.6 %.
Second Driveway Approach (Section 18-136 (a))
Due to the location of the proposed garage a second driveway access would need to be approved.
According to City Code Section 18-136 (a) one driveway approach is permitted per property. In
addition to the structural coverage variance, a variance to allow a 2nd driveway approach will be
needed. This requirement is not within the zoning code therefore a public hearing for this
variance is not necessary; the City Council shall consider this additional variance.
Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123)
In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the
proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and
anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect
on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider
recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique
to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is
demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning
Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties
also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.
Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06,
subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a
variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the
affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary
use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when:
1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The
applicant proposes to construct a new detached garage resulting in a net increase of
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
#15-3787
14 October 2015
Page 4 of 5
structural coverage, 1.9% over the permitted level; the hardcover on the property will
remain conforming. The construction of a garage in a residentially zoned property is
consistent with the Ordinance. The Planning Commission should discuss whether the
building design departs from the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan has
directives which are put in place to protect the lake, limit massing, and hardcover.
Although the additional structural massing will not impact the lake side of the property,
the overall structural massing on the property will exceed the allowed level. The
proposed plan results a conforming level of hardcover.
3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties.
a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not
permitted by the official controls; the proposed garage will be located in a
compliant location and will not result in a nonconforming hardcover level. In
reviewing the 2014 request staff was able to acknowledge practical difficulties
supporting the small addition to the home; however staff had difficulty
identifying practical difficulties which supported the additional mass resulting
from the shed (now garage). The applicant has provided a practical difficulty
analysis for consideration.
b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner;
the property is narrow and is divided by an existing sewer line. The existing
home is situated with a side load style garage access ed off of the side street.
The orientation does not permit a larger addition to the home or a new
driveway to branch off of the existing to serve a detached garage. In staff’s
opinion, this criterion is met; and
c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The adjacent
properties to the west are lakeshore lots, many with detached garages to the
street side. The location of the proposed garage does not appear to result in a
negative impact on the character of the neighborhood. The visible top floor
area of the proposed garage may result in too much visual mass when viewed
from off of the property.
Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be
granted as follows:
4. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such
property or immediately adjoining property. The lakeshore property is encumbered by
a sewer easement and situated on a corner resulting in challenging setbacks; the
proposed level of hardcover is not out of conformance with the general neighborhood.
5. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which
the land is located. The property is on a corner with the access oriented toward Crystal
Bay Road to the east, while the neighbors to the west front on the lake and are
accessed at the rear. The neighbors to the east all face the lake, yet front on Crystal
Bay Road. The property is relatively unique in this neighborhood.
6. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant indicates that this is true.
7. 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. In staff’s
opinion, this criterion is met.
8. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,
but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has indicated that
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
#15-3787
14 October 2015
Page 5 of 5
the need for a storm shelter and additional storage on the property serve as a practical
difficulty.
The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances.
Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the
impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use
permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located.
Practical Difficulties Statement
Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and
should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application.
Practical Difficulties Analysis
Staff finds that the location of the sewer easement, the lack of a basement, and the existing
structural level create practical difficulties for expanding the home or constructing a detached
garage. Staff recommends the Commission consider the current request against the previous
approvals, which are still in effect. The applicant does not wish to add on to the home as was
previously contemplated. Limiting current approvals for an enlarged shed/garage to the total
square footage permitted in 2014 may be an appropriate consideration. Staff suggests the
Commission discuss the effects of the additional visible massing resulting from the 4-foot
cantilever with 2½ foot roof overhangs and make a recommendation accordingly.
Public Comments
Staff has not received any comments from the public regarding the applicant’s project.
Issues for Consideration
1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the
property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control?
2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the
essential character of the neighborhood?
3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the
impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)?
4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application?
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
I
t
e
m
#
0
4
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
#
1
5
-
3
7
8
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
6
0
]
I
t
e
m
#
0
4
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
#
1
5
-
3
7
8
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
6
0
]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
I
t
e
m
#
0
4
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
#
1
5
-
3
7
8
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
6
0
]
I
t
e
m
#
0
4
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
#
1
5
-
3
7
8
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
6
0
]
I
t
e
m
#
0
4
-
P
C
A
g
e
n
d
a
-
1
0
/
1
9
/
2
0
1
5
F
i
l
e
#
1
5
-
3
7
8
7
[
T
o
t
a
l
P
a
g
e
s
6
0
]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
Item #04 - PC Agenda - 10/19/2015
File #15-3787 [Total Pages 60]
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 9, 2015
ITEM NO: 13
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Diane Tiegs dlt Planning Department
Title City Clerk JML Report
Item Description: Council Liaison to Planning Commission Meetings in 2016
The following is a proposed schedule for Council Member attendance at the monthly Planning
Commission meetings during 2016.
PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to approve the schedule for Council attendance at Planning Commission
meetings during 2016.
Meeting Date Representative
January 19, 2016
(Tuesday) Dennis Walsh
February 16
(Tuesday) Jim Cornick, Jr.
March 21 Lizz Levang
April 18 Aaron Printup
May 16 Dennis Walsh
June 20 Jim Cornick, Jr.
July18 Lizz Levang
August 15 Aaron Printup
September 19 Dennis Walsh
October 17 Jim Cornick, Jr.
November 21 Mayor McMillan
JML
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: November 9, 2015 Item No. 14
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Ron Olson JML City Administrators Report
Title: Finance Director
Item Description: 2015 Inter-fund Transfers
Attachment: Schedule of 2015 Inter-fund Transfers and Loan Payments
Each year the Council is requested to authorize transfer of monies between funds. These transactions
fall into the following categories:
1.Budgeted Transfers – Items designated in that year’s budget when originally adopted for the
purpose of providing support from one fund to another.
2. Fund Obligations –
a.Payments from one fund to another to reimburse expenses incurred by one fund on behalf
of another. This is generally for City portions of special assessments, or for equipment
capital outlay.
b. Loan payments from one fund to another. Loans are generally made to construction funds
for the purpose of payment of expenses incurred prior to the sale of bonds and the levying
of special assessments. In addition certain loans are necessary to fund major undertakings
when the fund incurring the expense does not have adequate cash flow available to
complete the project.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to approve the transfers and loan payments as indicated on the attached schedule.
Schedule of 2015 Interfund Transfers and Loan Payments_____________
General
Imp & Equip Outlay
$ 240,000
Annual operating transfer for capital
equipment purchases, as budgeted.
General
2014 Improvement
Bonds
$ 150,000
Annual transfer for debt service of
2014 Improvement Bonds.
General
Municipal State Aid
(MSA)
$ 194,000
Operating transfer to fund the Stubbs
Bay Road (non-MSA) portion of the
Watertown Road Project.
General
Pavement Management
$ 95,000
Operating transfer to fund the Baldur
Park Road reconstruction.
Community Invest
2010 GO Refunding
Bonds
$ 130,000
Annual operating (final) transfer for
debt service support of Fire Building
and Equipment bonds, as budgeted.
Permanent
Improvement
Revolving (PIR)
2014 Improvement
Bonds
$ 321,000
Operating transfer to fund the facility
improvements completed as part of
the Police Garage Project.
Water Operating
2008 Street
Reconstruction
$ 55,000
Annual operating transfer for debt
service support of Water Fund
portion of the Casco Point Project.
Water Operating
2014 Improvement
Bonds
$ 103,000
Annual operating transfer for debt
service support of 2014 water bonds.
Sewer Operating
2008 Street
Reconstruction
$ 100,000
Annual operating transfer for debt
service support of Sewer Fund
portion of the Casco Point Project.
Sewer Operating
Pavement Management
$ 13,575
Operating Transfer to fund sewer
work done in conjunction with the
Baldur Park Road Project
Stormwater Operating
Municipal State Aid
(MSA)
$ 34,037
Operating transfer to fund the Storm
Water improvements of the
Watertown Road Project.
Stormwater Operating
Pavement Management
$ 14,597
Operating Transfer to fund
Stormwater work done in conjunction
with the Baldur Park Road Project
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 29, 2015
ITEM NO: 15
______________________________________________________________________________
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name Ron Olson JML City Administrator's
Title Finance Director Report
______________________________________________________________________________
Item Description: Authorization to Disburse Funds for Claims Received
______________________________________________________________________________
Typically during the month of December the City has only one council meeting. The meeting
which would fall on or near the Christmas holiday is cancelled. Staff is requesting authorization
to process a normal claims processing for the canceled meeting. This practice is routinely done
in December with the Council then formally approving the claims at the first meeting in January
of the following year.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED: Motion to authorize the City Treasurer to disburse city
funds in payment of claims received for the December 28th council meeting which has been
canceled, and that such paid claims be presented for formal approval at the January 11, 2016
council meeting.
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
DATE: November 9, 2015
ITEM NO: 16
Department Approval: Administrator Reviewed: Agenda Section:
Name: Diane Tiegs dlt JML City Administrator's Report
Title: City Clerk
Item Description: Proposed 2016 Official Calendar
Attachment: Proposed 2016 Official Calendar
Council Meetings
Council meetings are scheduled for the second and fourth Mondays of the month at 7:00 p.m. Generally only
one Council meeting is scheduled in December. The annual budget hearing will be held at the beginning of
the December 12th Council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m.
(Note: This is an early start time)
Council Work Sessions
Council work sessions are designated prior to the second meeting of the month beginning at 5:00 p.m. No
work session is scheduled for December.
Planning Commission Meetings
Planning Commission meetings are scheduled for the third Monday of the month at 6:30 p.m. January and
February are the exceptions because of Monday holidays. In those months, the meetings will be held the
following Tuesday. No Planning Commission meeting is scheduled in December.
Planning Commission Work Sessions
Planning Commission work sessions will be scheduled on an as needed basis and not reflected on the 2016
calendar.
Park Commission Meetings
Park Commission meetings are scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 6:30 p.m. Meeting
months are January, March, May, July, September, and November. Park Commission work sessions
scheduled for the first Monday of every other month at 1 p.m. The months are February, April, June, August,
and October.
Holiday Schedule
According to the City’s personnel policy, the City schedules twelve holidays throughout the year, which
include regular holidays and one designated floating holiday to be set by the City Administrator. The regular
holidays observed are New Year's Day, Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day,
Independence Day, Labor Day, Veterans Day, Thanksgiving Day, the Friday after Thanksgiving, Christmas
Eve and Christmas Day.
Election Dates
The Election dates have been added to the 2016 calendar to help as a reminder.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED:
Consider a motion to approve the 2016 Official Calendar.
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 27 28 29 30 31
31
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 29 30 31 26 27 28 29 30
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12*13 14 15 16 17
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
30 31
Council Meeting, 2nd & 4th Monday, 7:00 p.m.Council Work Session, 5:00 p.m.
*(Only One Council Meeting In December with Truth in Taxation 6:30 p.m.)(No Council Work Session in December)
Planning Commission Meeting, 3rd Monday 6:30 p.m.
(No Planning Commission Meeting in December & Work Sessions as Needed, 5:30 p.m.)
Park Commission Meeting 1st Monday of the Month/Every Other Month, 6:30 p.m.Park Commission
(Jan., Mar., May, July., Sept., Nov.)Work Session 1 p.m.
H Official Holidays November 8, 2016 Election Day
October November December
July
January February March
April May June
August September
2016
OFFICIAL
CALENDAR
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
Date: Nov 9, 2015
Item No. 17
Department Approval: Administrator Approval: Agenda Section:
Name: Ron Olson JML City Administrator’s
Title: Finance Director Report
Item Description: Claims/Bills
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 103980 to
104058, totaling $295,172.55.
Noteworthy payments include:
US Bank National Assoc $ 25,884.51 Payment of Tax Increment Financing (TIF)
Funds to Orono Woods.
Kraus Anderson Construction $ 44,149.52
This is the final payment for construction
services provided by Kraus Anderson for
the Police Garage project.
Quality Flow Systems $ 6,060.50 Valve Replacement on Lift Station number
9.
COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED
Motion to approve payment of the claims list as presented.
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 1
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:07AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
ADVANCED IMAGING SOLUTIO 11/09/2015 103980 290608140 101-41900-413 copier lease 10/20 to 11/20 Central Services 1,284.00
Total 103980:1,284.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 181961 406-48748-304 Stone Bay 1,541.50
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182919 601-16500 Well house/WTP improvement 2,550.99
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182921 435-48964-304 Baldur Park Rd 8,180.50
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182922 101-43280-304 15-3770 460 Orchard Park Rd Special Services 279.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182924 406-48748-304 Stone Bay 75.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182925 101-43280-304 14-3631 Northern Oaks Special Services 300.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182926 101-43280-304 14-3639 3850 Watertown Road Special Services 150.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182927 101-43280-304 12-3546 Maple Place Special Services 225.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182928 101-43280-304 13-3626 Pineview Special Services 75.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182929 101-43280-304 15-3774 1700 Shoreline Dr Special Services 54.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182932 101-43280-304 15-3725 4167 Highwood Rd Special Services 486.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182934 101-43280-304 15-3739 Mooney Lake Preserve Special Services 108.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182935 101-43280-304 15-3749 Crystal Bay Estates Special Services 918.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182937 101-43280-304 15-3763 200 Stubbs Bay Rd Special Services 108.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182939 101-43280-304 15-3733 1185 Ferndale Rd Special Services 270.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182941 101-43280-304 15-3775 1380 Briar Street Special Services 54.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182942 101-43280-304 15-3778 2905 Casco Pt Road Special Services 54.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182943 101-43280-304 15-3781 3185 Casco Circle Special Services 54.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182944 651-49910-304 GIS/mapping Storm Water 90.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182946 602-49450-304 manholes Sewer 78.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182946 101-43170-304 Lydiard Road Engineering 3,291.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182946 602-49450-304 sanitary sewer Sewer 90.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182946 101-43170-304 General engineering roads Engineering 120.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182947 602-49450-304 sewer improvements Sewer 311.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182948 402-48056-304 Watertown Rd improvements Watertown Road 10,718.40
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182949 601-49400-304 At&T Plan review & inspection Water 846.90
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182950 101-43170-304 GPS/mapping Engineering 50.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182951 602-16500 Kelly Ave sewer outfall 2,803.50
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182952 101-43280-304 15-3723 Lakeview Special Services 1,354.00
BOLTON & MENK INC.11/09/2015 103981 182954 101-43170-304 Willow Drive Recon Engineering 181.00
Total 103981:35,416.79
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-000G1 651-49910-307 culvert replacement Storm Water 594.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-000G1 101-41600-307 General legal Law/Legal Services 1,543.99
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-004G1 101-42110-307 Police matters Police Department 124.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 2
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:07AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-150G5 101-43290-800 litigation Special Projects-Contingencies 1,146.70
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-201G4 101-41600-307 misc recordings Law/Legal Services 179.60
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-281G1 101-41600-307 encroachment agreements Law/Legal Services 51.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-347G5 225-45215-307 Hackberry Property 655.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-348G7 101-43280-307 15-3723 405 North Arm Dr Special Services 28.95
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-353G5 101-41600-307 Spates Ave Lake Access Law/Legal Services 387.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-357G5 101-43280-307 15-3739 300 6th AVe Special Services 270.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-360G5 601-16500 land-new well 142.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-362G4 101-43280-307 15-3738 1025 Spring Hill Rd Special Services 135.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-367G3 101-43280-307 15-3749 185/225 Old Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-372G1 101-43280-307 15-3763 200/350 Stubbs Bay Rd Special Services 112.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-373G1 101-43280-307 15-3733 1185 Ferndale Special Services 112.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-374G1 101-43280-307 15-3767 3683 North Shore Dr Special Services 67.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-375G1 101-43280-307 15-3768 Larson Dog daycare Special Services 67.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-376G1 101-43280-307 15-3771 3449 Crystal Bay Rd Special Services 67.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-377G1 101-43280-307 15-3772 60 Smith Ave Special Services 67.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-378G1 101-43280-307 15-3773 1400 Baldur Park Rd Special Services 90.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-800G1 101-42400-307 B&Z staff meetings Building & Zoning 1,271.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-801G1 101-41600-307 Council meetings 9/15 Law/Legal Services 1,596.50
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-802G1 101-42400-307 B&Z assistance Building & Zoning 806.00
CAMPBELL KNUTSON 11/09/2015 103982 2717-803G 101-41600-307 ordinances Law/Legal Services 1,209.00
Total 103982:10,815.74
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 AE102815 101-43000-437 City Engineers conf-UofM Public Works Department 305.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF100815 101-42110-437 Westonka Community/Commerce meeting Police Department 20.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF101415 101-42110-221 oxygen supplies-Amazon Police Department 48.25
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF101915 101-42110-439 food for meeting-Lunds Police Department 29.43
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF102715 101-42110-437 lunch for first responder training-Broadway Police Department 41.21
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF102915 101-42110-437 Lake area emergency mgmt meeting-El Parian Police Department 13.53
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 CF102915B 101-42110-404 air filters for furnaces Police Department 108.00
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 JL100615 101-41300-439 meeting expense Country Cake Administration 4.02
CARDMEMBER SERVICE 11/09/2015 103983 RO92115 101-41900-221 server hard drives Amazon Central Services 100.00
Total 103983:669.44
CARGILL SALT 11/09/2015 103984 2902485013 601-49400-216 salt Water 4,575.78
Total 103984:4,575.78
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 3
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:07AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
CECE S SIGNS 11/09/2015 103985 6816 101-43000-222 vehicle graphics Public Works Department 116.00
Total 103985:116.00
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/09/2015 103986 102915 601-49400-381 9/22 to 10/20 Water 376.96
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/09/2015 103986 102915 602-49450-381 9/22 to 10/20 Sewer 147.58
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/09/2015 103986 102915 101-41900-381 9/22 to 10/20 Central Services 102.87
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/09/2015 103986 102915 101-42110-381 9/22 to 10/20 Police Department 42.72
CENTERPOINT ENERGY MAIN 11/09/2015 103986 102915 101-45210-381 9/22 to 10/20 Golf Course 30.34
Total 103986:700.47
CENTURY LINK 11/09/2015 103987 101915 101-45210-321 GC phone/dsl Golf Course 193.93
Total 103987:193.93
CITY OF MINNETONKA BEACH 11/09/2015 103988 100515 602-49450-387 3rd Qtr service Sewer 128.76
Total 103988:128.76
City of Orono Utilities 11/09/2015 103989 100815 101-41900-382 Post Office 3rd Qtr UB Central Services 151.46
Total 103989:151.46
CNA LTC 11/09/2015 103990 1607395 101-21715 Long term care 11/15 68.70
Total 103990:68.70
COLONIAL SUPPLEMENTAL IN 11/09/2015 103991 3128642-110 101-21714 STD 11/15 644.05
Total 103991:644.05
CORREY FARNIOK 11/09/2015 103992 100115 101-42110-439 reimb chief's lunch Police Department 15.00
Total 103992:15.00
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 10/29/2015 103978 102915 101-42110-441 #235 tabs Police Department 351.00
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 10/29/2015 103978 102915 231-45650-441 14-13043 95 Toyota 20.75
DEPUTY REGISTRAR 10/29/2015 103978 102915 231-45650-441 15-5778 99 Ford Escort 20.75
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 4
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:07AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 103978:392.50
DIANE TIEGS 11/09/2015 103993 102515 101-41300-439 reimb food for worksession Administration 67.37
Total 103993:67.37
DOBO S 11/09/2015 103994 10636 101-41300-489 food for Lyle's retirement party Administration 320.73
Total 103994:320.73
DPC INDUSTRIES 11/09/2015 103995 827001686-1 601-49400-216 chemicals Water 325.50
DPC INDUSTRIES 11/09/2015 103995 827001692-1 601-49400-216 chemicals Water 209.23
Total 103995:534.73
DWYER, ALYSSA 11/09/2015 103996 110415 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00547 2,500.00
Total 103996:2,500.00
ECM PUBLISHERS INC 11/09/2015 103997 461737 101-42110-340 Halloween coloring contest Police Department 55.00
Total 103997:55.00
E-KIT TRAINING 11/09/2015 103998 12815-1 101-42110-437 field search software certification course S. Boris Police Department 275.00
Total 103998:275.00
ESS BROTHERS & SONS 11/09/2015 103999 8571 602-49450-406 manhole ring Sewer 898.00
Total 103999:898.00
FERGUSON WATERWORKS #2 11/09/2015 104000 161644 601-49400-227 meter reader Water 5,598.62
Total 104000:5,598.62
G & K SERVICES 11/09/2015 104001 1006375743 602-49450-226 uniform Sewer 14.59
G & K SERVICES 11/09/2015 104001 1006375743 601-49400-226 uniform Water 14.60
G & K SERVICES 11/09/2015 104001 1006375743 101-43000-226 uniform Public Works Department 29.19
G & K SERVICES 11/09/2015 104001 1006375743 101-43000-221 towels Public Works Department 6.38
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 5
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:07AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104001:64.76
GENUINE PARTS COMPANY/NA 11/09/2015 104002 294391 101-43000-222 supplies Public Works Department 5.74
Total 104002:5.74
GONYEA HOMES 11/09/2015 104003 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 20158-00542/2014-00821 2,500.00
Total 104003:2,500.00
GRAFIX SHOPPE 11/09/2015 104004 103732 101-42110-402 #236 repair Police Department 325.00
Total 104004:325.00
GREENLEY, KURTIS 11/09/2015 104005 110315 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00449 2,000.00
Total 104005:2,000.00
HUBBARD, TIM 11/09/2015 104006 110315 999-10015 UB refund 530.68
Total 104006:530.68
INTEGRA TELECOM 11/09/2015 104007 13392452 101-42110-321 Phone service Police Department 247.27
INTEGRA TELECOM 11/09/2015 104007 13392452 101-41900-321 Phone Service Central Services 346.18
INTEGRA TELECOM 11/09/2015 104007 13392452 601-49400-321 Phone Service Water 57.70
INTEGRA TELECOM 11/09/2015 104007 13392452 602-49450-321 Phone Service Sewer 173.08
Total 104007:824.23
KENNETH N POTTS PA 11/09/2015 104008 102215 231-45650-307 Forfeit 2013 Ford Explorer 2,700.00
Total 104008:2,700.00
KRAUS ANDERSON CONSTRU 11/09/2015 104009 KA15175 437-48970-520 Construction mgmt services through 9/30/15 PD ga 44,149.52
Total 104009:44,149.52
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS 11/09/2015 104010 0231513 406-48720-550 squad video system #243 4,970.00
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 6
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104010:4,970.00
LEAGUE OF MN CITIES INS TR 11/09/2015 104011 50814 703-49960-361 Comp Muni liab 29,347.50
Total 104011:29,347.50
LEUPKE, JOHN 11/09/2015 104012 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-01242 2,500.00
Total 104012:2,500.00
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/09/2015 104013 A27359 101-41900-223 filters Central Services 41.36
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/09/2015 104013 B292113 101-43000-221 supplies Public Works Department 9.99
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/09/2015 104013 B294156 101-41900-223 light bulb Central Services 10.99
LONG LAKE TRUE VALUE 11/09/2015 104013 B295461 101-43000-222 supplies Public Works Department 9.29
Total 104013:71.63
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/09/2015 104014 911956 101-43000-212 Diesel Public Works Department 374.43
MANSFIELD OIL COMPANY 11/09/2015 104014 911957 101-42110-212 Fuel PD Police Department 2,470.74
Total 104014:2,845.17
Mediacom 11/09/2015 104015 102115 101-42110-329 internet Police Department 121.75
Mediacom 11/09/2015 104015 102115 101-41900-329 internet Central Services 121.75
Mediacom 11/09/2015 104015 102115 614-49840-329 internet Cable Franchise 243.50
Total 104015:487.00
MEDIACOM 11/09/2015 104016 102615 101-45210-415 GC cable Golf Course 7.34
Total 104016:7.34
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/09/2015 104017 103115 101-20809 Sac 7,455.00
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/09/2015 104017 103115 101-39610 SAC credit 74.55-
Total 104017:7,380.45
MET COUNCIL ENVIRONMENTA 11/09/2015 104018 1049503 602-49450-383 Dec wastewater service Sewer 40,608.92
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 7
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104018:40,608.92
MINNEAPOLIS OXYGEN COMP 11/09/2015 104019 183192645 101-42110-221 oxygen Police Department 139.50
Total 104019:139.50
MINNESOTA EQUIPMENT 11/09/2015 104020 37779 101-43000-224 hearing protectors Public Works Department 53.90
Total 104020:53.90
MN DRIVER & VEHICLE SERVIC 11/09/2015 104021 735CKE2016 101-42110-441 license tabs 08 Chev 735 CKE Police Department 93.00
Total 104021:93.00
MN NCPERS GROUP LIFE INS 11/09/2015 104022 67321115 101-21710 Pera life 11/15 224.00
Total 104022:224.00
MNLA 11/09/2015 104023 110415 101-45210-441 Pesticide certification R. Steffenhagen Golf Course 139.00
Total 104023:139.00
MUNSON LAKES NUTRITION 11/09/2015 104024 426369 101-43000-226 sweatshirts Public Works Department 575.00
Total 104024:575.00
NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/09/2015 104025 289220 601-49400-227 supplies Water 26.98
NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/09/2015 104025 289378 101-45210-223 supplies Golf Course 16.05
NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/09/2015 104025 289465 101-43000-224 parts Public Works Department 11.94
NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/09/2015 104025 289480 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 5.99
NAVARRE HARDWARE 11/09/2015 104025 289632 602-49450-240 supplies Sewer 27.98
Total 104025:88.94
NEWEGG INC 11/09/2015 104026 1201406921 101-42110-575 Desktop PD Police Department 479.00
Total 104026:479.00
OFFICE DEPOT 11/09/2015 104027 8008937490 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 135.92
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 8
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
OFFICE DEPOT 11/09/2015 104027 8018007440 101-42110-201 office supplies Police Department 151.70
Total 104027:287.62
OFFICE DEPOT 11/09/2015 104028 8022222646 101-41900-201 office supplies Central Services 229.35
Total 104028:229.35
PERRA, JOE 11/09/2015 104029 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00518 2,500.00
Total 104029:2,500.00
PRAIRIE RESTORATIONS INC 11/09/2015 104030 37814 234-45680-404 Lurton Park Buckthorn removal 1,402.50
Total 104030:1,402.50
PROLAWNS 11/09/2015 104031 6930 101-45200-404 Fall fertilzation and weed control Parks 2,528.00
PROLAWNS 11/09/2015 104031 6930 101-41900-404 Fall fertilzation and weed control Central Services 428.00
Total 104031:2,956.00
PUMP AND METER SERVICE IN 11/09/2015 104032 335991 101-42110-403 pump repair Police Department 208.28
Total 104032:208.28
QUALITY FLOW SYSTEMS INC 11/09/2015 104033 31156 602-49450-406 LS 9 repair Sewer 6,060.50
Total 104033:6,060.50
REAL ASSETS LLC 11/09/2015 104034 110315 101-34410 Plan review refund 1,564.39
Total 104034:1,564.39
RIDGE CREEK CUSTOM HOME 11/09/2015 104035 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 15-3761 2,500.00
Total 104035:2,500.00
RON STEFFENHAGEN 11/09/2015 104036 102415 101-45210-437 reimb pizza for volunteers Golf Course 18.75
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 9
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104036:18.75
SABES, STEVEN 11/09/2015 104037 110315 101-22205 Escrow refund 14-3667 700.00
Total 104037:700.00
SCHULZE, RICHARD 11/09/2015 104038 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 2015-00999 2,000.00
Total 104038:2,000.00
SCHWAAB INC 11/09/2015 104039 012881 101-41900-201 stamps Central Services 52.29
Total 104039:52.29
SECOND NATURE GRAPHICS 11/09/2015 104040 146 101-41900-201 letterhead, business cards, resolution paper Central Services 564.00
Total 104040:564.00
SELECT ACCOUNT 11/09/2015 104041 110315 101-21719 11/03/15 FLEX 3,000.00
Total 104041:3,000.00
SIRCHIE FINGER PRINT LABS 11/09/2015 104042 228499 101-42110-221 supplies Police Department 143.22
Total 104042:143.22
STA SAFE LOCKSMITH 11/09/2015 104043 20263 101-42110-404 lock repair Police Department 60.00
Total 104043:60.00
STEPHENSON, REVIS 11/09/2015 104044 110315 101-22205 Escrow refund 11-3531 20,500.00
Total 104044:20,500.00
TESSMAN COMPANY 11/09/2015 104045 223891 101-45210-223 snow mold treatment Golf Course 324.38
Total 104045:324.38
THE HOME DEPOT 11/09/2015 104046 2844013893 101-43000-224 supplies Public Works Department 201.61
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 10
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104046:201.61
TONKA LAKE PROPERTIES 11/09/2015 104047 110315 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01358, 2014-01459 2,500.00
Total 104047:2,500.00
TONY WITTKE 11/09/2015 104048 102315 101-42110-212 reimb for squad gas Police Department 16.00
Total 104048:16.00
TRAFFIC DATA INC 11/09/2015 104049 3488 101-43170-304 MSA traffic counts Engineering 680.00
Total 104049:680.00
TWIN CITY GARAGE DOOR CO 11/09/2015 104050 448360 101-41900-404 PW garage door repair Central Services 1,400.00
Total 104050:1,400.00
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV 11/09/2015 104051 110415 101-41900-322 postage for meter Central Services 2,000.00
Total 104051:2,000.00
US BANK CM-9703 11/09/2015 104052 9562936 101-41900-489 HSA maintenance fee Central Services 145.50
Total 104052:145.50
US BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIAT 10/29/2015 103979 102915 235-45690-489 1st Half TIF payment 25,884.51
Total 103979:25,884.51
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 11/09/2015 104053 41534 101-41900-407 Janitorial service Central Services 1,435.50
VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTE 11/09/2015 104053 41534 101-42110-407 Janitorial service Police Department 1,039.50
Total 104053:2,475.00
VINTAGE WASTE SYSTEMS IN 11/09/2015 104054 102015 101-45210-404 Oct service Golf Course 45.00
VINTAGE WASTE SYSTEMS IN 11/09/2015 104054 102015 101-41900-404 Oct service Central Services 195.00
VINTAGE WASTE SYSTEMS IN 11/09/2015 104054 102015 101-45200-404 Oct service Parks 271.50
City of Orono Check Register - COUNCIL REPORT Page: 11
Check Issue Dates: 10/27/2015 - 11/9/2015 Nov 05, 2015 09:08AM
Check Check Invoice Invoice GL Account Description Department Invoice
Payee Issue Date Number Number Amount
Total 104054:511.50
WILDENBERG, TRAVIS 11/09/2015 104055 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 2014-01211 700.00
Total 104055:700.00
WILLIAMS, JAMES 11/09/2015 104056 110215 101-22205 Escrow Refund 2011-00977, 2014-0500, 2011-0100 2,500.00
Total 104056:2,500.00
WINDSTREAM 11/09/2015 104057 58873438 601-49400-321 water plant phone Water 54.80
Total 104057:54.80
WYMAN, JAMES 11/09/2015 104058 110215 101-22205 Escrow refund 15-3733 2,500.00
Total 104058:2,500.00
Grand Totals: 295,172.55